Young Hipster Cons: Enter the Fray

January 25th, 2010 at 7:39 pm | 27 Comments |

| Print

Are young 20- and 30-something conservatives whiners and conformists? It’s hard not to draw that conclusion when reading some of the supposedly “cutting-edge” writing by young hipster cons, many of whom strike a pose of pseudo-intellectual disillusionment with “the movement.”

Consider, for instance, Michael Brendan Dougherty and Conor Friedersdorf. Dougherty has a piece in in The Awl in which he complains that the conservative movement is so intellectually stultifying that “the smartest people on the Right are basically ashamed to be associated with [it].”

Friedersdorf, likewise, has published a series of articles in which he laments what he perceives to be the sorry state of the Right. “I am profoundly disillusioned by the state of the conservative movement,” young Friedersdorf writes in An Open Letter to [National Review Editor] Jonah Goldberg.

That’s why I am sympathetic to the ‘conservative dissidents,’ despite my many policy differences with them — [because] unlike the base, I don’t think politicians who are squishy on substance did in Republicans.

I think what brought down the Right is a corrupt conservative movement, without insufficient capacity for constructive criticism, and beset by heretic hunters who denounced anyone engaged in critical thinking.

Long live the dissidents. Long live debates. Long live partisan and ideological disloyalty if it means routing out corruption.

Am I wrong?

Goldberg, I don’t think, ever bothered to answer young Friedersdorf’s question, but I will: Yes, Conor: you’re right about dissent, but wrong about the conservative movement. Dissent absolutely is helpful and important. That’s why the American conservative movement was founded upon vigorous intellectual disagreement and debate.

Indeed, read through some of the earliest issues of National Review circa 1955-1965, and you’ll witness stunningly open, contentious and freewheeling debates: Frank Meyer vs. L. Brent Bozell; Whittaker Chambers vs. Ayn Rand; Harry Jaffa vs. Russell Kirk, et al.

It simply isn’t true that dissent is discouraged and unwelcomed on the Right. The Conservative Movement, in fact, was founded as an intellectually dissenting movement, which vigorously argued amongst itself from the very beginning.

Dougherty and Friedersdorf counter: that was then; this is now. Today, Dougherty writes,

young conservatives hate themselves. They live in fear that if they do state their actual views, they’ll be forbidden from any meaningful work in the future outside the movement.

Bright young conservatives, Dougherty continues, have two equally bad and unpalatable choices: “Sell out to the movement” ( by which he means they can prostitute themselves to the Republican Party) or “ Sell out the movement” (by which he means they can cozy up to the liberal cultural elite by trashing conservatives in Lefty “mainstream” venues).

Friedersdorf and Dougherty protesteth too much. If they were issuing their complaints in 1950 (before the rise of National Review) — or even 1990 (before the rise of the internet), then I’d be far more sympathetic. In 1950, after all, conservatives had few serious places to think, argue and publish. That’s why, in 1955, William F. Buckley, Jr. founded National Review.

Similarly, in 1990, the internet didn’t yet exist (or it wasn’t yet a mass communication medium). Consequently, writers, activists and policy entrepreneurs couldn’t simply build a website to develop and to espouse unpopular or neglected ideas. No, sir, they had to suffer — and often in relative silence and isolation.

But it’s not 1950, and it’s not 1990; it’s 2010. The internet is now thriving — and so virtually anyone with an idea can now build a website to champion their idea, and at a really minimal or negligible cost.

What’s more, many of these new internet sites — the Huffington PostRed State and Hot Air, for instance – are tremendously popular and growing in stature and influence. By contrast, the old-line legacy media — the New York Times, the network news, your local newspaper — are dying media brands.

Yet, Dougherty, Friedersdorf, and other young hipster cons pine for mainstream liberal-left respectability. They want to so much to be a part of the older and more established crowd; hence their lament, their complaint, their whine.

Their problem isn’t that they can’t dissent; they quite clearly can. In fact, thanks to Silicon Valley, Apple, and Microsoft, there are today more publishing venues available for dissenters than at any time in human history.

But Friedersdorf, Dougherty, and other young hipster cons don’t want simply to dissent. That, after all, is something they already can do perfectly well and often — and with potentially great influence, thanks to the information revolution of the past quarter-century. No, sir, they want their dissent to become accepted, mainstream, and cool. They want to be liked and not “stigmatized” for their dissent.

