Fragment of a Socratic dialogue between Republicanus and Amicus Candidus, after some recent events

[fpb]

REPUBLICANUS: But that is not my main objection to Liberalism, as it is in our country now.
AMICUS CANDIDUS: What do you mean?
REPUBLICANUS: The thing I hate most is their groupthink, and the way they enforce it on anyone. They all say the same things. There is no individuality. And they police each other. Any time anyone breaks ranks on any issue, they do not argue with him: they shout him down, attack his motives and his personality, slander him, treat him as if he were less than human.
AMICUS CANDIDUS: Well, if that is the case, that is dreadful.
REPUBLICANUS: That is how a lot of us became Republicans. As one of us said, it was not I who left the Democratic Party, it was the Democratic Party who left me.
AMICUS CANDIDUS: So you think the left are naturally persecution-minded?
REPUBLICANUS: Oh, well, I don't suppose that each one of them is, individually. But they are so indoctrinated. You start talking with one, and the first thing you have to do is break through the barrier of commonplace accusations - try and make that person understand that you are not actually out to shut him in a camp or make him wear an iron gag or whatever.
AMICUS CANDIDUS: They are indoctrinated. You aren't?
REPUBLICANUS: I do not think that we treat dissent among us the way they do.
AMICUS CANDIDUS: So, if you found that a man who disagrees with many of you, who likes to strike an independent path - is widely hated, and is said to be no better than any opponent, and people write foaming articles denouncing him as a traitor and a liar, and hideous rumours are circulated about him below the screen of national debate, on the Net, denying even his services to his country, and maintaining that he was a traitor in the pay of the Soviets - ?
REPUBLICANUS: That sounds absolutely appalling. I don't think any of us would do that to anyone.
AMICUS CANDIDUS: What about Senator John McCain?
REPUBLICANUS: [*Turns his back, looks away, starts whistling*]

Comments

[superversive.livejournal.com]

Yes, those damned Republicans are all such evil brainwashed groupthinkers, aren’t they? Why, look at poor John McCain . . . they hate him so much, so deeply, so unanimously, that he is running away with their nomination for President of the United States. Eheu!

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I am rather speaking of the people who regard themselves as the soul of the Republican Party. Ann Coulter's attitude was unforgiveable enough, but then she is Ann Coulter and few people take her seriously. But a whole legion of Townhall.com commentators poured more vitriol on him than they ever did on Hillary and Barrack combined, and there was worse, much worse. Have a look at this debate thread, where nearly every correspondent assumes the truth of the tinfoil-hat rumours about McCain being a Soviet spy: http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/CommentsOverview.aspx?GUID=2B781184-2E6A-4F82-BD3B-D42A8289317A. I doubt whether you will be able to read it without agreeing that I have been, if anything, kind and forgiving towards these people.

[mrmandias.livejournal.com]

Except that you identify them as, generically, "Republicanus." Which is as laughable a smear as the one you complain of.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You've got a point, I'll admit. But what I was trying to do is criticize the people (Tammy Bruce is one, for instance) who insist that groupthink is, a) a left-wing feature, and, b), contrary to conservative attitudes. I am afraid that I read two-three articles on that subject just before I came across that abominable comments thread, and I just saw red.

[mrmandias.livejournal.com]

Understandable. Fear and loathing about describes my attitude towards McCain, but I remember getting spitting mad when I first came across that manchurian candidate smear.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Ann Coulter has been at CPAC with more of the same, showing that some people never learn. The appalling thing is that she has been applauded. And Janice Shaw Crouse, who did not until now look like a moron, has actually claimed that Romney has been "forced out" by "pushy pundits". If the right want to give evidence that they wear tinfoil hats, they could not be doing better.

[mrmandias.livejournal.com]

I don't think Ann Coulter ever promoted that manchurian candidate smear, did she? I don't think there is so little to attack her about tht we need to slander her.

and it looks like you're back to tarring the right with the broad brush of a few people you dislike.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Please don't shoot the messenger. It's not I, but dozens of conservative columnists and radio hosts - beginning with that sterling spirit Rush Limbaugh - who are piling on John McCain in a rugger scrum. Ann Coulter went as far as to say that Hillary was less liberal than McCain. I never said that she had mentioned the traitor rumours, but that, as far as I am concerned, is more than disgusting enough. I am not a conservative myself, not in the American meaning of the term, and my main interest in the election is in the increasing likelihood that Wade vs.Roe might be reversed - a decision that would sound like thunder through the world, if it happened. If it turns out that fanatical conservatives in America have let through a Dem candidate who would indubitably return SCOTUS to its ultra-liberal past, I will personally feel like hanging Limbaugh, Coulter and all their legions with piano wire.

[mrmandias.livejournal.com]

"More of the same" is your phrase, not mine. The opposition of the Limbaughs might be as bad as you say but its nowhere in the same category as the manchurian candidate smear.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I did not mean to say that it was "the same" as the Manchurian smear. I meant it was "the same" as her previous and already inexcusable statement that McCain was more liberal than Hillary.

[mrmandias.livejournal.com]

Comprendo.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I find internet comments threads very educational. Reading them before the 2004 elections gave me a strong impression that, contrary to popular wisdom at the time, Kerry would lose. I had, you see, come across Vietnam vets and their view of him, and I knew that where most of those people were concerned, the Democrats might as well have nominated Jane Fonda and be done. Vietnam vets are a group the media don't much notice; but they are hundreds of thousands, certainly enough to account for Bush II's majority.

Now I have gone back to reading comments threads in conservative sites, such as this one: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/geraldaugustinus/6703038397459957718/. And given the number and violence of the anti-McCain intervention, I cannot help feeling that this time the Dems will win.

[mrmandias.livejournal.com]

You could be right, but comments closer to the election would be more informative.. One difference is that the grievances of Vietnam vets were basically unappeasable, whereas anti-McCain conservatives can be bought off with concesssions, especially on immigration.

A lot of this noise from conservatives is posturing--I know, because I've been making some of it.

[goreism.livejournal.com]

Ah, but he won several states off the votes of independents.