Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Young conservatives vs. young liberals

Guest Blogger

Who says conservatism is an old folks' game? Certainly not Jonah Goldberg or the 22 young conservative writers who have contributed to “Proud to Be Right: Voices of the Next Conservative Generation,” published next month by Harper and edited by Goldberg. The essays span a range of subjects from health care, taxes and prosperity to gay conservatives. Here, Goldberg, editor at large for National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, opines on why conservative students emerge from college better prepared than liberal students for the ideological battles of the real world.

By Jonah Goldberg

There’s a thriving cottage industry on the right, dedicated to fighting leftwing domination of academia. I should know, I do a lot of campus speaking thanks to the generous support of organizations like the Young Americans Foundation. There’s also Accuracy in Academia, the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the venerable granddaddy, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, to name just a few more.

There are also a slew of books aimed at the college-bound young conservatives (or really their parents), in which the authors hope to expose the parlous state of higher education or to equip the young traditionalist with the intellectual tools necessary to thwart any attempt to convert them into ideological Patty Hearsts.

The genre is almost as old as modern American conservatism itself, starting with William F. Buckley’s “God and Man at Yale” and continuing on through Dinesh D’Souza’s classic “Illiberal Education,” Allan Bloom’s “The Closing of the American Mind” and Horowitz’s “Indoctrination U.”
It should be no surprise that conservatives have something of an obsession -- mostly a healthy one if you ask me -- with higher education. If there’s one cultural institution conservatives want to reclaim above all others, the Ivory Tower is surely it.

Conservative motives run the gamut, from the strategic to the sentimental to the financial. Strategically, the university is the citadel from which progressives hold the commanding heights of the culture (to borrow a phrase from Lenin). Sentimentally, many conservatives secretly want to be academics, toiling away in the stacks with ancient books and even more ancient arguments. They feel cast out of Eden, as it were, and they want to go back. On the financial front, the higher education racket is simply a multi-billion dollar gravy train.

These motives often combine to create a conservative portrait of higher education that is bleak and apocalyptic. And while the P.C. horror stories are often accurate and the concerns often sincere, the picture painted by my fellow conservatives isn’t always complete.

There’s a powerful upside to the downside of higher education: conservative students tend to come out of universities sharper, more self-confident and more ready to rumble in ideological debates because as members of a disfavored minority, conservative students have their preconceived notions tested every day.

Obviously, there’s no shortage of sharp liberal students on college campuses, but even the sharpest ones get a lot more of their education passively, because they largely agree with what their professors and textbooks say. Their prejudices and convictions are more likely confirmed, not tested. They can go with the flow never questioning the received wisdom because the received wisdom is what they brought to the classroom in the first place.

Meanwhile, conservatives -- and right-leaning libertarians -- must swim upstream. Some can’t handle it. Others simply avoid courses where their philosophical views might create headaches.
But the righties who stick it out, graduate with four years of Socratic learning under their belts.

Indeed, a new study, “Conservative Critics and Conservative College Students: Variations in Discourses of Exclusion” by sociologists Amy Binder and Kate Wood at the University of California San Diego, confirms that many conservative students at an (unnamed) elite Eastern university, felt as if they benefited from the need to sharpen their arguments and know their facts more than liberal students.

And it’s not just the classroom. On countless campuses, College Republicans, conservative newspapers and groups like Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (a free market environmental outfit), have to contend with hostile administrators and student governments eager to withhold funding, block speakers, and ban protests that don’t affirm the liberal conventional wisdom. Such tactics are a terrible indictment of the alleged open-mindedness of Higher Education, and they do unfairly disadvantage conservatives, but such practices also teach a valuable life-lesson that lies at the heart of conservatism: Life isn’t fair.

By Steven E. Levingston  |  September 13, 2010; 5:30 AM ET
Categories:  Guest Blogger  | Tags: young conservatives; young conservative writers; conservatives on compus  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: BOOK WORLD {September 12, 2010}
Next: Labor unions – down but not out

Comments

There are two types of people who are right wingers. (1) Bigots. (2) Subservients. The bigots look down on the working class and see them as tools for generating wealth for their employers. They are against paying for any social services that benefit the public at large. The subservients see themselves as being inferior to the upper class and believe that by abiding by their wishes they might receive some favors and hang their tongues for the crumbs that fall off the table. They are easily manipulated into accepting the garbage peddled by the right wing media.