Thus Dougherty informs us that 30-year-old New York Times columnist Ross Douthat

won’t share his views on gay marriage in detail is simple. He knows gay marriage opponents will be portrayed as the Bull Connors of the near-future. And he wants to keep writing film criticism and noodling theology for educated readers.

How many times did William F. Buckley have his tepid, once-moderate sounding defense of segregation quoted to him? A million times. By liberals, and paleo-conservative racists both. But Buckley was indestructible. Douthat and the rest of us aren’t. We know that for the foreseeable future, liberals have the whip-hand in forming the ‘prevailing structure of taboos.’

So there you have it. Young hipster cons like Dougherty, Friedersdorf, and Douthat apparently lack the courage of their convictions. They’re intellectual cowards because they don’t want to be castigated as outcasts by the liberal elites who, Dougherty explains “have the whip-hand” in deciding what is and is not politically correct.

In a certain respect, I sympathize with the young hipster cons. There are certain issues, mostly certain social issues involving so-called gay rights, which are very difficult for us conservatives to argue and discuss. Our arguments run up against a rights-based political culture which too often neglects the importance of cultural capital and social norms. And our desire to uphold a standard of moral excellence is too easily caricatured and trivialized as an attitude of intolerance and exclusion.

But as my Marine Corps drill instructors often reminded me, “No one ever told you it was going to be easy.” The fact that making an argument is difficult and may not make you Mr. or Ms. Popularity is no reason to whine about the supposedly sad state of the Right.

The fact that America’s cultural elites are moral and social libertines who dogmatically oppose social and cultural conservatism is no reason to abandon the fight. The fact that most conservatives seem unwilling to accept your dissenting (but still right-leaning) views is no reason to cast aspersions upon the conservative movement.

In short, stop whining, young hipster cons, and pick up the mantle of change. Don’t just curse the darkness, light a candle and show the way. Do something! Fight. Build a website. Argue your case in the court of public opinion. Show us the error of our ways. Explain where we’ve gone wrong and tell us how we can do better.

And please, whatever you do, don’t worry about your popularity, or whether the “in-crowd” (either liberal or conservative) in New York, Washington, and Hollywood likes you for what you do or do not say. Any intellectual worth his salt must freely speak his mind.

Indeed, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes as they say in the Navy. “One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up,” said the late great Arthur Koestler.

Exactly so. Dougherty says that “Buckley was indestructible,” and thus could not be destroyed by the slings and arrows of the liberal-left cultural elite. That’s true, but it wasn’t always that way. Buckley, remember, took the establishment by storm when, as a young unknown college graduate and World War II veteran, he penned God and Man at Yale, a blistering attack on his alma matter’s studious left-wing bias.

God and Man at Yale is now a conservative classic; but it’s important to remember that, when initially published, the book and its author were pilloried by the regnant liberal-left establishment.

The reaction from the academic elite was conducted, in the words of one reviewer, ‘with all the grace and agility of an elephant cornered by a mouse.’ One unenthusiastic observer called Buckley a ‘violent, twisted, and ignorant young man’; another referred to him as ‘Torquemada, reincarnated in his early twenties.’

But even these personal attacks were not enough. His ideas were labeled ‘intolerant dogmatism,’ ‘pure fascism,’ an ‘ignorant attack,’ a ‘philistine crusade.’ Even his religion — his ‘special allegiance,’ it was called — was dragged in.

But when these rhetorical shots were fired at him, Buckley, fortunately, didn’t shrivel up into a ball and retreat; he fired back, and with devastating effect. And soon, his brilliance could not be denied; and the merits of his arguments could not be ignored.

You, young hipster cons — and yeah, I’m talking to you, Dougherty; and I’m talking to you, Friedersdorf ; and probably you, too, Douthat — are fortunate to be living at a time in history when the tools of mass communication are available to literally every American citizen and a great many people the world over — so you have no excuses for not speaking out. In fact, you have a moral and intellectual obligation to make your voice heard.

So stop whining and do something! Build a website and join the fray. Demand a seat at the political, intellectual, and policy table. Marshall your arguments and organize like-minded writers and thinkers. Pick a fight and come out swinging. Recall the stirring example set by a young William F. Buckley, Jr. at a time and place when the opportunities for bright young conservatives were far fewer and far less significant than they are today.

