Party of fear
The lefts two biggest tools are envy and fear. They use them often to manipulate their constituents. But they also use projection (projecting their flaws on the other side), to trying to deflect/distract from their side doing it. So they accuse Republicans of being the party of fear (a variation of racist), as if they're scared of all brown people or anyone wearing a Hijab (or in my families case, a rusari). The Republicans aren't flawless, but such claims when your side is worse, are insulting broad-brush bigotry (something they also criticize and do more), as well as hypocrisy. And I don't suffer hypocrisy quietly.
|Party of fear||We need government to protect us from ourselves. But Republicans/Conservatives are the party of fear: they try to control their constituents with fear of immigrants, Iran getting the bomb, criminals so they need guns, and trust in government. They need to be more reasonable, like us||All the scares of the left have proven false: over-population, lack of food production, peak oil, destroying the planet (see many more in the anti-science category). People solved most of those on their own, or they were never problems (at least to the degrees claimed). Democrats try to use fear to control the weak-minded as often (if not more) than Republicans -- for example: why would you need gun-control, if you didn't distrust your neighbors having guns?|
Here's the basics:
- The right's version of the left, matches many of the politicians, laws they support, voices/pundits on the left, and many of my most vocal left friends views exactly.
- The left's version of the right, matches virtually none (only the most extreme) of right wing voices/pundits/pols, and virtually none of my vocal right wing friends, or my views at all.
I'm a left leaning moderate on many issues: LGBTQ, pro-choice (1st Trimester), pro-immigration, pretty isolationist, I support some social safety nets... and that's why I'm NOT a Democrat or a lefty. My moderate positions weren't welcomed there -- but are generally well handled by the right/Republicans. Of course I have moderate leftist friends, and a couple extreme right wing ones, but those are both the exception more than the norm.
Thus while I love my gay/trans friends and family (and support Gay Marriage), I love my Christian ones too. Both have a right to their views -- and my Christian family are not homophobes just because they supported civil unions instead of gay marriage. They are not racists because they want some reasonable limits on immigration (which I agree with). Most still would protect abortion in 1st trimester -- but even the ones that believe full life begins at conception have a valid moral/medical point and aren't anti-women they're just pro-baby. It's that tolerance (or lack of it) for the other side that means I can't be a democrat any more. I fail their litmus tests and get attacked... so about 40 years ago, I figured out that I wasn't a Democrat or what the left had become. And it's only gotten worse. While I'm not a Republican, more a little-L libertarian, none of my Republican friends seem to have a problem with that and we can have adult disagreements on issues or degrees. But virtually all the vocal Democrats will try to exaggerate/misrepresent my views, if I don't agree with them enough (in degrees) on virtually any issue. Just like their pundits and politicians do. They try to convince people that it's their ways, or me (or my ilk) would create concentration camps, or create Handmaid's tale, or that I'd support Hitler because they can't tell the difference between Trump and a Socialist.
So I tend to make intellectual arguments that disagrees with both sides. The left will attack me, the right will attack the arguments. The left demands consensus and can't let things go, the right generally will. The right thinks the Democrats are wrong/extreme or dumb, while the left thinks the Republicans are minority/poor hating evil. Thus I believe many of the left (or many of them) truly believe the caricatures of the demons (straw men) they've created -- which means to be part of their clique, I have to believe that all my friends and family that disagree with them are evil? That's dumb. And it told me which side I wanted to be on. And virtually every issue that comes up confirms it.
|Issue||Left's Fear||Moderated Facts|
(Disclosure: I'm pro-choice first trimester,
|Republicans would take away a woman's choice, late term abortions are mostly done for health of the mother/baby, Roe v Wade was good law and protects a Woman's right to choose. Repealing it would outlaw abortions and make Women into chattel.||Democrats and Republicans are both split on where life begins (and abortion should be allowed), most Americans are against 3rd trimester abortions, and 99% of 3rd trimester abortions are done for reasons other than health of the mother/fetus, and Roe v. Wade was Judicial overreach, and without it, most states would still support 1st Trimester abortion (37 States had already legalized it before Roe, and many more would since): so the fight isn't about choice, it's about how viable a baby should be before we protect it from extermination.|
Trading liberty for ideology.
