A brilliant analysis of American politics today

Although I continue to think that I am pretty familiar with all the heavy hitters on the Right (and most of them on the Left), I continue to be proved wrong. “There is more between heaven and earth …”, etc.

A friend just sent me this link (last line of this post) , to someone I had never heard of.

It is the most perceptive, useful, deepest, understanding of the differences between Left and Right that I have ever read.

WARNING: this is not a ‘Feel Good’ essay for our side, showing how hypocritical, how dishonest, how self-centered, how shallow, how hateful, the Left is. Anyway, we already know that.

This is a cold-blooded analysis of the differences between, as he puts it, liberals and conservatives.
At first, you might be offended. Don’t be! Read it all the way through. Maybe pour yourself a stiff whiskey first.

You will see that his fellow is not a liberal – he even says that one component of the liberal left coalition are people who are insane – but … he is not out to flatter conservatives, just to give the results of his own analysis. Even if you don’t like what he has to say, he provides plenty of useful information.

He is an academic, so he operates under the constraints of the Thought Police. So I note that he leaves out the very important racial/ethnic divide in the US – everything that could be said to be negative about the conservative base, applies – can I still say “in spades”? – to the Hispanic, and especially Black, components of the Left’s voting base. But this is a radioactive topic in academia and I’m pretty sure that’s why he leaves it out.

And … I don’t see that there is anything of a practical nature that our side can take away from this, that will alter what we’re already doing. If you are one of the minority of conservatives who is a reader, you may be a bit depressed by his analysis, but if so … remember this:

Traditionally, for the last century and a half, and especially in Europe, the Left had the support of the bottom half of society (as measured by income, status, years of education) and the Right had the support of the top half. (This is just on average and of course there were many exceptions.)

So until recently, and probably only, or at least mainly, in the US – the readers vs TV-watchers (or pre-TV equivalants) went the other way: we had the readers, they had the non-readers. What has changed is that the middle class is no longer mainly small business owners, farmers, educated professionals … but has expanded to include college graduates – from the huge expansion of colleges which took place fifty years ago – who work in various government and quasi-government institutions, large corporations, and the like.

And of course the capture by the Left of the educational intitutions, and of the cultural apparatus in general, has also played a major role in influencing what everyone is supposed to think.

Anyway, read this! It’s probably best read in two or three chunks, because it’s rather long. And, if you’ve been around a while and ranged over the internet, most of what he says will not be new: he just puts it all together and gives substance (and numbers) to what you have seen as individual impressions.

Here’s a brief bit of background on the author: https://www.richardhanania.com/

Here’s the essay. Don’t forget that whiskey. (Or whatever your mind-altering substance of choice is.)

I tried to read this. Once he gets to stating that Democrats read and Republicans don’t that was enough for me.

The statistics about how lefties trust a lot of news publications while righties don’t seemed accurate. And then he posited that Republicans can’t read or something. Or they are so addicted to watching TV that they can’t be bothered to read… I disagree.

This nobody is not one of them.

" Richard Hanania is a Research Fellow at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University"

Uh . . so what.

And of course, the idiotic title says it all:

Liberals Read, Conservatives Watch TV
Explaining why Trump emerged on the right, why only liberals debate filibuster reform, how anti-vax became a partisan issue, how David Shor is half right, “Dems are the real racists” and much else.”

Gag. Utter stupidity.

Come on man.

Ask any typical rainbow hair what their favorite book is 9 out of ten have never read a book. They are literate enough to post on Facebook.

Whenever I meet a fellow conservative #1 they don’t look like clowns and #2 yes they can actually read.

Unfortunately, these responses prove the point the man was making.

Never mind. The race is not always to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, but time and chance happeneth to them all. We may still get lucky.

I’ve posted something else to cheer everyone up, for those who actually read the man’s post.

Or, maybe he is just full of balogna

Look, imagine you have been in the desert fighting the Taliban for 2 years. Then out of the blue a professor comes to you with all sorts of useless academic knowledge about fighting that you have surpassed long, long ago, and you have no interest in hearing. Thats how I feel when I read that tool’s paper.

The lines are drawn.

Conservatives who are for Liberty and a limited government as envisioned by the founding fathers and traditional values are on one side.

The socialist perverts, homosexuals, deviants, abortionists and globalists are one the other.

Your friend Poindexter is about to get his one and only ball shot off in the crossfire.

Did you read my thread?

He is trying to fit square pegs into round holes. There are more than two political groups in America. Almost too many to count. Temporary alliances some of which make your head spin. Liberal vs. Conservative is completely inadequate. Republican vs. Democrat is also useless since BOTH parties are undergoing a slow, painful realignment and re-organization. For better or worse America is set up to function as a two party system. Many people are left without a party they can fully support. Romney, Cheney, the Bush Clan, the Lincoln Project etc. are not welcome in the Republican party as it has evolved into a center-right populist party. Dershowitz, Turley and other liberals are persona non grata in the Democrat party. The Democrat party has not decided what it is evolving into. Blue dogs or the Baader–Meinhof Gang.