In short, if you think the conservative political and intellectual movement is bankrupt and lacking, then change it; own it; make it yours. That’s what the editor of this website, David Frum, has done.

Frum grew disillusioned with the conservative movement. He saw it becoming increasingly cloistered and politically and culturally out of touch with a rapidly changing American populace. He saw loud and boisterous voices spouting off noxious and idiotic half-baked thoughts and said to himself: “We can do better, and we must. I can do better, and I must.”

And so he founded this website, FrumForum. He invited and courted writers and activists, soldiers and journalists, citizens and politicians to join him and to contribute. He cogitated and agitated; wrote, thought and provoked. And yeah, in so doing, Frum has ticked people off; he’s named names and made (political) enemies.

Frum, consequently, is not the most popular figure on the Right. In fact, I think it’s fair to say that he’s despised by many grassroots and Netroots conservatives who view him as an apostate and a traitor, a “squish” and a “RINO” who has sold out the movement and his principles.

I disagree with this criticism and Frum’s critics, even as I sometimes disagree with David. Frum, I believe, may be the most important and most misunderstood living conservative — and for precisely the reasons heralded by Friedersdorf:

Friendly and thoughtful dissent is important. Debate and disagreement do make the movement stronger and better. We conservatives should be forced to think and rethink our assumptions and ideas. Placid dogma and conventional wisdom, whether on the Right or the Left, is the enemy of real progress and reform.

That’s why I am a proud contributor to David’s site. That’s why I write and argue. That’s why I’m building my own (military modernization) website: Because America is worth fighting and arguing about; because the conservative movement is worth fighting and arguing about; because fame, riches and popularity are not what life is all about (or should be all about).

David Frum knows this; I know this; and, deep down, I think, the American people know this. However, Dougherty, Friedersdorf, Douthat, and other young hipster cons, do you know this? And if so, what are you waiting for? What’s your excuse for silence and inaction?


Read Conor Friedersdorf’s response here.

Recent Posts by John Guardiano



27 Comments so far ↓

  • Kevin B

    There are certain issues, mostly certain social issues involving so-called gay rights, which are very difficult for us conservatives to argue and discuss. Our arguments run up against a rights-based political culture which too often neglects the importance of cultural capital and social norms. And our desire to uphold a standard of moral excellence is too easily caricatured and trivialized as an attitude of intolerance and exclusion.I think what’s happening with younger conservatives is not that they are losing the courage to stand up for what they strongly believe.

    It is that they no longer strongly believe.

    Why go on fighting for some cause (like racial purity, or segregation, or gay exclusion) when you are not as sure as you once were (or as your predecessors were) that you are on the right side of the issue.

  • joemarier

    Well, I don’t think anyone can accuse Michael and Conor of silence; both are rather prolific, actually, and both have been involved in rather high-profile startups (Michael with the American Conservative, Conor with Culture11). I actually really enjoyed Michael’s piece in The Awl, mostly because all my friends seem to be artists, and what he said is so similar to so many of my peers’ comments about their lives and careers in the arts. Sometimes, you just have to say what a grind it is… but then you have to get back to the drawing board, and in the case of political writers, try and figure out the meaning of Scott Brown and read the tea leaves on health care and so on.

  • franco 2

    “Young hipster cons like Dougherty, Friedersdorf, and Douthat apparently lack the courage of their convictions. They’re intellectual cowards because they don’t want to be castigated as outcasts by the liberal elites who, Dougherty explains “have the whip-hand” in deciding what is and is not politically correct.

    In a certain respect, I sympathize with the young hipster cons. There are certain issues, mostly certain social issues involving so-called gay rights, which are very difficult for us conservatives to argue and discuss. Our arguments run up against a rights-based political culture which too often neglects the importance of cultural capital and social norms. And our desire to uphold a standard of moral excellence is too easily caricatured and trivialized as an attitude of intolerance and exclusion.”

    I agree.

    As someone in the arts who is surrounded by hard-core leftists I understand what happens to anyone who expresses an opinion to the right of Sean Penn. I believe the climate is actually worse now than it was before, but the tide is turning and it’s because of alternate media. More than anything though it is the ridiculousness of the left that is beginning to unmask them.