Posted by: fasm7700 | September 13, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

"There are two types of people who are right wingers. (1) Bigots."

*****

I only got 11 words into your comment before my ironymeter flew off the charts.

Posted by: charlesbakerharris | September 13, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Conservatives, not simply republicans, destroyed our economy, our moral standing in the world, and our environment. There is no agrument about these facts yet little Jonah Goldberg doesn't seem to have learened anything form the last thirty years of history - probably because he was 13 when his role models invaded Iraq base on lies and he wasn't even born when his conservative heros set into motion the destruction of our economy.

Did little Jonah actually learn anything useful about reality in or out of school during his 22 years?

Posted by: Samster2 | September 13, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Young conservatives may be smart at this young age. But as they get older and listen exclusively to talk radio & Fox news, they get progressively dumber and dumber.

Soon they become completely misinformed about recent US history due to all the disinformation and misinformation peddled by Fox news and their talk radio brethren.

Right wing propaganda will do that to you.

Posted by: gcase1 | September 13, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I love the comments here.

When you go on any left-wing web site, they're filled with endless prattle about how much smarter liberals are than conservatives.

So this kind of book is like Galileo letting the pope in on the secret that the earth revolves around the sun. It may be perfectly true, but they throw you in jail for that kind of talk.

Meanwhile, the last smart liberal was Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and they're not crazy about him after he pointed out that welfare was bad for poor minority families. It may be perfectly true, but a good liberal would never say that.

Posted by: Skeptic1 | September 13, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

ANYBODY who believes that people used to ride dinosaurs deserves only our contempt and ridicule.

ANYBODY who really thinks the Earth AND the universe were created in six days deserves only our contempt and ridicule.

That to me is MOST conservatives . . . and I am a MODERATE "R", or at least I was - but I am seriously considering resigning from the party that is bigoted, racist, and uses scare tactics to convince people how great they are when they (the "R" leadership) is ONLY OUT FOR their rich friends and themselves and to hell with the rest of us.

./

Posted by: swanieaz | September 13, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

It would be virtually impossible for them to be DUMBER than old conservatives....

Posted by: thrh | September 13, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

BTW the definition of Fascism is: (please note the repeated use of the term "right-wing")

"... an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

• (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice."

"The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach."

Sounds like ANY conservative, libertarian, evangelical christian (small "c" on purpose), and/or tea partier.

./

Posted by: swanieaz | September 13, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Whatever. Maybe conservatives face criticism and intellectual hostility because they often espouse positions that are actually wrong? Ever thought of that?

Posted by: simpleton1 | September 13, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Certainly not Jonah Goldberg or the 22 young conservative writers...

Jonah Goldberg at 41 is hardly a young conservative. I doubt many college age students consider 41 to be young.

Posted by: 12345leavemealone | September 13, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

If young conervatives are so smart, and maybe they are, why is it that the GOP, Tea Party and other voices of conservatism seem to have one and only one answer for all our national issues -- cut taxes and let folks fend for themselves, unless they want to do something we don't like? Perhaps the debating skills that young conservatives hone in college only make them good at political fisticuffs, rather than giving them the ability to solve problems creatively.

Posted by: jdnathan | September 13, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Steven, I disagree with your premise that conservatives coming out of college are sharper because they are swimming upstream against their professors' and textbooks' screaming liberal bias.

Most classes do not address issues of politics and, therefore, most professors do not even begin to touch it. While the occasional professor may throw a snide comment about the opposing political party's view into his/her lecture, the reality is that open political discussion with the professor taking a clear "liberal" stand is extremely rare.

The English professor is busy discussing literature in class. The science professor is busy lecturing on science. These professors could insert subtle biases into their topics (i.e. science professors assuming that students believe in evolution), but for the most part, professors have too much content to get through to waste time engaging in political debates. I can say that, across the 120+ credits I took in college, not a single one contained significant political discourse by the professor.

So, while it is possible that there are a couple professors at any institution that love to engage in liberal political posturing and maybe even there are a couple schools whose administrations are actively denying school funds to conservative groups, I can honestly say that most professors AREN'T doing that in the classroom and that most universities aren't going to that much trouble to invite a lawsuit by not treating conservative groups fairly.

Really, Steven, you ought to pay attention to the universities that are educating most college students in this country -- namely, the public state institutions that probably don't fit the mold of what you're imagining.

