11 Responses to “Paul Krugman defines conservatism”

1. 1
   Out of Context Says:
   October 7th, 2007 at 3:22 pm

   You might be a “selfish amoral a**hole” if you

   quote someone AND then intentionally misread their meaning so as to attack them.

   Does the shoe fit?

2. 2
   Chad Says:
   October 7th, 2007 at 5:13 pm

   Show me where I misquoted or took Krugman out of context and I will conceded the point. I didn’t put the link there for my health you know.

3. 3
   Chad Says:
   October 7th, 2007 at 5:15 pm

   I’ll make it even easier here is a direct link to the Krugman article

   http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?em&ex=1191816000&en=e1acc53c196cd0ce&ei=5087%0A

4. 4
   Insider Says:
   October 7th, 2007 at 9:21 pm

   Chad:

   I think ridicule is an appropriate response to Krugman, what does that make me?

5. 5
   Computers » Paul Krugman defines conservatism Says:
   October 8th, 2007 at 6:13 am

   […] The Sydney Morning Herald wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptWhat’s happening, presumably, is that modern movement conservatism attracts a certain personality type. […]

6. 6
   Chad Says:
   October 8th, 2007 at 6:17 am

   Insider,

   Smart???

7. 7
   Dr X Says:
   October 8th, 2007 at 9:09 am

   Krugman isn’t incorrect when he points out that an unapologetic kind of cruelty of heart toward the downtrodden has taken hold on the conservative side of the political spectrum. The popularity of people like Ann Coulter is part of this phenomenon and she does not speak well for the hearts of decent conservatives. The unecessary effort to deny that this is happening imposes an undue burden on conservatives who have a decent heart and care about the suffering of others. In taking on this burden of denial, defending conservatism becomes tied up in the impossible task of defending morally indefensible behavior.

   But, as much as I agree with Krugman’s observations on this ugly trend in conservativism, it would be a mistake to conclude that liberals are somehow better people than conservatives either on average or in the aggregate. As one commentor in my blog pointed out on this issue, many liberals don’t identify with the downtrodden: they merely patronize the downtrodden.

   And, just as openly cruel and cavalier attitudes toward the disadvantaged have marred the reputation of the conservative movement, phony and patronizing concern for the downtrodden has marred modern liberalism. Each political side sees the glaring weaknesses of the other, but few on either side seem prepared to reject the significant, very ugly elements operating under shared political banner.

   Decent conservatives would do better to stop denying that many among them frequently say nasty, cruel things about the weak among us and they should roundly condemn those who do. Likewise, liberals should not deny the liberal epidemic of phony, patronizing concern for those who suffer: they should instead call others on it for the self-serving bullsh*t that it is. Decent people on both sides cut way too much slack for jerks they should stop counting among their own.

8. 8
   Chad Says:
   October 8th, 2007 at 5:49 pm

   Dr. X

   The flaw in your argument is I have never heard a mainstream conservative say we shouldn’t have compassion for the downtrodden. They do often attack the methods in which society attempts to show that sympathy. That does not equate to heartlessness. I will concede many individuals or advocacy groups are often targeted by conservative commentators but usually in regards to their policies not because they are less fortunate, and frankly once you enter the political arena you are fair game.

9. 9
   Jeremy Says:
   October 8th, 2007 at 8:05 pm

   Unfortunately, this little exchange just shows how much Mainstream Liberalism does not understand Mainstream Conservatism. I think part of the problem is the two philosophies disagree, so much, on HOW to help the downtrodden that it appears they conflict. In reality they both want the same thing, its just they disagree on how to get there.

   Thankfully, Moderate sites like Independent Sources can help the enlightened reader to sort these philosophical quagmires out.

   Keep up the great work, Chad, Insider, and of course A Senior Administrative Official.
   You don’t call it Independent Sources for nothing!

10. 10
    Chad Says:
    October 8th, 2007 at 9:17 pm

    Thanks Jeremy

11. 11
    incongruities Says:
    October 11th, 2007 at 4:17 am

    Dr X, your argument sounds like prejudice based on a stereotype. A “You People” kind of argument. Refuting one sweeping generalization to lend support to your own sweeping generalization is the basic flaw of your argument.

    I like Coulter. Makes me chuckle to see a skinny white girl giving back better than the libs can shovel it. I suspect a fair number of folk in fly-over country have a similar viewpoint. I try to read her column every Thursday for a chuckle. Other than that unless I buy her book or watch FoxNews every evening, I don’t even know who she is or what she thinks. I think the vast majority of the silent majority falls in the latter category.

    Unless you consider the liberal elite to be amongst the downtrodden your argument that Coulter is the poster child for an “unapologetic kind of cruelty of heart toward the downtrodden” is ridiculous.