Liberals don't consider themselves to be liberal. In their minds, they're just normal. Meanwhile, conservatives are actually the enemies of mankind. They're evil murderous Nazis! Somebody has to sound the alarm and wake up the populace or IT'S 1933 ALL OVER AGAIN!!!

That's really how they view it. That's why they'll start talking about how stupid and ignorant the voters are when Bush wins in November. I guarantee you'll hear, "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."

This will be followed by "...and those who do know history are doomed to know it's repeating." They're convinced that it's all happening again and they're powerless to save the world. Poor dears.

"The nation had a temper-tantrum today..."

-- Peter Jennings, describing the historic 1994 Republican sweep of Congress

I'm just looking at that last post, and goodness gracious, I do ramble on and on and on and on, don't I?

I've really got to get my behavior under control.

There are some non-partisan outfits that are genuinely non-partisan. That is to say that they don't consider a report or recommendation ready for showtime unless they can get support by members on both sides of the aisle. Others who assert that they are non-partisan might be a lot closer to I will gleefully take a bite out of something from Party A, but if Party B gets within claw reach, I'll take a swipe at them too.

There are plenty of differences between conservatives and liberals, but one of the chief among them is indeed the way they view themselves. Liberals-- especially the ones in the news media, as Bernie Goldberg pointed out-- do NOT consider themselves to be liberal; they simply think that their opinions are natural and centered (this also ties in with the liberal's nature of how you can never really be liberal enough, such as when many of them scoff at Clinton being described as a "liberal").

Conservatives, being on the more intellectually honest side of the spectrum, have no trouble thinking of themselves as conservative, and recognizing conservatism when they see it. We believe that conservatism does indeed equal truth and that everyone else would agree with it if they could all just come to their senses, but we nevertheless still have no problem identifying conservative views as such.

For example, a liberal can watch MSNBC's incredibly biased coverage on all things political and simply believe that the coverage is neutral, because they cannot see outside their own little ideological box. Conversely, I (a conservative) myself just got finished reading Tom Clancy's book "Executive Orders", and at plenty of points I couldn't help thinking "Wow, Clancy is really conservative". Now, while I agreed with virtually everything Clancy said in the book about tax reform, military readiness, abortion, etc, I was still able to identify his views as right-wing, not simply writing it off as "Yes well of course, this is all the natural order of things and not 'conservative' at all."

My, I've rambled on. Anyway, like you said Ace: obvious to the point of being tedious. Anyone else ticked off that conservatives bear that label proudly while prominent liberals almost always describe themselves as such with a tone of mocking condescension?

Eric,

The answer is that they are being completely logical. If I, a liberal, truly a deep down believe that my mindset is the center of the world, then anyone who differs from my opinion must do so either to the left or to the right of me. As I am the ultimate egocentric litmus test, the only logical way to view those to my right is as a bunch of fanatics and freaks, and those to my left (both of them) as also fanatics and freaks, although not as fanatical or as freaky because not as far removed.

That's the key, Eric. Think egocentricity. If I am in the center, by definition I cannot be left of center, and anyone who says otherwise is misrepresenting me and my beliefs.

In a sense, the egocentric approach is as good as any. After all, there's no such thing, really, as a perfect centrist, and all politics are relative. Compared to a reactionary monarchist who wants women subjugated while society is forced to worship the sun and moon as gods, I suppose I am a hyper-leftist. Compared to John Kerry or Joseph Stalin, on the other hand, I am a hard core Conservative. My place on the political spectrum can only be objectively identified relative to others, because otherwise there is no such thing as an objective political spectrum.

Based on the foregoing, those who argue that the American Left is getting more left are only correct in one sense. If we compare modern Democrats to the Dems of 40 years ago, we might all decide that modern Dems are ultra-liberal, tree-hugging freaks of nature. But if modern politics as a whole has taken a few steps left over the past forty years, then by comparison, the Lefties aren't getting more left at all. Some of the Dems are moving closer to the center (i.e. the center by today's standards), some are moving left at the same pace as the Republican party, and some are running to the left as fast as their little legs can carry them. We can choose to measure that giant step left from a 1960s baseline, or a 1920s baseline, or a 2004 baseline, because really, none of the above really presents an objective measuring point.

So that's the advantage of recognizing an egocentric view of the political spectrum. As long as everything is relative, an egocentric approach is every bit as rational as a poll taken in 1960, one taken in 1990, and one taken today. The disadvantage is that basic assumptions about what is "left" and what is "right" are very useful tools for communication. If someone asks me what my political views are, I can sum it all up very briefly by saying "right of center" or something to that effect, or I can launch into a lengthy discourse about relativity and political egocentrism. Or I can systematically detail all of my political views about every conceivable situation. Most likely, the person who asked the question only wanted to hear me say something like "right of center." And many of the basic assumptions a person will get when I say "right of center" (i.e. pro-life, anti-gun control, pro-religion, anti-Margaret Cho) will be accurate.