    The first thing these guys have to understand is that the left is wholly disingenuous with their arguments, whether it be “gay rights” “women’s rights” or what have you. They use these issues as a cudgel because of their victories with the civil rights model, and are using these issues POLITICALLY and not morally. If they held these beliefs morally, they would be applying their activism where these groups are being most oppressed. Instead they focus their efforts in the country where these issues have made the most gains.

    When leftists try to associate these young conservatives with “bigots” and “homophobes” the answer is simply that conservatives have a right to their beliefs. Social experiments imposed by the state against the mores of the people is a form of tyranny and often have grave long-term consequences. The debate for gay marriage is about 15 years old – there is no precedent in the history of the world with all it’s diverse tribal cultures for gay marriage. There are only a very small number of gays who actually want to tie the knot. This minority wishes to force a sea-change on the established culture, in anthropological terms, overnight. This is ill-advised. Some laws should be modified, yes.

    So, someone can be FOR gay marriage, but against imposing it upon a reluctant populace, and that populace has a RIGHT to feel reluctant. Change is not always good and it very often has unintended consequences.

    Gays have a real, “grass is greener” problem with marriage and much of the activism comes from the fact that this is the one thing they are forbidden to do that straights can.

  • WillyP

    Count me as one who consider Frum a RINO and Friedersdorf a whiner…

    but as I’m quite young, I feel I can comment with some insight.

    It’s not that the right is dumb. It’s not. It’s that the people you list above don’t understand the difference between an intellectual argument and a political argument.

    2 brief examples:
    I may be against abortion “rights,” and would defend my views on a largely Catholic grounds. But if I’m a campaign manager, and my job is to message for my pro-life candidate, I don’t have time to explain my philosophy, my theology to the electorate. A campaign that began explaining the concept of potentiality would be the loser. Instead, I say “PRO-LIFE! Support the unborn and individual responsibility! Abortion = killing babies!” Now, in my opinion, those don’t really do the topic justice, but they get the point across, and fast. I also don’t happen to disagree with any of the statements.

    I support a free market. As a voter, I listen for rhetoric associated with free markets and legislative action that serves to benefit the market. I hear “The government is already too big!” and, albeit rarely these days, a Reaganesque “Since when do we as Americans believe that there are two classes, the rich and the poor, and that they are at irreconcilable odds with each others?” I do not expect my candidates to be discussing the epistemological origins of the law of marginal utility, or explaining the abstract concept of the market as a whole.

    Friedersdorf et al. seem to view such coarsely expressed opinions as unbecoming, apparently unable to recognize that not every voter attended Harvard or Notre Dame. There are plenty of books that delve deep into the philosophical arguments that encumber both sides.

    A theory? Maybe the group listed above simply does not feel satiated by the inadequate responses of their leftist interlocutors? This may be the case. Otherwise, the so-called “public intellectuals” of the right really should stop whining, and start leading. Either that, or take a new role, modeled after Eric Voegelin.

  • sinz54

    Kevin B: Why go on fighting for some cause (like racial purity, or segregation, or gay exclusion) when you are not as sure as you once were (or as your predecessors were) that you are on the right side of the issue.
    That’s a cheap crack,
    and I’m not going to let you get away with it.

    I’m a conservative and I had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with anyone pushing “racial purity.” Your claim that racists are the “predecessors” of today’s conservatives is nonsense. And the notion that we pushed that idea ourselves is even more nonsensical.

    I’m willing to concede that most of you leftists weren’t Communists and didn’t take orders from the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Isn’t that gracious of me? And wouldn’t you like to reciprocate?

  • GOProud

    Kevin B writes: “Why go on fighting for some cause (like racial purity, or segregation, or gay exclusion) when you are not as sure as you once were (or as your predecessors were) that you are on the right side of the issue.”

    And on the issue of gay exclusion? I’m wondering if exclusion means that CPAC isn’t going to allow GOProud to sponsor their winter convention? Because, if that’s the case, someone needs to get CPAC to reverse it’s unconditional, unwavering support.

    Kevin, the worst exclusionists I’ve ever met have been far Left Democrats… not conservatives, not GOPers. Bigotry knows no party ID… but it sure gets used a lot by the far Left.