My conclusion is that he is an ivory tower academic leftist who reveals his bias in some of his terminology. The driving force of liberals is ideological and conservatives is tribal. IMO both are inaccurate generalizations. To an academic, ideology is intellectual, tribal is primitive. Conservatives characterized as authoritarian. Seriously? The vast majority are live and let live people. Trump obeyed all crazy court orders, fought them and won. Biden ignores court orders. Who’s authoritarian? Military juntas are historical analogues of conservatives. Who’s politicizing the DOJ, the alphabet agencies and conducting a political purge of the military?

The most hilarious assertion was on Dominant Interests: Liberals - “The movement over the party.” Conservatives - “The party over the movement.”

1 Like

I agree with this 100%. I think the point the gentlemen is making about conservatives and liberals may not be clear.

In the 1930s, some of the best, smartest intellectuals in the world – people who got Nobel Prizes in Physics – thought that the Soviet Union was building a new, higher civilization. Having a high IQ, and having good sense, being willing to investigate information that goes against what you want to believe … these are two different things.

I suspect that some people who have responded have not actually read the whole article, and have assumed that it was just another “We’re so smart, you’re so deplorably dumb” Leftist screed. It’s not.

Yes, of course, liberal vs conservative is an outdated characterization, and was never the full truth anyway.

The real divide today is between those who have a powerful emotional commitment to this country, and those who don’t. Patriots vs non-patriots.

But if you read this paper, you’ll see that this fellow is fully aware of all the nuances and exceptions to the rule. But there are general trends, and in my experience, he’s hit the nail on the head.

It’s dismaying to read all the conservative websites which sell snake oil to gullible readers.There seem to be half a dozen for every quality conservative site. This means there is a market for this sort of junk news. If you want to see the champion of them all, go to DarkOutpost.

It would be better if all of our people were readers, and did not fall for pseudo-scientific nonsense like fake cures for tintinitis or drugs that will triple your memory power, etc…

But we are where we are.

On the left, it is those interested in social issues who are the true reading movement, while those in favor of economic redistribution are more a TV movement, with Russiagate obsessives the most TV-watching of all. On social issues, Democrats are always taking risks and pushing the envelope because the activist base will not let them do otherwise. Left-wing views on economics are more broadly popular, but here Democratic politicians follow the current center of public opinion rather than lead it.

The overall result is that, in terms of policy outcomes, libertarian economics on the right and SJWism on the left both overperform relative to public opinion, while their opposites underperform.

This is why I hate partisan politics, the worst ideas from both sides get used.

This I think we all (all conservatives) agree with.

I’ll give it a second glance. I always strive to be fair and balanced.

I am curious to know which sites you label as which. Conservatives are smart you know, we know how to tell the nonsense from the truth.

When I first looked at this link, I was immediately indignant. Me, a TV-watcher? Why I hardly watch TV at all … and I read a lot. And I have – in the past, not so much now, when there are far more important things to do – debated a ton of arrogant empty-headed moralistic virtue-signallers on the Left … young atheists are the worst. (Go to the ‘Friendly Atheist’ site on Pantheon for the worst examples.) I subscribe to Claremont Review of Books, Commentary, City Journal, American Conservative, Chronicles of American Culture … all stuffed with really heavy-duty thinkers.

But this link came from an acquaintance who I know to be a serious uber-conservative (his blog is at TwilightPatriot.com – I’ve recommended it here before). So I read on.

In a conflict, you’ve got to know as much relevant information as possible. I would love to know far more than I do about AntiFa, for instance, for the purpose of doing them some political harm.

But you’ve got to know about your own side as well, its strengths and weaknesses. You can’t be like a doting mother who thinks her child is brilliant at everything. You have to be cold-blooded, you have to be able to hear the bad news first.

I repeat: the Right and the Left have inverted, in terms of their mass base, from what they historically have been.

Ordinary people rely, in the mean old world of today, on their national state to protect them. The well-educated elite, not so much. (Why they have moved in this direction is actually a mystery to me. Ruling classes have always needed a strong national state to protect them and to advance their interest in struggle against other ruling classes.)

The Left, or its guiding layers, are made up of ‘anywheres’. They can live and work in Switzerland, or Hong Kong. Our side is made up of ‘somewheres’: they have roots. (We saw this in the ‘Brexit’ campaign in Britain.)

It’s something we could wish were different, that the mass of conservatives are not ‘readers’. But it’s nothing to be ashamed of. And it’s not at all a sign that their political choices are necessarily inferior to those of Harvard undergraduates.

As George Orwell said, there are some ideas which are so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.

It would be interesting to count Amazon sales of right and left books over the past few years. I’m not about to do it but it would be interesting. It might blow up his assertion.

See, now, when I first see that link https://www.twilightpatriot.com/
my first thought it, this is some half baked link.

