This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Liberal/Conservative Divide Only Grows Uglier
It would be easy for me to dismiss Obama supporters as mentally defective but for one inconvenient fact: my mother, sharp as a tack at 92, is voting for him. And so is my sister, a San Francisco attorney who is no slouch in the brains department. I’m not sure where my brother, a municipal employee, stands, but neither am I eager to find out. There is no bridging the political gap between us, and so we simply avoid discussing politics. The same goes for old friends, although newer ones are another matter. One of them walked out on our dinner together in a huff when an innocuous remark I’d made about Abe Lincoln evidently bruised his self-righteously liberal, morally perfect heart . Good riddance. It is far better friends than he that I am worried about. Will they draw the line when I let slip my support for the right to bear arms, even concealed? A few of my wife’s closest friends are unmitigated liberals, and it’s unclear how much longer we’ll be able to tiptoe around the political rough edges when we get together socially.
The truce with my siblings and mother has held, but not without strain. When the latter referred to the eminently decent Mitt Romney as “a jerk,” I returned fire with an over-the-top fusillade of anti-Obama invective. That was a month ago, and we haven’t talked about the election since. Nor do I plan to rub it in after Romney wins on Tuesday — an outcome I believe is inevitable because the nation has been wallowing for nearly five years in an officially undeclared, if not to say brazenly-lied-about, state of recession. Romney voters will have to stifle the hubris, though, since there is no way he will be able to reverse the country’s inexorable slide into economic darkness. To be fair, I should state that Obama is no more culpable for the abysmal state of the economy than Bill Clinton was praiseworthy for its resurgence during his presidency. He got lucky, is all, while Obama inherited a disaster two generations in the making. Economic cycles are far bigger than the presidency, and this one is going to take its ruinous course no matter who is in the White House.
Dating Game’s Top ‘No-No’
In the meantime, the political gap between liberals and conservatives can only continue to widen. And to grow uglier. This unfortunate trend was underscored by a recent Wall Street Journal story that focused on dating services. It seems the matchmaking business has declined in recent years because clients seeking mates are increasingly putting political compatibility at the top of their lists. “In this neck-and-neck, ideologically fraught election season, politically active singles won’t cross party lines,” the Journal noted. “The result is a dating desert populated by reds and blues who refuse to make purple.” So much for romance these days. Time was when smoking, drinking, religion, education level and physical attractiveness were the main concerns of men and women looking for love; now, apparently, a date-seeker’s political views trumps them all.
Until a crisis equal to the Great Depression arrives, liberals and conservatives are unlikely to bury the hatchet. For voters on either side of the divide, the stakes in this election will not seem to have been exaggerated; for they involve nothing less than a fight for the nation’s economic well-being – nay, for its very soul. Over the next four years, and probably long thereafter, moral and financial jeopardy will confront each of us in ways that seem likely to widen political divisions. Putting aside the wild card of Iran, one of the most difficult issues we face will entail putting public employees’ pension and health care benefits on a sound financial basis. The unions will claim, correctly, that there is no legal precedent for denying workers benefits that were promised them when they were hired. Their employers will claim, also correctly, that the money simply isn’t there. But anyone who thinks the Federal Government will be able to “solve” this problem simply by printing money is in for a rude awakening.
The financial liability is in fact so large that attempting to monetize it would be tantamount to hyperinflating. If, say, the Government were to offer lump-sum settlements averaging $150,000, the money could conceivably be worthless on delivery, since the actual disbursement of digital cash would be taken as a sign by the rest of us that Uncle Sam was on the hook for everyone’s financial needs. If the Government were instead to assume responsibility for years of scheduled payments in “real” dollars, taxpayers would eventually riot in the streets. No matter how you work the numbers, there is no easy way out, at least not using monetary shenanigans. The very clear implication is that the “solution” will come in the form of a dramatically lowered standard of living for most Americans.