  • sinz54

    WillyP: It’s that the people you list above don’t understand the difference between an intellectual argument and a political argument.
    That’s not the problem.

    The problem is that a movement that consists only of exciting catchphrases and slogans can marshal votes–but can’t inspire candidates nor supply ideas for governance. (And the more thoughtful voters won’t vote for someone they believe can’t govern once in office.)

    The intellectuals like William F. Buckley and Laffer and Kristol weren’t running for political office. But they inspired those who were, like Kemp and Reagan. And once those two got into political office, the intellectuals supplied them with a wealth of ideas as to how to govern the country effectively.

    “The government is already too big!” makes a nice slogan to energize GOTV drives on Election Day. But once that candidate wins, what’s he going to do in office? How will he try to shape the Federal budget?

    Good ideas can make the difference between a successful conservative presidency (Reagan) and a failed one (Bush 43). And I’ve always said that nothing succeeds like success; Reagan’s successful presidency made conservatism the dominant thinking for the next 25 years; Bush’s failed presidency did such a good job of discrediting conservatism that the nation elected a doctrinaire liberal (Obama).

    Reagan had a vast array of conservative thinkers for his brain trust. Who would be Sarah Palin’s brain trust?

  • WillyP

    sinz, so you are saying what, the movement is in fact intellectually bankrupt? I don’t understand your point.

  • WillyP

    As for “how will he try to shape the Federal Budget?” – why not start with the document that establishes the Federal government, and work from there? So… phase out entitlement programs that are bankrupting future generations.

    Design the exit strategy so that we can maintain decent benefits to the people who have paid into the Ponzi scheme their entire lives, but not force young people into a system that merely redistributes their money to their elders, and leaves them with nothing but a sink hole of debt.

    It’s called market reform, and it works… now and then some genuinely bold leadership (rather than regurgitated statism) is appreciated by citizens. It goes without saying, but since subtlety is not often perceived on the blogosphere, obviously the President or Congress that did this would need to be quite up front and honest with what s/he’s doing. Selling this proposal, being that it makes sense and isn’t an outright lie, might be a challenge for a poor communicator, especially since the current make-up of American citizens seems to be 50% brat.

  • Dear “Hipster” Conservatives, « Around The Sphere

    [...] John Guardiano at FrumForum: Are young 20- and 30-something conservatives whiners and conformists? It’s hard not to draw that conclusion when reading some of the supposedly “cutting-edge” writing by young hipster cons, many of whom strike a pose of pseudo-intellectual disillusionment with “the movement.” [...]

  • Kevin B

    Sinz54:

    I’m not a leftist, but I’d concede that in the past, many leftists were sympathetic to communism, just as William F Buckley defended segregation and Jim Crow laws.

    As for “tak[ing] orders from the Soviet Union”, that seems like a bargaining chip. How about I throw in “participating in lynch mobs” and we toss those two out together?

    If you want to disown segregation as a conservative cause, and claim it has no bearing on modern conservatism, then I applaud you. In fact, I counted on it. And I’m very hopeful that in the near future most conservatives will view even Barack Obama’s “marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman” as an unnecessary barrier to gay people participating in that most conservative institution.

    (It’s just anecdotal, but the most conservative gay people I know are the ones in long-term relationships.)

  • John Guardiano

    Kevin B,
    You make fair and welcomed points, which contribute to the discussion; but let’s not defame Bill Buckley. Buckley never “defended segregation and Jim Crow laws” per se; in fact, he opposed both. The man didn’t have a racist bone in his body; and it’s wrong and unfair to suggest that he did.

    Buckley did defend, on principle, states’ rights, federalism, and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

    V/R
    John

  • Kanzeon

    John Guardiano

    National Review 1957 “Why the South Must Prevail:”

    “The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.”

  • WillyP

    sinz/kevin b,

    The left, so far as I can tell, does not need any more orders to follow from the Soviet Union. They’ve practically adopted their playbook.

    What genuinely worries me is that about half the country isn’t even conscious of the fact that they support a party that is openly Socialist and closet Fascist. Not in the European mold, but in the American/FDR mold. This is troubling.

    Even more troubling still is that both the left AND right (or, at least, large contingents of both) scorn and defame the “Tea Partiers,” who are the modern day civil rights activists.