|Taxes, laws, regulations are the point where guys with guns will kick down your door, and take away your liberty, property or life (if you resist). In order to convince people to make these liberty suffocating things, you have to convince (and usually scare) them into believing the alternatives are worse. You have to give up free speech or people might say mean things, you have to give up guns or people might shoot other people, and anyone that doesn't agree is the enemy and trying to destroy our civilization or progress. Progress towards what is a little vague, but seems to be an authoritarian utopia. We need government thugs, or people would run amok.||If you trust your neighbors, you make guidelines, not laws/taxes. Real liberty is about debating with people, but letting them have the free will to do what they want anyways... not using the tyranny of the majority (50%+1 of votes) to force laws or authority to take away their right to do it. That's fear of what they might do. Examples: Anti-American, Anti-Americans, Backpage, Corporate Personhood & Citizens United, Democratic Tolerance, EPA, Eighteenth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, FCC, FDA, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Gun Control, Second Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and so on. Without fear, we'd have more status quo, which means less progressive successes... and more harmony.|
Facts before fantasy.
|It's so hard for the superior liberals to have an intellectual discussion with the other side, because conservatives, religion and Republicans are so illogical and anti-science that they can't be reasoned with. The right would replace science with superstition (aka Religion), so you can't trust them. The left wants progress, and the way to get it is to scare the masses into believing that if they don't change NOW, something bad will happen (usually the end of the world or civilization). They're either behind, or at least support, most of the big scares and conspiracy theories, because fear sells their agenda.||Democrats exceeds Republicans on being anti-science on the following topics: Beepocalypse, Biofuels, Black Conspiracy Theology, Carpool lanes, Corporate Personhood & Citizens United, Evolution and Creation, Gender Wage Gap, Gender is a choice, Global Cooling Scare, Green Energy, Keynes, Leftonomics, Life Begins at..., Light Rail, Nuclear Energy, Organic food fraud, Paranormal beliefs, Peak Oil Theory, Plastic Bag Bans, Recycling, Science and Religion, Secondhand Drinking, Secondhand Smoke, Smoking, Smoking and Healthcare costs, Straw Bans, The Population Bomb, Unintended Consequences, War on Science, Wind Power, and much more.|
|Climate Change||CO2 is causing the climate to warm, we’re near a tipping point: 97% of scientists say so. And the earth is doomed if we don’t accept carbon taxes, green energy and stop using fossil fuels immediately. The Green New Deal would be our salvation. Even free speech shouldn't apply to Climate change deniers, with efforts to arrest those scientists and pundits that disagree with the newspeak||The climate is changing because it’s always changing, the models are inconclusive. Science isn’t consensus and the studies that claim consensus are junk-science. Since the climate models are undeniably broken, and CO2 has been proven not to be as much of a forcing factor as expected, we’re near an all time low in global temperature, warming has historically been good for humanity, and those screaming the loudest have a history of being wrong. We need to study more before overreacting: and fossil fuels have done more to decrease pollution than to harm us. And many famous scientists think this stuff is overblown. You don't win scientific arguments through suppression of facts/arguments you don't like.|
I'm pro-environment myself,
|Republicans would destroy the planet or let Corporations do it. The Democrats just care more about the future. Look at all the examples of the end of the world: 2019.02.07 Green New Deal, Baizuo, Biggest Polluters are exempted from Climate treaties, Bike Lanes increase pollution, California Coastal Commission, California Water Crisis, Earth Day, Fracking, Gaylord Nelson, Green Energy, Hurricanes, Nuclear Energy, Paris Climate Accord, Patrick Moore, Paul R. Ehrlich, Recycling, Solar Power, Tragedy of the commons, Volkswagen emissions scandal, just to name a few.||Republicans and conservatives care about the future, that's part of why they study the mistakes and exaggerations in the past. The left's "change" often has Unintended Consequences, as well as direct impacts. Most of the left's cause of the past have been wrong or overstated. So it's our responsibility to not only help one imaginary group(s) in the future, but to think through the broader economic impacts to the entire economy/groups, not just view everything through the straw of social justice, or that all solutions must look like centralized socialist tyranny.|
National Socialist Workers Party.
