I’ve long ceased commenting on current affairs for lack of any discernible meaning, and instead turned my attention to the theoretical, with an eye to a brighter tomorrow. Well, the 2012 elections may well prove to be an exception, a portent of something new, something different. No, not because the Democrats have won, but because the Republicans have lost!
Indeed, Romney’s defeat, coupled with the continuation of the status quo in both houses, promises to be the best of all possible outcomes. Again, not because the policies emanating from the White House are expected to be more enlightened or better for the country with Mr. Obama in charge than with Mr. Romney. Nor do I base my hopes on the White House prerogative of filling in Supreme Court appointments. I’ve long shed the illusion that liberalism, unaltered, can work. On what, then, do I base my cautious optimism?
Surprisingly, it comes from the least expected of quarters: a thoughtful conservative response, re-evaluation, and narrative. Therein lies the possibility, I say, of a meaningful dialogue in terms of conflicting ideas, not just another compromise by way of half-baked policies designed to accommodate the conflict. Had Mr. Romney won and the shoe been on the other foot, I’m near certain there would be no room for further thought and reflection, and this article would never materialized. I must confess, in passing, I have yet to meet a thoughtful liberal, let alone encountered a "thoughtful liberal response," but that’s my bias.
Two examples will suffice. Witness, for instance, the timely appearance of David Frum, a conservative with impeccable credentials, on a recent Mike Huckabee show. Lest you didn’t know, Mr. Frum has just published an eBook, Why Romney Lost: And What the GOP Can Do About It, so it’s understandable that he’d be a much sought-after persona these days in all the media. What made his presence, however, on the Mike Huckabee show especially significant was the congenial tone of the conversation. One of the subjects was abortion and the ways in which the two seemingly irreconcilable positions, pro-life and pro-choice, could possibly be reconciled. Rather than treating us to the usual fare of arguments and counterarguments, whereby the two views are deemed mutually exclusive, the focus was on closing the gap by coming up with a more generous support system for expectant mothers (regardless of their immigration status), on neonatal and prenatal care, etc. All told, it was rather refreshing for a conservative radio show. The podcast of the relevant segment follows.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Cindy
I have finished page 3, Roger. I like where that page has ended, very astute point. I will return again to finish tomorrow.
2 - Cindy
Roger,
I think you need to write where people are capable of comprehending what you write.
3 - Dr Dreadful
Or where he can be persuaded not to repel half his potential audience by insulting them before he even starts.
4 - roger nowosielski
I didn't realize I was being so dense, Cindy. You got through page 3, so where is the difficulty now? Anyways, I'll call tomorrow.
5 - roger nowosielski
zing never comments on my stuff anyway. I thought given him a push and shove might do the trick. But there is no reason for you to feel slighted.
6 - Cindy
He wouldn't be insulting anyone who even half understood what he is saying. Alas, I think that isn't possible. Perhaps there is a conspiracy regarding cultural indoctrination!
7 - Cindy
No difficulty or criticism for/by me, Roger. I am speaking to the lack of commentary on an obviously astute article.
8 - Cindy
He necessarily repels his audience because they are blind.
9 - Cindy
They might wish to investigate that point. Instead of expecting to be fed their pablum.
10 - roger nowosielski
I have a different take on this, Cindy, at least different than Dreadful's. The way I see it, none are willing to admit the emperor is naked.
11 - Cindy
Which, in my own experience they are, no matter what the fuck you ask of them. They will not question their own beliefs.
12 - Cindy
None are capable, Roger. You do yourself a disservice in thinking them unwilling. They have never even tried.
13 - roger nowosielski
No, they're not incapable. Denial takes an effort, a conscious effort.
14 - Cindy
Most of my comments were directed to Dr. Dreadful. (Just for clarity.)
15 - Cindy
Roger,
I need to discuss two very important teachers of mine and why I think you are wrong. Call me.
In other words, "denial", as you call it, is only a denial of what someone else believes, and is ordinary. In fact, everything "normal" is ordinary.
If I might say, and you can quote me--"we made it all the fuck up."
16 - roger nowosielski
Planned to call you on Thanksgiving day anyway, rain or shine.
17 - Cindy
When you think about it you realize that we--the normal society are no less a cult than say, Scientology. So, what makes THIS cult (culture) more legitimate than that one? Not much--a legitimating governmental body.
The followers of any cult are necessarily brainwashed into that cult's thinking. No matter how loose the boundaries of that thinking.
Okay, that is my basic argument. Call me tomorrow.
18 - roger nowosielski
Will do.
19 - Dr Dreadful
They will not question their own beliefs.
And what do you think "their" beliefs are?
20 - roger nowosielski
Don't fall for that trap, Cindy, Dreadful is taking things out of context. The correct reference is a set of beliefs implied by the subject article, and if I'm not mistaken, that's what you were referring to. If perchance he happens to disagree that these beliefs are a fair approximation of a typical liberal mindset, he is yet to voice his disagreement.
The onus is on him.
21 - Dr Dreadful
Whether the onus is on him or not, he feels the above exchange illustrates quite neatly why no-one else feels inclined to join the two of you in your echo chamber.
22 - roger nowosielski
Of course, not. You'd rather be beating up on "easy targets" like Arch Conservative or Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) rather than engage in a conversation in which your own presuppositions stand a chance of being challenged.
And echo chamber or no echo chamber, neither Cindy nor I have given you a cause to feel insulted, so perhaps you ought to get off your high horse.
23 - Zingzing
Roger, speaking of context, perhaps you'd like to think about why I said the phrase you highlight as so egregious. I follow comments more than articles usually, which is how i got here, so that explains why I'm okay not being an ob/gyn on that unnecessary pap thread (how many ob/gyns are on that thread?), so maybe I spelled it out better during that multi-thread conversation elsewhere, but there's a reason behind it. It's not just blindly battering the opposition, and I'd love to see if you even have a clue. (and if you seriously want to bash someone for taking things out of context as you just did doc, I suggest you do it under another, more fanciful name, because you've sullied the one you're using now with that shitstick.)
Cindy--did you notice how Roger used his supposed belief that I was female (which he's known not to be true for years, but he keeps on bringing up periodically) as a not-so-veiled insult? Every time I comment on women's issues and he's around, he does this kind of thing. I have no idea why. Maybe he's not as left as he thinks he is, or whatever you said.
Have a nice holiday.
24 - Christopher Rose
Surely the silver lining is the very fact that the Republicans lost?
If they had won, the USA would be facing a very bleak and bitter future...
25 - Dr Dreadful
You'd rather be beating up on "easy targets" like Arch Conservative or Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor)
Archie, misguided though he may be, is more than capable of holding his own in any argument. Warren is... well... a bit special. And if you think I confine my targets to those whose arguments can be easily demolished, then you haven't been paying much attention. (How is your navel these days, BTW?)
rather than engage in a conversation in which your own presuppositions stand a chance of being challenged.
I ask you, this time, what you think those presuppositions are.
neither Cindy nor I have given you a cause to feel insulted
I didn't say that I, personally, felt insulted. But there is some accusatory dialogue involving dark-coloured items commonly found in the kitchen on your part.
Cindy's #18 epitomises this nicely: The followers of any cult are necessarily brainwashed into that cult's thinking. No matter how loose the boundaries of that thinking.
In other words, no matter what anyone says who doesn't happen to toe the line of Roger and Cindy's little clique, no matter how much variability their utterances may have from anyone else's, they can automatically be dismissed as brainwashed.
Now what does that pattern of behaviour remind me of? Oh, yes... a cult.