Posted by: rlalumiere | September 13, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I refuse to believe in the author's fundamental position -- that all American colleges, everywhere, have a "liberal" bias. True, there may be many "liberal" professors, but is there a "liberal" way to to teach math, biology or chemistry? Is is a liberal bias to teach Miles Davis vs. Mozart in a music class? These distinctions mean nothing in a practical sense in most disciplines. And even when they might -- such as in history, politicla science, economics, etc. -- the fact that a teacher has a political viewpoint has nothing to do with the students' experience. I went to what is now considered an "elite" eastern liberal arts college in the 1970s. I have since heard many refer to it as "conservative", but it did not seem that way to me. One of my poli sci professors was an Austrian Marxist who escaped the Nazis before WWII; another was a classic "cold-warrior" who taught foreign relations. Both passionately believed in their points of view, but both also believed it was their job to challenge the conceits and inconsistencies in their students' world views. I had classmates that ranged from Ayn Rand conservatives to Che Guevara revolutionaries, and the professors were smart enough to know that goal of our education was to confront our mutual assumptions and to help us figure out what the world was really about. Conservatives rattle about "indoctrination" in colleges like McCarthy rattled about Communists in the State Department -- they like to create myths that cannot be factually repudiated (or "refudiated," Gov. Palin) and then use those myths to exploit peoples' fear and ignorance. They were wrong in the 1950s and are wrong today.

Posted by: HJKelly | September 13, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

It is interesting to listen to some of the comments from "highly educated" liberals.

This:

"ANYBODY who believes that people used to ride dinosaurs deserves only our contempt and ridicule.

ANYBODY who really thinks the Earth AND the universe were created in six days deserves only our contempt and ridicule.

That to me is MOST conservatives"

is every bit as stupid as some Republican saying that San Francisco gay marriage fanatics, or algore Earth worshippers are "to me is MOST liberals."

I think the biggest difference between liberal and conservative in these comments is that the conservative commenters do not feel obliged to tell the rest of us how "smart" they are,.

Posted by: JERRYB1 | September 13, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Actually, this will likely be the only time I ever go on record in partial agreement with Mr. Goldberg. Speaking as a highly educated liberal, I have always thought it would be easier for conservative students to navgiate the world post-graduation.

It is likely far far easier to wake up each morning operating under an ideology that supports social darwinism. It must be far easier to navigate the world and find "success" when you are trained to believe that basic empathy and compassion towards your fellow human is in fact a character flaw. I'll bet that it's easier to wake up each morning and pass judgment on those who you believe lack the individual spirit necessary to thrive in an economy of double-digit unemployment. It must be wonderful to blame workers who go bankrupt from illnesses or find themselves at the wrong end of a poorly ventilated mine shaft.

Finally, it must be wonderful to espouse an ideology where you are never expected to provide an answer to the social and economic problems facing americans. And no, "Let the completely unregulated free market work these matters out" is not an an intellectually tenable answer if, in fact, you DO possess a shred of empathy for anyone who lacks a voice in that market.

Posted by: claudlaw | September 13, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

If you begin from the premise that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, it becomes self-evident that you and your pals are smarter.

Doesn't make it true!

Posted by: bcamarda2 | September 13, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I would like to see some examples of the progressive horrors Jonah cites (withholding funding, blocking speakers, and banning protests). The only such actions I have heard of have involved decisions to withhold institutional funding from organizations that openly and blatantly discriminate in their membership or governance. By supporting such policies, of course, the institution would be in violation of federal laws, and I am sure Mr. Goldberg knows that.

Posted by: Lamentations | September 13, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

If liberals want to convince others that they are not "uglier" than average--I'm talking about ugly personalities, not ugly faces or bodies--they are doing a lousy job of it in the comments.

Posted by: fraudbust2011 | September 13, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Wow. The end is surely near ... Conservative college students have adorned themselves with the mantel of victimhood.

Posted by: burtonpaul | September 13, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Clearly they can't be otherwise they would not be traitorous teabagheads.

Posted by: letemhaveit | September 13, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Clearly they can't be otherwise they would not be traitorous teabagheads.