|Fascism is a right-wing ideology, and the Republicans are fascists. (Other than they have nothing in common, weren't conservative, traditionalist, for individualism, separation of powers, they still had virtually nothing in common with the American right: ideologically). Fear the right, they're literally Hitler.||The National Socialists were a branch of crony-socialism and unionism called Syndicalism, they were anti-banking, believed in big-central government, high regulation and taxation, collectivism, central planning, social programs, they were for BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction the Jews), and for gun-control. You can have a hard time telling one of their speeches from the far left. Really hard.|
aka People control
|The 2A was about the militia, applied to muskets, and not allowing "reasonable" gun controls is the cause of our higher murder/crime rates, especially assault rifles, and it's all the NRA and gun-fanatics fault. You can't trust your neighbors with guns or tools of the military. Fear the tool, fear those who want guns, vilify those who defend the constitution and want to protect people from tyranny.||The militia was all men, they had fully automatic weapons in the 1700's, and it was never about muskets, we have over 55,000 gun control laws that annoy legal owners and do little to stop crime (lots to increase it), our murder/crime rates are better than most of the world, assault rifle is an invented term by people that don't understand guns, and the problem is there's no way to reason with someone who has a phobia of clowns, or that fear their neighbors having the liberty to own a gun. Both are irrational.|
Right=Equality of opportunity
|To listen to the left or SJW's, etc., you'd believe that Republicans love inequalities like slavery, the oppression of minorities and women, and they'd bring it back if they could. On all these issues the message is "fear the other side", they are out to oppress you: Fake Rape, Gender Dysphoria, Gender Wage Gap, Homophobia, Institutional Racism, Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Social Justice Warriors, Transphobia, Virtue Signaling, VoterID and Voter Fraud, War on Women, and so on. Inequality of outcome is evidence of oppression and they use that inequality to foster hate and fear those who oppose their agenda.||The reality is that both sides often agree that something should be done about some problems, they just disagree on what and how. The right wants blacks/minorities to have equal opportunities with whites, just not special advantages. The left wants equality of outcome, which is something that's impossible without publishing success and merit. Since the left loses rational arguments, they go for demonizing the other side to scare their base. Like we have to fight, "white privilege", and bury the lede that Asians and Indians outperform whites academically and economically (isn't that yellow and brown privilege?).|
|If you listen to the left, nobody stands a chance of getting ahead because the system is rigged, and everyone who disagrees with them must hate people and want to hold them down. Every issue they touch is about dividing us, and trying to teach fear of not enough government protecting us from life: Financial crisis of 2007-2008, Green Energy, Income inequality, vanishing middle class, and other scams, Keynes, Minimum Wage, New Jersey and the Economist, Obamanomics v Trumponomics, Rent Control, Socialism, The Broken Window Fallacy, The Great Depression, Trickle Down Economics, Unintended Consequences, and so on. It's all about fear.||The reality is that life is unfair. But the choice is where you want government to "redistribute" in the name of fairness (American leftism), or you think people should have free will. Countries that put politicians in charge of redistribution tend to advantage politicians/party, become more stack-ranked by political pedigree, schools, victimhood status and things other than merit. And opportunities for the non-connected tend to evaporate. So it's not fair that some people start with more advantage. But it's more unfair as trying to punish people for being that, and having political thugs decide who is worthy of what.|
|Military industrial complex
|Ike (Eisenhower) warned us about the military industrial complex, and that the military was spending all our money. If it wasn't for the war-hawks, we'd be able to spend enough on social programs to make this a utopia: that's where all of our money has gone! You need to fear the military and military spending!||Ike warned about an iron-triangle, where politicians colluded with government and industry to dupe taxpayers out of their money and liberty. Today the poverty industrial complex (Social programs) are over twice as much spending as the military at the federal level (that bigger when you add state and local), and military spending as a fraction of our budget has come way down since Ike. Most of our money is being wasted on poorly administered wealth redistribution failures, and worse run Socialists Medicine, that not only didn't achieve their goals, but made the problems they touched worse.|
|Progressives||Progressives see other progressives as good (by ignoring all the ways they aren't). They see those that resisted progress as bad, luddites, or vile (by ignoring the ways they aren't). They teach their side to fear the other side: Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Trump were all like Hitler, or dangerously unstable. (Lookup the Goldwater Rule). They know their side is morally superior, because they scare their base about the opposition. Any deeper glance at their side shows some rather unsavory behaviors from the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Martin Luther King Jr., Margaret Sanger, and a rapid emotional (fearful?) attacks on anyone that points out their flaws.||There's no moral high ground in taking other people's property, keeping a cut, and giving a percentage to your cronies or constituents. Teddy was a blowhard war-monger. Wilson was a racist pawn of corporate interests. FDR was one of more corrupt Presidents and nasty human being. MLK was a philander and a hypocrite. Margaret Sanger was a vile eugenicist. And so on. The world is a lot more nuanced, and people a lot more complex than the caricatures painted by leftist historians. But if they told the truth, their voters might not fear the alternatives as much. If you doubt it, point out inconvenient truths and see if they can accept them, or they attack.|