Here are conservative links with real news:


Nobody can call any of these nutty or extremist. This is where honest real news is found. If you know of more please tell me.

I will make a thread on this so that people can share more.

Here are other interesting links:

Accuracy in Media: Your Watchdog of the News Media
American Conservative Union: Supporting capitalism, the original intent of the Constitution, traditional moral values, and a strong national defense
American Life League: Pro-life group dedicated to protecting the sanctity of life from conception
American Policy Center: Exposing the truth on “global warming”, Goals 2000, and more
American Thinker: Daily internet publication
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty: Legal support for religious freedom
Campaign For Liberty: Ron Paul’s grassroots organization
C.J. Pearson: The Lefts Youngest Nightmare, Young, Black, and Unapologetically Republican
Candace: Candace Owen’s show “Candace” on the Daily Wire
Candace Owens Show: Candace Owens Show on Prager U
Citizens United: Dedicated to restoring our government to citizens’ control
Concerned Women for America
Donald J. Trump - Save America: President Trump’s website
FAIR: Federation for Immigration Control
FreedomWorks: FreedomWorks exists to mobilize the largest network of activists advocating the principles of smaller government, lower taxes, free markets, personal liberty and the rule of law
Future of Freedom Foundation: Aimed at establishing an educational foundation that would advance Libertarianism
Gateway Pundit: News, commentary, analysis, go-to source of the late great Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck: Political commentator, author, and co-founder of Blaze Media
Glenn Beck’s Youtube Page: Great videos
John Birch Society: Fighting the New World Order and threats to individual liberty
Judicial Watch: A conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law
Landmark Legal Foundation: National public interest law firm committed to preserving the principles of limited government
Laura Ingraham: Host of ‘The Ingraham Angle’ on Fox News Channel weeknights
Lara Logan: Logan is host of ‘Lara Logan Has no Agenda’ on Fox Nation
Lary Elder Show: “The Sage of South Central”, conservative author, radio host, and candidate for California Governor
Life Site News: Banned by Youtube, Pro Life news, action & commentary
March For Life: We promote the beauty and dignity of every human life by working to end abortion, educating, and mobilizing pro-life people in the public square
Mark Levin Show: Levin is host of LevinTV and the host of the Fox News show Life, Liberty, and Levin
Michelle Malkin: Malkin’s pages to the Unx Review, banned by Facebook
National Center for Public Policy Research: A resource on many key issues
Red Renaissance: Supporting the Next Generation of Conservative leaders
Red State: News & Media Website
Rush Limbaugh: Rush lives on at his website
The Rutherford Institute: Defending religious freedom
Sharyl Attkisson: Five time Emmy award winning, nonpartisan investigative reporter, one of the few last honest reporters
Tea Party Express: Tea Party Activist Organization
Tea Party Patriots: Tea Party Activist Group
Young Americans Foundation: Conservative Campus Activist group since 1960

Yes … I’ve seen many conservative books hit the NYT Bestseller list … although I’ve also seen leftists claim this is due to mass buying or some such trick.

I think if you analyzed each side in detail, you would find a minority on both sides who regularly purchase, or acquire, books. However, my experience has been that he is basically right.

Yes, I think these are pretty sound. I’ll see if I can add a few more.
And I’ll also list the bad ones, which were set up by grifters to sell advertising.

I realize that if you set up a serious website, it costs serious money, and without an angel, you have to sell advertising. But I think some discretion should be exercised, and snake-oil salesmen should be rejected.

Also: the bad sites I have in mind are, by and large, not original at all. They just repost articles from other conservative sites, but with sensationalist headlines. They degrade consciousness, instead of raising it. I’ll bet the people who run these sites are not conservatives at all, just apolitical grifters.

Yes, I have seen those. That is called Click Bait. Solid conservatives know better than to bite into clickbait.

Okay, but we need the unserious conservatives as well.

It’s like the famous story - I don’t know whether it’s true or not – about ‘egghead’ Adlai Stevenson, when he was running for President against Eisenhower in 1952. As you probably know, he was something of an intellectual, and this was reflected in his speeches. After one of his speeches, a woman rushed up to him and gushed, “Oh, Governor Stevenson, that was such a brilliant talk! I’m sure every thinking American will vote for you!”

And he replied, “Yes ma’am, but I need a majority!”

We need a majority.

Look, there are two choices regarding kooky sites: You can either ban free speech and be like the Nazis at Twitter and Facebook and Google, or you can allow free speech which means you get the nutty with the good. That has always been the tradeoff with rights in a free country. Its the same with the courts: Rights that protect the innocent sometimes allow the guilty to go free. Its the price you pay. With free speech, you get the good (who the Left want to silence) along with the kooks.

Bitchute and Rumble are full of nutty whacky videos and I ignore them. But they have free speech, and that means that good videos and good people banned on Youtube are allowed on Bitchute and Rumble.

Free speech.

Please comment on some of my other threads.