Pensions Too Big to Bail Out
What is the dollar amount of the unfunded liability? Many hundreds of trillions of dollars, according to some published estimates. Consider that a bankrupt Flint, Michigan, under the direction of a conservator, has cut its budget to the bone to effect annual savings of around $10 million. But the long-term structural shortfall imposed by Flint’s retirement promises is on the order of $600 million dollars over the next 25 years. Of course, Detroit’s long-term problems are orders of magnitude larger, and New York City’s vastly larger still — too big, in the aggregate, for even the U.S. Government to fix. Or rather, pretend to fix, since that’s all that the would-be fixers have been doing all along. Yes, the bailout has been a fraud – a con-game made easier by the fact that most of the bailout “money” has gone to sustain the illusion that the assets of our biggest banks net out to a positive number. But there can be no such shell game when it comes time to send out pension and healthcare checks after the coffers of states and cities have gone empty. Paying for the lives of retired workers will require coughing up real dollars each and every month, not virtual ones such as are posted as “reserves” by the banks. And that’s why it will be impossible for the Federal Government to pretend, as it has with the banks, that the bailout is other than a charade.
Under the circumstances, hostility can only grow between liberals and conservatives, haves and have-nots, public and private workers, taxpayers and recipients. We wish Mr. Romney luck, but he’ll have his hands full merely trying to keep blood from running in the streets, never mind returning America to prosperity.
»
- advertisements -
No way in hell will I rehire the GOP. Romney's cabinet will be staffed with ex Bushites and neocons who have proven to me their policies are not in my best interests. Iraq was a badly managed war requiring a “surge” and led to the eventual ouster of Rumsfeld. Who, I clearly remember, wanted just 50,000 troops for Iraq and demonized any general who said we needed 10x more. I can easily remember the conga line of generals who quit or were shoved out during the fighting. The CIA, failing to fall on the sword about the “wmd” story, was gutted then politicized by morons. Oddly enough now, Iraq is a proxy of Iran, due to incompetence early in the war and then our paying off of the Iranian born al Sadr to cool it in his fiefdom. Nice job, GOP.
The management of war according to some phantasmal business model was proven NOT to work. The wet dream of Pax Americana was never achieved and the crowd from the original PNAC are wholly to blame. They dreamt it up, brought it about and blew it.
Deregulate Wall St, the Banks and the business world in general? We can trust them? I saw what they did and once was enough. Credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations, tranches of pure dog shit rated AAA by S&P. I also remember Greenspan saying fraud would be handled by market forces. Market forces sure worked great on Madoff, right up until the Federal Government arrested his ass.
All this has taught me is that the “producers” want just one thing, my assets. They'll try to get them by hook or crook. Oh, “small government?” I see lobbyists hired by business trying to change the game rules to screw me and favor them. I remember how the credit card companies wanted to fee people who paid their accounts off each month. Business, today, can't operate five minutes w/o gov't paving the way for them.
Producers, my assets are out of your reach now. No convincing me with your perceptions. There will be no sale and NO commission for you. You LOSE.
And I'm not voting for Mitt and his crowd.
So your other choice is .... well, ditto
WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE GET IT RIGHT?
Lincoln once said that he spent half his time explaining to people what he thought was self-evident.
I understand the feeling.
There is NO conservative-liberal divide, NOR does the political spectrum run from LEFT to RIGHT.
The political spectrum should rightfully be seen as vertical, with FREEDOM at the top and TOTALITARIANISM (or BIG GOVERNMENT) at the bottom.
To put this in terms of Zen, that's BEING at the top, and MIND (or IDEOLOGY) at the bottom. This construct also has the virtue of illustrating, as Frank Meyer taught us, the NON-IDEOLOGICAL NATURE OF FREEDOM.
None of this bullshit about left & right and liberal-conservative. You're either a libertarian or you're not. Consequently, the Democrats and RINOs can't hide their true colors anymore:
Obama and the so-called "Progressives" (actually, "Regressives") are near the bottom and Romey is somewhere in the middle. Not my ideal, but Romney offers three advantages:
He buys us time to 1) avoid the collapse; 2) educate our dumbed-down, brain-washed fellow citizens on the true political spectrum and the benefits of freedom; and 3) Push Romney himself in our direction, through mass activism (the latter requires your getting off your obese asses).
I was rootin for you all the way until you wrote, "..but Romney offers three advantages.."
Both these sugar coated turds on display are the same shit. Period.
I have to agree. It is pretty badly written. Especially when it refutes its own claims.
"There has never been more a stake" and then later is reads "Romney voters will have to stifle the hubris, though, since there is no way he will be able to reverse the country’s inexorable slide into economic darkness."
So there is in fact nothing at stake. But then the article see-saws back the other way.
I do think the divide is going to get worse. We already know that the government is using FEC contribution data to reward and punish. That resource will soon be expanded for private use.
