One of the signature stereotypes of present-day political controversy is the privileged and coddled Social Justice Warrior, usually resident on a university campus, who lives to take offense at the unfairness of life. Unlike hardworking, uncomplaining, and morally grounded Real Americans, the Social Justice Warrior is a petulant whiner whose troublemaking has brought us cringe-worthy notions like trigger warnings, safe spaces, and cultural appropriation. Not for nothing are they dubbed “snowflakes:” each one unique (in his or her own mind), and oh, so fragile.
It’s everywhere—a combination of projection, rear-guard maneuvering and pre-emptive strikes—from Constitutional “originalist” Antonin Scalia’s refusal to respect precedent, to a bazillion radio shouters bemoaniing “liberal media” while taking a paycheck from their right-wing billionaire bosses, to thanking vets for “keeping us free” while attacking the Bill of Rights at both root and branch, to (nominal) Christians claiming to be an embattled minority.
Of course, when self-described “conservatives” aren’t getting the respect they think is their birthright, the last place they’ll look is inward. The fact that their economic policies have failed everywhere they’ve been tried, for example, has yet to stop them from pushing those policies with perfectly straight faces.
You mean like “REgressives”?
I’ll disagree with that. I see the idealizing of the thug. The president who threatens military action at the drop of a hat, or the citizen who is quick to point out “don’t mess with us, we’re gun owners.” The business man who’s goal isn’t financial success but trampling over competitors and ripping off customers, often in illegal ways (or ways that require suspect lobbying methods resulting in laws we’ve recently seen passed.)
Trump may have run a sham campaign, uttering no sincere promise, but no one was disappointed. Why? His greatest applauses came when he threatened violence against people in his audience, and regardless of then-stated policies, his style of presiding is the same–everything’s a threat.
Why are there no conservative comedians?
Hey Mike, absolutely masterful!
In the little bio after the article, they didn’t say that that Lofgren was a GOP staffer for 30 years! So, he knows of what he speaks! And if you haven’t read Mike Lofgren’s “Deep State” it definitely is a must-read, far from a conspiracy book, it shows you who the real players are (hiding in plain sight) who run our government.
Because for them, there’s more money in politics.
Lofgren wrote a searing and very funny piece. However, what he doesn’t state is that “conservative” policies are deeply unpopular with the majority of Americans. They don’t hold all three branches of government because they are popular. The hold power because their “Opposition”, the Democrats have nothing to offer the American people except that they are not Republicans and the GOP is better at rigging elections than the Dems are. That’s why in the upcoming mid-terms elections, the Democrats are not likely to take much away from the GOP.
They are in power but they are still hated; I’d say they better get used to that.
Oh I believe that right wingers get every bit of the respect that they are due.
It’s a simple case of Guilt By Association — with Hair Drümpf.
"Right wingers do not care about respect. They care about power–its acquisition and exercise.
As Harold Pinter explained in his 2005 Nobel lecture, Art Truth and Politics", upon receiving the Nobel Prize in literature:
“Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.”
Of course, in retrospect, we can say the same sort of things about all politicians regardless of ideology, as Pinter’s passage above implies.
Because they lack the ego strength to be self-effacing, the self-awareness and empathy to know where to draw the line on “making fun” of people, and can’t go against the grain of the patriarchal hierarchy. That leaves them with no one but the less fortunate as targets for their humor destroying all enjoyment of their humor except by people as damaged as themselves. Their rage (hinted at but not explicit in the article) makes them go too far in attacking their targets, and their individualism makes all their humor divisive rather than trying to express empathy and bringing people together as progressive humor does. Conservatives trying to be funny all end up being Andrew Dice Clay at best, and when that’s the ceiling rather than the sub-basement, there’s not much hope for laughs.
Be sure that your words are sweet for someday you may need to eat them.
The movement that started with the people too stupid to realize “All in the Family” was mocking Archie Bunker has reached it’s (il)logical conclusion, blindly supporting a sub-moronic television clown.
Enjoy your borscht while dreaming of caviar, Comrade MMinLamesa.
Can you say WELLSTONE ?
Aw, how sweet. A butt hurt conservative offended by her reflection in the mirror.
“We know you hate us, hate this country and blame the ills of the world on America.”
So, why don’t you do something about all the problems that you cause?
Why don’t you try to be better humans instead of the assholes that you insist on being?
Is it because you are so proud of how you stomp down your fellow human to your own personal gain?
Stop doing stuff that causes people to hate you and you won’t be hated.
Apparently that’s too difficult for you children to understand.
Isn’t it ridiculous that christian conservatives love to play the victim while they are victimizing everyone around them?
Why is it that everyone seems to miss mentioning that during the Revolutionary War the conservatives were the Tories and supported the monarchy?
Also, why is it that everyone seems to miss the fact that a true conservative government is an inherited aristocracy and that having a democratically elected government is a LIBERAL government?
Why is it that everyone seems to forget that when the USA first formed it was the FIRST liberal government in the modern era?
You can’t be supportive of democracy and NOT be liberal. Democracy IS liberal…
Something that conservatives are either too stupid to figure out or too willfully ignorant to admit to.
This is your defense against Lofgren’s well constructed and supported argument…priceless!