Four Levels of Conservative Reasoning

This week has had something in common with pretty much EVERY week since 1/20/09: Just when we think Rush Limbaugh can't stoop any lower or Glen Beck can't possibly get any more insane, the Right once again prooves us wrong, and shames us for underestimating them so.  At first, I was thinking that the lies, spin, slander and insanity that's come out in the past week (too much to even elaborate on - check out MMFA, and pick ANY ITEM at random for a perfect example) was somehow unique, somehow WORSE than it's ever been.  THEN I realized just how often it was that I've felt that way over the past 18 months!

So to help anyone out who just can't understand it anymore, I've identified four degrees of conservative reasoning.  Four levels that can help you gauge the exact level of insanity we've reached on any given issue or discussion...

Level One: Bill O’Rielly / John Boehner - Mitch McConnell

Person A tries to argue a conservative position. Person B refutes their argument with facts, research, evidence, reason and logic.

The liberal concludes that person A is wrong.

The conservative concludes that person B is liberal.


Level Two: Sean Hannity / Trent Lott - Tom DeLay

Person A, in attempting to defend the conservative position, is caught in a demonstrable lie by person B.

The liberal concludes that, as the argument was predicated on a falsehood, person A must be wrong.

The conservative concludes that since person A is conservative, person B must be wrong.


Level Three: Rush Limbaugh / James Inhofe - Jim Bunning

Person B further presents person A with strong, scientific evidence that his (conservative) position is wrong.

The liberal concludes that the conservative position is weak because it’s not supported by evidence

The conservative concludes that the evidence is weak, since it doesn’t support the conservative position.


Level 4: Glenn Beck / Michelle Bachman - Sarah Palin

Person A continues to spout falsehoods and starts displaying hypocritical, faux outrage over non-stories, made up allegations and paranoid nonsense. Person B continues to demonstrate that each point, in turn is becoming increasingly desperate and absurd.

The liberal wonders why anyone is still listening to person A.

The conservative wonders why person B hates his country so much.

Filibuster reform

Although I’m initially pleased by the idea of Senator Bennet (D-CO) introducing Filibuster Reform, I also share some of Senator Byrd’s (D-WV) concern. There’s no doubt that the Republicans have abused the process, to bring the government to a stand still, screwing over the country in an infantile attempt to make sure the Government looks as incompetent as possible on the Democrats watch, and then trying to blame it all on the Democrats. How the voting public doesn’t recognize this as anything other than TRAITOUROIUS SABOLTAGE is beyond me.


It reminds a little of watching Jurassic Park and hearing Ian Malcolm talk about “Chaos” and “Entropy” and then ride into the sunset at the end with a smug sense of satisfaction, thinking he was right. Except that Jurassic Park wasn’t brought down by “Chaos,” or because “Life found a way.” It was SABOTAGED by a fat guy with a bad credit rating. In the Senate, the part of Newman Dennis Nedry, is being played legislatively by the Republicans, most recently by Senator Bunning (R-KY). So yeah, I’d say that some changes are needed.

My concern comes with the following examples, one from the Republicans, and one from the Democrats, in mind:

1) The “nuclear option.” If you don’t listen to Fox, you may remember that this was what Trent Lott (R-MS) called the Republican proposal at the time to do away with the filibuster for Judicial Nomination and Political Appointees, back when the Minority Democrats were trying to stop some of the more Jack-Booted Right Wingers that Bush was pushing from acquiring lifetime appointments to the bench. Basically, it would have eliminated the “Hold” procedure and force an up-or-down vote. Now I didn’t like this at the time, and I still don’t, but consider how weak the Republicans would be right now if the could put holds on every Obama appointee? They have shot themselves right in the foot! Whatever you propose, you’ve got to accept that one day the tables would be turned.

2) In 2004, when John Kerry may have vacated his Senate Seat, had he won the election and become President, the Massachusetts legislature TOOK AWAY the power of then Governor Mitt Romney (R) to appoint Senate replacements, instead insisting on holding a special election. But then, come 2009 and the death of Senator Kennedy, that same legislature, fearing a Republican victory, tried to give that power BACK to Governor Duval Patrick (D). This failed, in part because people recognized the bullshit game they were playing, and Scott Brown (R-MA) won the special.

Situations like these are why I hold, as one of my stated and most sacred principles, the following maxim:

Never assume a power you won’t grant your opponent. Never place a limitation on your opponent that you wouldn’t have placed upon yourself.

Apart from just being principled as well as both the right and decent way to behave, long term it is simply in your best interests to do so! Despite what the Republicans think, the “Golden Rule” is not, “He, who has the gold, makes the rules.”

So while I applaud Senator Bennet ’s efforts, I would caution him, and all Senators who want to meddle in these things, to consider that above maxim, and remember that the balance of power will shift, and the rules may one day end up stymieing their own ability to stop some truly egregious excesses in the future. After all: if the Republicans had won on the “Nuclear Option” Obama’s administration would be in much better shape right now, and if Massachusetts had just taken their chances with Romney’s potential Senate appointment in 2004, we’d have 60 votes in the Senate today.

Be VERY, VERY careful what you wish for.