OK you nitwit author. Here are your liberal conservative differences:
Conservative Bush era policies of the Obama administration: The following is a partial list of some of the negative Bush era polices continued or expanded under the Obama Administration:
1) Overall military spending is significantly up since President Bush left office
2) Bank bailouts with no strings attached continued unabated, with no accountability for past actions
3) Greatly expanded war in Afghanistan, threatening war with Iran and Syria
4) Greatly expanded the unmanned drone strikes in Africa and the Middle East and denial that any civilian casualties have occurred
5) Continued and expanded warrantless wiretapping at great taxpayer expense, and refusal to reveal how many citizens are being spied upon
6) Lack of Justice Dept. or other investigations into the financial collapse, foreclosure fraud, etc.
7) Continuation of indefinite detention without trial, now including American citizens after President Obama signed the NDAA into law
8) Lack of vocal support for workers and unions in Wisconsin or Occupy Wall Street and tacit support of military-style police violence against protesters
9) Expanded oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas, support for more nuclear power plants, not supporting stricter drinking water standards, not properly funding watchdog agencies like the EPA, FDA or USDA
10) Under the Obama administration the FDA has turned its scrutiny inward to investigate FDA scientists who challenged FDA approval of medical devices
11) Prosecution of whistleblowers rather than support, including very harsh treatment of Bradley Manning
12) Federal crackdown on medical marijuana facilities contrary to state law and doctor's and scientist's recommendations
13) Extrajudicial assassinations now including American citizens
I don't think there has ever been as vast a difference between what a candidate said he'd do and what he actually did as there is with Obama.
But I fear this is the new norm. I have zero faith that the Android known as Romney would be any different since there has never been a presidential candidate who has been so willing to say essentially anything that he thinks will get himself elected.
Our official "choice" this year is between the spineless, lying, warmongering worm Obama and the pompous, lying, self-righteous warmongering Romney.
I voted for the Libertarian guy.
Apple fanboys are instructive in this case: when something new comes out, no matter the lack of differences or advantages, you buy it, just for that feeling of newness. Actors and comedians and entertainers don't draw in crowds forever, every star fades. A new clowndidate every 4 years is change I can believe in, like changing the news channel, same narrative, different narrator.
Politics is indistinguishable from good theater, I will treat it as such.
False flag article brought to you by demopublican stooge
Anyone who divides their family for the sake of ideology is a fool.
The division exists whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. In characteristic fashion, you prefer head-burying and hollow aphoristic euphemisms. Well here's one for you: A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Is a tapeworm living in your colon part of you or not? Is a sabotoeur in your ranks an enemy or not? The consequences of ideology are all too real. Would you have censured Germans who ostracized NSDAP-supporting family members? I guess you wouldn't have, well, fine, you can share in the collective guilt of the inaction of moral cowards.
Stop living in a fantasy world where problems go away if ignored long enough.
"The division exists whether you wish to acknowledge it or not."
No, not necessarily. And even if it does, only a fool would let it render their family.
"Is a sabotoeur in your ranks an enemy or not?"
The saboteur is a fool. If an internal member of the family means the family harm, then they may be ejected.
"Would you have censured Germans who ostracized NSDAP-supporting family members?"
I would have ignored them.
"you can share in the collective guilt of the inaction of moral cowards"
I would actively reject any attempt at affixing "collective guilt", as I would have taken no unreasonable affirmative action.
Our country had a lot of "fools" during the Civil War.
It is often said that the "War Between the States" pitted brother against brother. The word "brothers" was used metaphorically. The actual % of blood brothers opposing one another <<<<<<<< .0000001%.
Yep. But it shows the effectiveness of our beloved 'peoples representatives' to spread their trite vacuous Party jingoism and idealism and Divide & Conquer strategy when it even divides families
we're the fools for swallowing their shit while both Parties laugh behind the curtain at us at suckering us into paying for their cushy job living off societies backs
this parasitical human scum is good for nothing but a pitchfork, that should unite us all
"we're the fools for swallowing their shit"
I changed that from "we're" to "they're" about six years ago.
So....which one will order the DHS to put a 40 S&W HP into my head when I refuse to turn over my arms and am declared a terrorist under the NDAA?
False paradigm. A truer political division, would suggest Dan Quayle's inability to spell the word "potato" correctly versus Bill Clinton indiscriminatly waving his penis at anything that moves. THIS is the American political scene. And if you can' see it for the horrible joke it is...well then, what can I tell 'ya?