Bernie Goldberg and Ann Coulter have both expouned on this topic in their books.

BTW, you sure are giving a lot of props to that blogging neophyte Malkin.

"expouned" - Yes, I'm making up new words now.

Ace is to "non-partisan", as Jim Jeffords is to "independent".

http://www.stanford.edu/...

...~wacziarg/mediapapers/GrosecloseMilyo.pdf

[join two parts and delete ...'s to get full link. --Ace]

These professors have an objective standard by which the ideology of think tanks can be judged.

"BTW, you sure are giving a lot of props to that blogging neophyte Malkin."

...well duh...

Have you seen her pictures?

Ace is obviously angling to get laid.

Thanks for linking Michelle, she has good stuff, great delivery, and its always nice to start the day looking at a pretty face. And I agree with Jimmy, methinks you be linkin so you can linkup.

I happened into your site because I wanted to see the footage on Clinton. And, what kind of rabbit hole is this, anyway?

You are obsessed with liberals, aren't you? Whatever kind of pretzel logic it takes to get you to the conclusion you want, you are there.

I am liberal because I am tolerant. Nothing makes me happier than to ignore the government and most of my fellow man (and in that way I don't like them lying on the street homeless or committing crimes because they really have nothing to lose - that bothers me). As long as everything is running smoothly, I am able to do that. I actually was waiting to get rid of Clinton not because I didn't think he was as good as president as we have ever had (empirically-speaking, at the least), but because I was sooooooooo tired of reading about Monica. As if I could care less if he was having an affair and - ohmigawd - lied about it (hey - do we ever talk about Bush, Sr.'s mistresses?). I am a female and I tell you I barely know a man alive who will not lie about a woman other than his wife (even if he is just attracted to her and has done nothing). Jimmy Carter, but you know what kind of president you thought he was. But - okay --- it seemed to upset the h*ll out of all of you (by the way - if you don't know why he doesn't consider blow jobs sexual relations, perhaps you haven't seen the movie "Clerks" -- came out way before all of this - that's how some people consider blow jobs --- too bad no females you meet, right boys?) So fine - you couldn't open a paper, turn on the TV, listen to the radio without hearing what the results of millions of dollars worth of investigation into Clinton's life. Whatever.

And then we get in President Bush. I didn't care whether or not he was elected cleanly - I'd always heard Daley stuffed the ballot box for Kennedy so turnabout is fair play. But, you get in a man into a country that is so obviously split and what would a real leader do, a real uniter --- why, try and bring everyone together, right? Ha! He looks for ways to increase the schism. He rolls back laws that have been in place for 30 years, he spends more than I think any conservative could stand....he is the best example of "Follow the money." If there is money there for him (or his friends --- he's a friendly guy, you know), he is there.

Now I'm mad because the only cause I truly fight for (another way I fit that term liberal) is the environment seeing the effect is so extremely longterm and destruction crosses all party/nationalistic lines --- well, it's obviously not a big conservative cause: as Ann C. says - r*pe the Earth. (Great.....really planning for the little ones there, isn't she?) But I don't think anyone wants to destroy our resources and yet....have you seen what he is doing??

Meanwhile, where is that liberal press I hear everyone whine about. I actually thought it was true myself until I saw there was not a peep out of them - Monica/Clinton - can't get enough --- this administration -- ha. This is the most secretive presidency ever - denying subpoenas, at least a handful of real financial scandals and the press is mute.

And, when I heard from Republicans like Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke about Bush....(as if my empirical knowledge has been warped - could it be as bad as I think?) --- Bushco BLEW any possibility of stopping 9/11. They ignored the Middle East peace treaty, North Korea's treaty --- Bush was only interested in Iraq. And he BLEW THAT! Even Kristol said Rumsfeld should resign and Condi reassigned. It is a NIGHTMARE there. Do you want to cover more areas? Economy - c'mon...you have seen what is going on, right?

I've read what you guys wrote and don't get it. No one sounds stupid. What is wrong with you? I know Karl Rove doesn't like it when people become too educated because then they become Democrats, I know we all don't believe in science anymore, that liberals spin everything (amazing case of projection there), and conservatives are for the truth ---- or is that conformity? But what do you want? For us all to get back to where there were no social services, where we could really divide out the classes so the super-rich can stay that way and everyone else can scramble for a foothold. Abortions. Is that the issue? Abortions rights weren't to encourage women to have abortions - they were doing that anyway - only rich women could have safe ones, though. If you don't want women to abort their children, work on society. Why do you think girls leave their babies in dumpsters, for gawd's sake.

Or wait --- you know when it was great --- Charles Dickens' time. That's what we want. Where is that debtor's prison when you need it?