Posted by: letemhaveit | September 13, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

So all of you brilliant, progressive, highly educated liberal Democrats ever hear of Woodrow Wilson? He was also a brilliant, progressive, highly educated, liberal Democrat ... and a fascist! He hated the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution because they constrained executive political power. In an 1890 essay entitled Leaders of Men, Wilson said that a “true leader” uses the masses of people like “tools.” He created the first official propaganda department in the U.S., the "Committee on Public Information". He helped create the Sedition Act which forbade Americans from criticizing their own government in a time of war. He had plenty of friends and supporters among the progressives of his time, and those same instincts for power, control and oppression are alive and well among "progressives" today.

Posted by: tompinch | September 13, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

The broad-brush, ad hominem attacks displayed here on conservatives, libertarians, etc - i.e. anyone who believes in individual rights, among which are liberty and property - are simply hilarious.

A clear indication that the Progressives commenting here are simply out of arguments.

Posted by: jdperrenoud | September 13, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"Most classes do not address issues of politics and, therefore, most professors do not even begin to touch it."

" refuse to believe in the author's fundamental position -- that all American colleges, everywhere, have a "liberal" bias."

And a fish would no doubt argue against the proposition that it is all wet. After all, it has never known anything but the water flowing around it and through its gills. Its presence is so much the background of its life it cannot imagine its absence and therefore fails to discern its presence.

The underlying presuppositions of liberalism, the unexamined, accepted as axiomatic, core assumptions, so permeate academia that its practitioners are themselves insensible to their saturation with it.

"trained to believe that basic empathy and compassion towards your fellow human is in fact a character flaw."

No, but stopping at merely feeling compassion without considering whether your actions are actually helping is a serious cognitive flaw, hence the adage, "whoever is not a liberal at 20 has no heart, but he who is not conservative at 40 has no brain."

The principles by which our forefathers established our Constitutional Republic, and the insights of Western civilization's exponents such as Burke, Adam Smith, and Bastiat, have laid the groundwork for human flourishing beyond anything that millennialist fanatics such as the Jacobins and Communists ever dreamed possible, and without the miseries those systems have inflicted.

Posted by: Ken16 | September 13, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Some excellent arguments from the "liberal" folk here today. Well, that is, if you define argument as a declarative statement with no supporting evidence.

Hey "claudlaw": Why not show-off how you're a "as a highly educated liberal" and support your argument. Please site for us any respected conservative that has posited the positions you attribute to ALL conservatives. You know, like these claims:

-conservatives are "trained to believe that basic empathy and compassion towards your fellow human is in fact a character flaw"
-conservatives "pass judgment on those who you believe lack the individual spirit necessary to thrive in an economy of double-digit unemployment"
-conservatives "blame workers who go bankrupt from illnesses or find themselves at the wrong end of a poorly ventilated mine shaft"
-and conservatives believe that we should "Let the completely unregulated free market work these matters out"

Please site your sources for the above. If you can't, maybe you think these claims are true because a liberally biased professor said they were?


And Hey "HJKelly": you can "refuse to believe in the author's fundamental position" if you like, but said refusal does not make the premise wrong. Which ideas pervade on campus? Where are the celebrated conservative professors (I know conservatives are dumb, so there are none)? Here's a survey for you (http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/1898/lackdiversity.html). Researchers looked at departments in 32 Ivy League and elite schools, compared professors and administrators to voter registration roles and found this: 1397 registered Democrats to 134 Republicans. If it were the other way around, the left would be screaming its head off about balance. In a Duke sponsored survey (http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/issues/091006/leftward3.html), half of Republican college students thought left bias was a problem, while only 27% of college Democrats thought so. According to the comments here, Republicans are a lot LESS sensitive than Democrats, so I'm not sure perception is an issue.

Posted by: zachgarber | September 13, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Hey "Lamentations":

Google David Horowitz shouted down. See how many hits you get for David Horowitz being shouted down at DIFFERENT universities while trying to speak. Or Tom Tancredo being kept from speaking to a class at UNC because protestors shouted him down. Or go to http://www.thefire.org/ and look at their stories. My favorite of late was the University of Delaware orientation program where students were told, among other things, that simply by a person being born white in the U.S. that person is racist (see this link http://www.thefire.org/article/8560.html). It's so insane that it seems like a completew lie. Unfortunately, it's true. There are some examples.

Posted by: zachgarber | September 13, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

The dismissive and bordering-on and wandering-well-into vicious dismissal of conservatives ("traitorous teabagheads") etc. posted here all too well illustrate the dead-end cul-de-sac new-leftism has backed the once meaningful liberal tradition into. If snark, sarcasm and unearned 'tude added up to democratic majorities, President Obama and the Congressional Democratic party would not be in the fix they are in.