Just an FYI (always trying to stomp out these myths). Dan Quayle was given an index card with the correct spelling of potato. The index card had written on it 'potatoe'.
What you have to learn is there is absolutely no time in which you can believe anything the media writes or says.
But at least Dan Quayle knew he couldn't see Russia from his back porch.
Funny how no one ever has to set up Joe Biden, since he is quite able to be a dunce all on his own.
how 'bout this- romney hasn't answered a media question in 23 DAYS! (what the fuck are those driviling idiot journalists doing if not reporting that!) . i know, iknow....you don't belive me.... http://www.politicususa.com/22-days-mitt-romney-answered-question-media....
Maybe he's having his staff do a thorough investigation of the questions. Like Obama obfuscating about Benghazi, except there four people died. Romney was only 'responsible' for the death of some woman who's husband was dumped by Bain after Romney had left Bain. Or something like that.
Expecting anything serious from 'the media' is a fool's errand.
Maybe we could solve the problem with a huge game of football. Two teams Team American Reds VS Team American Blues. Granted it wouldnt solve a damn thing But at least the dopes would be to entertained enough to give a shit about the pain. Oh wait we have an election I gues that's the same thing huh?
Give those pituary retards chainsaws and i might watch it:-)
1. Being mentally defective doesn't mean one is not sharp. Your mother has a mental disease. Seek disability, it works in Mississippi.
2. Are you such a wimp that you are AFRAID to bring it to them. The mental defectives aren't afraid, to them and US, you are a coward.
3. Bill "the rapist" Clinton didn't "get lucky". He was hammered into compliance by a Conservative Congress, with balls.
4. Obummer didn't inherit shit, he campaigned for the job. Admit it, you are a closet liberal.
5. There has never been a gap, ugly or pretty, between Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans have been a party of pussies and the Democrats a party of junk yard dogs since Lincoln. It's a side rather than a gap. Either you are for life, Conservative; or death, Progressive.
6. The only way a liberal will bury the hatchet is in anybodies head, that gets in the way of their swag.
7. There have been countless studies and commissions called to work on solutions to the many problems facing the USA. None of the solutions have ever been implemented. NONE, ZIP, ZERO, NADA.
8. There is only one solution.
testosterone's one helluva drug. . .
So is estrogen.
"I don't care if it's rational or not ... it's how I feel!"
Two (genders) can play this game.
yes, estrogen is a helluva drug, as the endocrine disruptors in the food supply, etc. have proven. one of the reasons for increased incidents of breast cancer, as well as many other hormonal disruptions, male and female.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruption#Routes_of_exposure
will you be trollin' me all day then akak?
Cathartes, I didn't realize that I was "trolling" you, and for what it is worth, I still like you, and generally appreciate your comments, but most especially when you manage to steer clear of the gender divide that yawns so widely in your mind.
akak, if you're aiming at my posts with a meme that is not arguing anything more than an opposition, then yes, you're trolling me. I've a few here that like to do this, and rarely do they present any real arguments.
this "gender divide" is noticeable for me because it is apparent here - I don't see you pointing out the mens-gender-posts, and I wonder why that is? /not really
I've spent decades around many "types" of masculinity, and one of the main characteristics is the inability to see the bias, rather like the old tale of fish not "seeing" their watery environs, and believing that is all there is of reality. if I sometimes choose to post a contrary few words to highlight that despite the lack of fire in the water, fire does exist, maybe just scroll past for a more fluid-filled reality. . .
Funny, it is rarely apparent to me --- or seemingly, to most others here as well. Perhaps it is "obvious" to you because you insist on looking for it at all times, in all places? But oh, of course I am a priori blind to it because I am a man, right?
Please, enough with the feminist victimology. I find collectivist thinking of any sort reprehensible, and whether you are willing to admit it or not, that is precisely what you are engaging in by constantly looking at every comment through your feminist-colored spectacles.
.
whooooosh, and there went my fish/water point made. here, let me try one more time, then let's just agree we don't share the same points of viewing when it comes to a reality. . .
"Please, enough with the masculinist victimology. . . constantly looking at every comment through your masculinist-coloured spectacles."
tits pussy feminazi bitches bitchez cunt
(by the way, I'm actually laughing over here, but I realise most of you dudes wouldn't get the jk)
Typical, emotion-driven woman --- always having to get in the last word.
;-)
bitch.
^.~
i dont date because i might miss something on friday night fight club. Yea!
Note to the author
do not use the word conservative close to fiscal responsability in the same sentence.
