Ammo For Sale

« « Bank manager stops robbery | Home | In Oz » »


Rich is hanging it up. He says:

My mistake has been thinking that liberalism,or more properly, progressivism, is an ideology, as is conservatism. That is, an idea, based on facts and reason, useful for describing te behavior of a society, and the best manner of organizing that society. It isn’t. It has more in common with religion than anything else, complete with hierarchy, a rigid orthodoxy, excommunication for dissenters,and an intolerance for questioning.

True. But substitute Republicanism for conservatism and you have the same thing.

14 Responses to “Bummer”

  1. Sebastian Says:

    We are a religious species, and take that approach to many things in our lives. Guns are an object or religious like passion too.

  2. Guav Says:

    Does he really not see that a “hierarchy, a rigid orthodoxy, excommunication for dissenters, and an intolerance for questioning” exists in conservatism also? Seriously?

  3. SayUncle Says:

    Well, I don’t think it necessarily exists in liberalism or conservatism. But it more exists in republican or democrat.

  4. Metulj Says:

    Considering his definition of “ideology” is, well, weird (see the “facts” and “reason” part), I think there might just be bootstrapping problem.

  5. Rich Hailey Says:

    metulj, you’re a moron.

    Uncle, you are exactly right. A large part of my disgust is due to Republicans who abandon principle to get votes so they can continue to abandon their principles on my dime. What good does it do to point out the fallacies of liberalism if the party that is supposed to be different is just a lite version of the Democrats?

    Going a little deeper, I don’t think there is much liberalism left in the Democratic Party. Progressivism has taken its place. Liberalism champions the worth of the individual; progressivism pays lip service to the individual, but places its true emphasis on the submission of the individual to the authority of the state, an ‘ism’ formerly known as fascism. Look at the rise in the amount of regulation flowing like a river from Washington. The federal government is intruding into every facet of what used to be our private lives. The sad part is that much of that increase can be laid at the feet of the previous administration.

    Guav, I’m making a strong distinction between conservatives and Republicans partly for the reason you bring up. I watched the Republican Party try to capitalize on the anger and frustration of the folks who demonstrated this summer, and when they realized that the people were angry at them as well, the Party tried to marginalize the demonstrators, often using the same tactics as the liberal twits in the press.

    It was and is disgusting.

    I guess part of the confusion may be that I see conservatism as having a very strong streak of libertarianism in its makeup. By definition, conservatives want to hold on to the things that made America great; a commitment to liberty, a high value on the rights of the individual, a strong sense of personal responsibility, and a limited role for the centralized government. Ironically, many of these things are true of classical liberalism as well. Progressivism, not so much.

    In keeping with those ideals, true conservatives show tolerance for differences in principles. I’m a conservative, but I believe that the war on drugs is not just a waste of time, but fundamentally wrong. If an adult chooses to scramble his brains, then that is his choice; of course, it also follows that the consequences of that choice are all his as well.

    As a Christian, I know that homosexuality is not just a sin, but a punishment for sin. At the same time, I believe gay couples should have all the same rights and responsibilities of hetero couples, not because of any “wall of separation” but because we are all sinners, and I don’t want my rights taken away because of my sinful nature. Many of my fellow Christians disagree with my stand, because the Bible makes it clear that a culture that justifies homosexuality is in big trouble, but there is a difference between tolerance and justification. Jesus ate with the sinners and forgave them of their sins. He never said that they weren’t sinners.

    That’s the key.

  6. Wanda Says:


    I don’t believe any of the ideologies are as “pure” as you are making them out to be. Some of the people claiming to be “Progressives” are really “Feminists,” just relabeled. Some of them are actually “Republicans,” but they decided they couldn’t be after the last administration, now they are “Progressives.” (You appear to be one of those since I found this quote in your March archives: “I’ll say one thing for Obama, he is accomplishing what I once thought was impossible; he’s making it easier for me to pull the lever for McCain.”) “Progressive” seems to describe people who believe that “Liberalism” is a dirty word anymore.

    I consider myself to be a fiscally conservative moderate Democrat. I haven’t really found any blogs that cater to my type of politics (Huffington Post and Daily Kos are just echo chambers IMO).

    I didn’t find your blog list which is what I was looking for. What Progressive blogs do you follow?

  7. Metulj Says:

    Anyone who foists a definition of a word, ideology, that is so far from what it means need not bandy insults upon others. Furthermore, anyone who links “progressivism” with “fascism” needs to stop blogging or saying anything like that in public at all. You are fooling yourself.

  8. Wanda Says:

    Here’s a link to a blog that is for “Democrats in Exile”:

    This one is very funny:

    (One of her recent posts: )

    These are all people who consider themselves to be Progressives, Liberals, Democrats (or maybe even Moderates). Check ’em out!

  9. Wanda Says:

    Here’s one more. Their tagline says “We knew Obama was a fraud before it was cool… ”

    This one is also funny.

  10. Rich Says:

    Wanda, the last thing I would ever claim to be is a Progressive. My reluctance to vote for MCain was based on his big government tendencies and regulatory approach to lawmaking, as shown by the McCain Feingold nightmare. My problems with the Bush Administration came from the same source. His expansion of Medicare, the NCLB act which federalized education, and his overall big government approach, including much of the Patriot Act were all problems for me.

    And that again demonstrates my point. Both parties favor an authoritarian big government approach that goes against everything America stood for.

    Progressivsm at its heart is a big government ideology, which is why so many other smaller interest groups tend towards it.

  11. Rich Says:

    metulj,I’ll keep this simple so you can keep up.

    Ideology is defined as: A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

    Now then, the relative worth of a particular ideology can be measured in two ways. First by its effectiveness in describing the way a society functions, and second by its effectiveness in designing programs to control those functions.

    In order for an ideology to be an effective basis for those two functions, two things must be true. First,the ideology must be based on facts about the society, not wishful thinking. It has to be grounded in reality, not fantasy. Second, the ideology must logically analyze those facts to develop effective techniques for controlling that society.

    As an example, one of the hallmarks of progressive ideology is that the central government is the main entity for combating poverty. Since the New Deal,successive administrations have poured billions if not trillions of dollars into the war on poverty, yet the poverty rates in the US have remained basically unchanged. Obviously, the progressive approach to poverty has failed miserably, indicating an ideological flaw.

  12. Rich Says:

    Metulj, as for fascism and progressivism, I’ll simply point out that the leading proponents of fascism have always governed from the left. Mussolini and Hitler both flirted with socialism before deciding that it didn’t go far enough. Both worked to elevate the State over the individual, creating servants and subjects rather than citizens, and creating an almost religious fervor for their governments.

    Sound familiar?

    Remember the Hollywood stars and their video, where they all vowed to serve President Obama? Do you think the word choice was an accident? Citizens do not serve their government; the power flows in the opposite direction.

  13. Rich Says:

    Metulj, as for fascism and progressivism, I’ll simply point out that the leading proponents of fascism have always governed from the left. Mussolini and Hitler both flirted with socialism before deciding that it didn’t go far enough. Both worked to elevate the State over the individual, creating servants and subjects rather than citizens, and creating an almost religious fervor for their governments.

    Sound familiar?

  14. Wanda Says:


    So where do you put “wayward Democrats”? They are among the first to criticize Obama. Most of them didn’t vote for Obama, though they may have voted for Dems in other offices.

    Obama isn’t the whole party, you know? He’s the top guy but there are plenty of other people under him. Some of those (under him) have no power.

    This is our political system and you have to work within it, so what do you suggest we do?