|The pussy protest was a march of bigots: the stupid or the evil. The leadership and the media screamed how Trump was going to round up Women, Gays and Minorities, with symbolism such as Hitler, Handmaidens tale, and so on. They got millions of gullible rubes to dress as vaginas, or just act like intolerant cunts, and protest... far-left hate hags having apoplexy over not getting their way in election.||Trump of course has done none of the things they promised. He's actually fairly moderate. The protestors on the other hand were lead by anti-semites, and intolerant bigots that prevented pro-life women from marching, blocked conservative groups, and were protesting over losing an election: the wanted to end democracy because they didn't get their way. They used the tool of blatant hypocrisy to convince those paying attention that they were role models: for how not to.|
|Robert E. Lee||To the left, Lincoln (and his General Grant) was a great guy that ended Slavery. Lee was the guy that opposed it. In this 4th grade view of the world, Lee personifies slavery, and anyone that would put up a Statue to pay tribute to Lee, or not demand the removal and denounce him, must be a pro-Slavery racist bigot (they're everywhere, be very afriad).||The informed know that Lincoln offered to let the South keep slaves if they came back. Lee had given up his slaves at the beginning of the war, and denounced the institution. (Grant kept his slaves to the end). We owe Arlington National Cemetery to Lee: do we need to destroy that too? And the war of Southern Independence was a lot more complex than just slavery... and sadly, the Constitution lost.|
|The Jungle||Upton Sinclair was a great investigative journalist who went undercover in Chicago meat packing plants, and discovered gross, unsanitary conditions that lead to disease. When he exposed this, we created the FDA and made the world a better place. Fear a world without big-government protecting us with benevolent bureaucracy.||A failing socialist author wanted to write a political propaganda book, and semi-fictional hit piece called, "The Jungle". While it was debunked at the time, pro-Government types used it as an excuse to create the precursor to the FDA, which has become a boondoggle that's killed or hurt more people than it has helped, or the alternatives.|
|War||Democrats start most of our wars (either through action or inaction), then want to blame it on the other side. Bush Lied, Iraq was over Oil or was never a threat, Saddam was our guy, North Vietnamese just wanted peace, Israel started it, we didn't need to use the bomb Japan. The Democrats did (or supported) most of that, then want to play innocent and blame the other side, and convince the gullible that the other side. JFK got us closer to nuclear war than any other President, but the Republicans might get us nuked. Everything is about fear the militant right, while the truth is a strong military makes the other side more willing to negotiate in good faith.||One of the reasons the left is thought to be Anti-American has to do with selective hypocrisy on American Wars. They might cheer for the War at the start (especially if Democrat Presidents are for it).... but then they undermine American interests and support our enemies in the end. Virtually all negative (and incorrect) war tropes have leftists at the forefront of the cause with a megaphone, and often Soviets or other American-hating backers behind them. Years or decades later when you show their trope was false all along, they deny, make excuses, or attack anyone for defending the facts.|
- 1 Conclusion
- 1.1 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
- 1.2 , , , , , , , , , , , and so on.
- 1.3 • • • • • • • • • • • • •
- 1.4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
- 1.5 • • • • • • • • •
- 1.6 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
- 1.7 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Are you getting the point?
Of course I don't think either party or political philosophy is saintly. Politicians and manipulators in general know to use the "fear of other" to get people to align with them. Heck 6 year old girls will use, "Sally doesn't like you, you should be my friend instead" as this kind of manipulation. So while you can say that both parties use it, or you can admit the left uses it more (as it is a critical tool required to get change), what you can't rationally do, is claim that the right is the party of fear, and uses it more than the left does. But the left rarely has logic, history and facts on their side or they'd use them more in their arguments
Their first attack against articles like this, is not to point-by-point refute it (the logical tack), it's to attack the source (me), or try some emotional appeal -- which proves my point. They are more susceptible to emotional appeals, as demonstrated why they go there more often. They also appeal to the younger, disenfranchised, outsiders, and use division to their advantage more -- those groups are more susceptible to conspiracy theories and tribalism. So of course the left is going to use what works for them. And like most of their arguments, they won't admit that's what they are doing, so they resort to The Big Lie™ and blame the other side is doing what they're doing as a way to distract from what they're doing. And the gullible buy in. If it didn't work, they wouldn't use it.... and their party would be a fraction the size it is. In fact, their biggest problem is once the left opens their eyes to the techniques the left uses, they often leave the party (or at least become more centrist).