This was maybe true before you were born. Since then conservative goal is to make the government as disfunctional as possible when they are in power, just to make their point.
who has an idea? How should we label Republican ?
And by the way, the day obama was elected, my conservative co-workers became insane. Everyday for the last 4 years I hear all day long complaints on Obama and democrats.
I don't know if this is because Republican can't go over loosing election, but they better be prepared...
You suggest that the author not use the word conservative close to fiscal responsability in the same sentence.
Maybe we should label politicians by their governance, not by the way they describe themselves. Bush II may have labeled himself a 'compassionate conservative', but he was not conservative. He was a strong-on-Defense liberal. Reminds me of Scoop Jackson a few decades back. Even reminds me, in some ways, of JFK. Then again, Clinton's habits reminded me of JFK too...
I find it distressing to have conversations with anyone about these matters, because no one can agree on definitions any longer. All the talk about left-right, up-down, R vs. D, etc. is useless when parties have different definitions.
Maybe it's why I like programming computers. They do what I tell them to do; whether it's what I want them to do or not is a different matter, but at least I know where to point the finger when something goes awry.
Liberals 1) don't believe in "truth" 2) believe they have the 'right' to take other people's earnings just for existing 3) are afraid of and avoid reality 4) are cowards 5) hate the Constitution 6) are control freaks 7) are mean, angry, and just plain old nasty 8) are smug, arrogant, conceited, condescending 9) are responsible for the vast majority of abortions 10) should leave the country (USA) and relocate to any socialist/communist society (China, France, etc) and stop fucking up the USA.
semperfi said:
Congratulations on a brilliant thesis. Beyond any doubt, you've proven the equivalence of "Liberals" and "Conservatives".
And so-called "Conservatives" 1) don't believe in "truth", unless it comes from their favorite book of mythology 2) believe they have the 'right' to invade other people's countries just for existing (or for their resources) 3) are afraid of and avoid reality 4) are cowards and chickenhawks, even though they are the worst warmongers 5) hate the Constitution, but love militarism and authority 6) are control freaks 7) are mean, angry, and just plain old nasty 8) are smug, arrogant, conceited, condescending 9) are responsible for the vast majority of police-state laws 10) should leave the country (USA) and relocate to any fascist/authoritarian society (China, France, etc) and stop fucking up the USA.
Liberals who match the description given by semperfi should leave the USA. Conservatives who match the description given by akak should leave the USA. I'll throw in illegal immigrants and say they should leave the USA. The relatively few of us who are left will be much better off.
Then we would be down to the 8% or less who are gamma males/females and can think for themselves on a reasoned, moral basis. It would be a fun place to be, this land of anarchy totally Friedman and Archie Bunker free...
Spoken like a true Marine!
And don't forget, liberals are a union's best friend and here is a perfect example of why unions suck...
http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/11/02/union-red-tape-in-nj-causes-alabama-recovery-crew-to-head-home/
see! this is exactly what I am talking about. Medication anyone?
Is it "free?"
I'll take some, as long as my Medicare pays for it. I'll be pissed if I have to calm down on my own dime.
Damn right! Im hopin' for free beer & nuts when O wins again. Isn't that our right?
s/
Gitsome semperfi!!!!!!!!!!
>decent Mitt Romney
No. He supports socialized healthcare. And his protege Paul Ryan supports TARP and auto bailouts. These guys are pinko commies.
>A few of my wife’s closest friends are unmitigated liberals
"Conservatives" and "liberals" are just two different kinds of thieves who want to raid my wallet and spend the money on their pet projects - like corporate welfare, drug wars, middle-east wars, food stamps, solar panels, etc.
Conservatives want to control my real property and tell me which migrants can and can't work and live there. But if the property in question is a womb, then they won't allow you to evict an unwanted parasite.
Liberals want to force me to be charitable and compassionate - by taking 50%+ of my earnings and causing me to be born into crippling debt.
The best way for conservatives and liberals to improve America isn't by voting. It's by jumping off a cliff.
>Romney wins on Tuesday
This forecast says otherwise http://pollyvote.forecastingprinciples.com/
>Economic cycles are far bigger than the presidency
Not really. An unhampered economy can repair rapidly.
>Until a crisis equal to the Great Depression arrives
Aren't we already there?
"The best way for conservatives and liberals to improve America isn't by voting. It's by jumping off a cliff."
By voting for either one of their clowns, they effectively are.