Posted by: besht2003 | September 13, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

I've observed as well that conservatives in "elite" settings tend to be better informed and more capable of making rational arguments than their liberal counterparts. The liberal repertoire, as exemplified by the comments on this thread, generally ranges from condescension to invective.

Nothing is more infuriating than unearned intellectual smugness -- such as the nose-in-the-air pose of the little fool in the White House. That's a leading cause of normal Americans despising liberals. The other cause is the disastrous result of their policies.

Conservatives are used to being a beleaguered minority that must defend its opinions from bitter attack, while most liberals are used to having their rote biases confirmed by establishment authority figures. This largely explains the triteness of leftist thought (pardon the oxymoron,) which seems stuck somewhere between Marx and the New Deal with a liberal overlay of postmodern confusion.

The Obama administration is creating a whole new generation of young conservatives. This happens every time the clueless left gets its hands on the reins of government.

Posted by: eoniii | September 13, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

"Hey "claudlaw": Why not show-off how you're a "as a highly educated liberal" and support your argument. Please site for us any respected conservative that has posited the positions you attribute to ALL conservatives. You know, like these claims:

-conservatives are "trained to believe that basic empathy and compassion towards your fellow human is in fact a character flaw"
-conservatives "pass judgment on those who you believe lack the individual spirit necessary to thrive in an economy of double-digit unemployment"
-conservatives "blame workers who go bankrupt from illnesses or find themselves at the wrong end of a poorly ventilated mine shaft"
-and conservatives believe that we should "Let the completely unregulated free market work these matters out"

Please site your sources for the above. If you can't, maybe you think these claims are true because a liberally biased professor said they were?"
------------------------------------------
Happy to oblige, though I am a little hard-pressed into understanding how anything I said is so controversial. Here are two exmaples of rhetoric by rather public figureheads of conservatism that speak to my point:

"In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work,” Jon Kyl, R-Ariz, on the issue of extending unemployment compensation to the "99ers"

“The bottom line is: I’m not an expert, so don’t give me the power in Washington to be making rules...You live here, and you have to work in the mines. You’d try to make good rules to protect your people here. If you don’t, I’m thinking that no one will apply for those jobs." Rand Paul.

Paul is arguing that the Federal government does not bear the responsibility to regulate dangerous industries.

A current strain of conservatism is focused upon the supposed trampling of corporate rights by the federal government. Most libertarians believe that the right of the corporation should prevail over all others - and often use the rhetoric of "individual rights." Leaving aside the issue of "rights" pertaining to a corporation, the only duty a corporation has is a fiduciary one. How can a corporate entity possibly have empathy? Its only obligation is a fiduciary one, by definition the obligation to make as much money as possible, regardless of the individual casualties it may incur in that process. How is such a view consistent with ideals stressing empathy and compassion? Or to put more simply, how can a corporation "feel"?

@zachharber, I turn a question to you then: Who among the current leaders in libertarian thinking would advocate for the rights of mineworkers to work in a mine that is safe? And by safe, I mean one that is in accord with regulations designed to protect workers from harm? It's a trick question of course. I'll pose the question another way: where is the empathy to be found in proposed libertarian policies?

Posted by: claudlaw | September 13, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

... Happy to oblige, though I am a little hard-pressed into understanding how anything I said is so controversial. Here are two exmaples of rhetoric by rather public figureheads of conservatism that speak to my point:

"In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work,” Jon Kyl, R-Ariz, on the issue of extending unemployment compensation to the "99ers"

“The bottom line is: I’m not an expert, so don’t give me the power in Washington to be making rules...You live here, and you have to work in the mines. You’d try to make good rules to protect your people here. If you don’t, I’m thinking that no one will apply for those jobs." Rand Paul.
...
Posted by: claudlaw
------------------------------------
The Rand Paul quote is boilerplate libertarianism and goes too far in my view. Some limited amount of government regulation is necessary. However, most of our regulatory failures, such as the recent housing/credit bubble, are due to misconceived or excessive regulation rather than due to under-regulation.

The Kyle quote is just Econ 101. Most economists, including several in the Obama administration, have observed in their previous writings that extended unemployment benefits result in some percentage of the unemployed turning down less attractive jobs and delaying reemployment until their benefits are about to run out. The political issue is whether this social cost of higher unemployment due to extended benefits is outweighed by the relief they offer to others who are actually unable to find a new job.