    If I were running a semi-influential Republican blog, running for office, or offering syndicated commentary, I’d put a lot more emphasis on this disturbing development, and less on “Finding the Good in [insert newest Obama socialist scheme]” and “Republicans Sound like Cavemen When Talking about [insert David Frum's most loathed/Republicans most treasured social position].”

  • Kanzeon

    WillyP:

    “If I were running a semi-influential Republican blog…”

    But you’re not, for obvious reasons.

  • WillyP

    No I’m not. That’s why I “MAKE CONTACT WITH MY LEADER, MARK LEVIN!”

  • Kanzeon

    What, exactly, does Mark Levin lead? A political party? A think tank? A city council somewhere?

  • WillyP

    Kanzeon,
    He leads a political movement whose primary purpose is irritating and defeating libs by not giving their statism one modicum of respectability. He will lead you out of darkness. And he broadcasts from an underground bunker, don’cha know?

    Furthermore, the only principles than you hold dear are redistribution and self-promotion of your own expansive ego.

  • Kanzeon

    WillyP:

    You still have trouble with basic terminology.

    In addition to your continuing misuse of such easy terms as “socialist” and “fascist” you have confused “political movement” with “paid entertainer with a fan club.”

  • WillyP

    kanzeon,
    Almost incessantly, you tell me I cannot define words. And yet, when I give you definitions, and try to educate you, you balk.

    So again – why don’t YOU define socialism and fascism and I’ll tell you how you’re wrong.

  • Kanzeon

    WillyP:

    It’s not up to me, or you, to define words.

    You don’t seem to get that.

    Here:

    “Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

    “Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

    These are the definitions. There isn’t any debate on that score.

    A government that is proposing a spending freeze on social programs, a health care reform bill that doesn’t include a publically funded plan, a stimulus bill that includes hundreds of billions in tax cuts, and props up the private banking industry isn’t socialist.

    If you persist in using these words to define either of the major political parties, you are just embarrassing yourself. I’m not going to waste my time with it. Try to learn something, instead of spouting off whatever ignorant swill some radio charletan peddles to sell airtime.

  • The Marine vs. the “Hipster Con” | Republicans United.

    [...] Guardiano wrote a pointed blog post against what he calls “young hipster cons” or young dissident conservatives describing [...]

  • WillyP

    So you can use a dictionary.
    “It’s not up to me, or you, to define words.”
    Do words define themselves? At some point, not so long ago, people defined these words. But I digress…

    Pray tell, were the pros/cons of lo stato corporativo versus Bolshevism?

    Can you even speak intelligently about either? I doubt this very much.

    Once you wrap your head around both concepts, perhaps you’ll come to the conclusion that, regardless of the Wikipedia definitions, they are nearly identical in practice. And that practice consists of centralized control, rather than DECENTRALIZED – that is, Market – control.

    If you aren’t keen enough to recognize that your boy, Obama, is taking over the American economy one piece at a time, well… I suggest you ask yourself when the last time the man lifted, rather than imposed, restrictions on business – i.e., when he afforded more control over private interests rather than exercised every more control. What industry has benefited from Obama lifting its terrible regulatory burden?

    You think you’re so clever, and yet you are a clear ignoramus. If not, write something passably intelligent on the topic of economics.

  • Kanzeon

    WillyP:

    Again, I give you precise definitions, and you respond with vague equivalencies that exist only inside your own head, and stand on your right to define words in whatever way you please.

    You can’t make an argument based on correct use of terminology, just as you can’t make an argument that is moored in any common sense reality, because you can’t deal with complexity.

    So, next time I point out you are using words incorrectly, don’t challenge me again and retreat again. Just don’t misuse the language in the first place. Look it up in the dictionary yourself. Show a little self reliance.

  • Kanzeon

    By the way, I didn’t vote for Obama. He isn’t my “boy” and I find that a revealing term, for reasons that should be readily apparent. But I digress…

  • WillyP

    eventually everyone gets tired of dealing with morons. i’ve reached my limit.

  • Right On Right Violence To A Soundtrack Of Lee Greenwood « Around The Sphere

    [...] more, I have defended David, publicly and in print, for his criticism of Mark Levin and Rush [...]