Posted by: eoniii | September 13, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

As much as I love reading the idiotic rantings of the left-wingers who claim to be superior and then engage in the most hilarious stereotyping of people of a different ideology (with whom they'd never actually debate, because left-wingers don't think about their beliefs) ... the best part of this entire 'discussion' has to be the left-wingers who talk about how Conservatives "don't believe in evolution", and then decry social darwinism.

So you 'enlightened' left-wingers, who don't know anything about economics, history, the success of political ideologies, and countless other subjects, accept evolution (i.e., natural selection) as the way of nature ... except when some photogenic guy shouts 'hope and change!' at you. Hilarious! You're like children who have gravity explained to you, then think you can float if you just TRY REALLY HARD!

And, just a hint, it's funny because you're so ridiculous. Less than 10% of our society identifies itself as 'liberal'. That's less than the number that believe 2012 will be the End of Days. You're in good company, lefties.

Posted by: newage_lightbulb | September 13, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

For anyone who cannot imagine how a science instructor could exhibit liberal bias: a couple of years ago I took Geology 101 at our local community college. The young instructor said things like, "Let's imagine someone we all hate--Sarah Palin." Or, in describing the geological future of the American Mid-west, "Those bigoted mid-westerners will all drown, as they deserve to." My classmates chuckled in appreciation. I kept my head down, studied, and got the highest grade in the class, busting the curve and thereby depriving many of of my fellow students of their required science credit.

Posted by: PauliWaPo | September 14, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Claudlaw makes some silly and unsubstantiated comments that exactly prove Goldberg's point.

First, the statistics show that the longer unemployment compensation lasts, the longer the term of unemployment;

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2010/04/impact-of-increasing-length-of_2767.html

Studies from the Sweden also show length of unemployment is correlated to length of benefits. Where did you think the term "funemployment" came from?

Did you consciously misunderstand Rand Paul? All he was saying is that if he does not understand the topic, he should not be making rules controlling the topic. That is the reason government regulation is so ineffective. Invariably, the regulators are captured by the regulated. That happens because the regulators cannot keep up with the speed of change in the industry or because there is constant movement between the regulators and the regulated industry.


Your next so called point is the current leftist talking point that conservatives favor corporations. No, we favor property rights. We are against taking from the senior bond holders and giving to the UAW (also a corporation). We are against Kelo where the government takes from the property owner and gives to a corporation under color of law. Unfortunately lefties do not understand property rights and how fundamental those rights are to the rule of law and to the growth of and investment in our economy. Liberals, such as you, will trash property rights for temporary advantage with no understanding at all of the long term consequences. When you are more concerned about "empathy" than property rights, you end up with neither.

What is this nonsense about the "right" to work in a "safe mine". Is that some kind of natural right you have just made up? The person has a "right" to work or not to work where he wishes. He also has the "right" to try to change conditions he does not like. He does not have the "right" for you to define under what conditions he can or cannot work. When did you become wise enough to make those decisions as to when the "right to work in a safe mine" has been fulfilled? Or, are you not expert enough to make those decisions and really should be taking the advice of Rand Paul?

Thanks for being an example of Goldberg's point. Next up: Claudlaw as an example of "Liberal Fascism".

Posted by: RickCaird | September 14, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Jonah Goldberg is too good for the Washington Post. He is a better writer than anyone they have on staff. The Post should feel lucky every time he writes a column or blog post for them.

And clearly, as has been well demonstrated by all the posts by "smart" liberals, he is too good for the Washington Post community/comments section.

Liberals are so much more filled with hate than conservatives, it's not even funny.

Posted by: etpietro | September 14, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

It was Nazi mythology that made ordinary working Germans believe they were victims of Jewish oppressors--in order to oppress the Jews--today's left ideaology tends to label all on the right as Christian, creationists,Palin supporters, WASP, etc. In my opinion, the Tea Party crosses party lines blurring those lines as the party grows.

I see similar mythological untruths used by the left who act like the right are the oppressors in order to oppress the right.

Even President Obama draws analogies of right wing Slurpee drinkers standing on the sidelines watching a stuck car in the mud while the left does all the work get the car out of the mud. Who got the car stuck in the mud in the first place? The right, of course! Pshaw!

Posted by: moose490 | September 15, 2010 4:13 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company