An interesting article : "Why do Liberals bleed"

[Buzzcook]

Paradigms change. I've never seen someone go liberal, it may happen but I've never seen it. I've known mild liberals who've gone off the deep (communist) end at liberal colleges. On a few occasions I've seen adults and young adults go conservative, but never the other way around.

Perhaps you should read this then

http://www.amazon.com/Blinded-Right-.../dp/0812930991

Following the link Antipas provides gives me more confidence in my belief that this is conservative posing as a former liberal.

Take this gem.

He informed me that I'm getting more attention from liberals, though not the venerating kind. Luckily, he spares me the real ugly missives (the main reason, by the way, that I don't post my email address;

First, what adult, let alone a person in a college town doesn't know how to set up a separate Gmail or yahoo mail account just for the purpose of getting junk or hate mail?
Second that she feels the need to be protected by her editor and trusts him to be her filter is simply unbelievable for anyone with liberal credentials. Fear of hate mail is not something we would expect from a modern adult.
It's not as if she's going to be getting thousands of missives by posting on a small conservative web site.

Then there is this. Emphasis mine.

Most of the nastygrams are in the form of trolls. The concept of "trolling" is news to me, as is everything these days.

Please, she is unfamiliar with trolls and trolling? Is it possible for anyone to have been on the web for any length of time without understanding the concept? I say no. The author is over playing the role of naif a bit much.
This is from someone that supposedly is old enough to remember the Vietnam war.

These quotes are from this article.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._liberals.html

After the above quotes she trots out the old chestnut "Bush derangement syndrome".
The author hits conservative talking points with a hammer through out. This less than a year after her come to Jesus moment. Wouldn't one expect that there would be at least a vestige of liberal beliefs remaining? Is it believable that within that short time frame someone would so completely internalize so many rightwing talking points?

I am a liberal and have been all my adult life. Given the information I've gleaned from the various articles I've read, the author and I are about the same age, grew up in the same socio-economic strata, and have about the same level of education.
By the time I was 40 my life experience and education had pretty much confirmed for me that liberalism was the better political philosophy of the options available. Certainly with new information I might (and have) changed my perspective on specific issues. But to abandon the whole framework would be absurd.

Ask yourself if there is one incident that would make you abandon everything you believe.

[Doc Intrepid]

Buzz,

I would think that that might depend on the foundational beliefs upon which the rest of my belief system depends.

If, for example, I truly believed that mankind was fundamentally good, and that humans were not inherently prone to acting in their own best interest in all things, but instead acted in moral and ethical ways as a near-instinctual response, I might be shattered to discover that this was not so - especially if the price I paid for the discovery was dear.

Doc

[Doc Intrepid]

Uncle Billy --

Let us place things in context.

The article posted by the OP noted examples of violent behavior, which were (purportedly) responded to with observations that the perpetrator of the violence was a victim as well.

My comments were in response to a poster who noted "..."liberal" is defined by straw-man positions that have little to do with what most people on the left actually believe."

My statements offered my opinion that, based on having discussed the matter with folks who define themselves as liberals, it has freqently been my observation that they do indeed regard perpetrators as not entirely responsible for their own actions. In this respect, at least, the author's experiences appeared to substantiate my own.

With respect to your comments, then --

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

"...the tacit accusation that liberals excuse such behavior from society's actions to bring justice and/or actions protect itself is also a stereotypically uninformed judgment of liberal ideology.

Are you saying that such an analysis is inaccurate and a pile of liberal baloney and so has no credibility?"

I will make no claim to understand "liberal ideology". As Buzzcook noted, I am uncertain that anything such as one discrete, monolithic "liberal ideology" may be said to exist.

But I will offer two opinions. First, it is intellectually dishonest to claim an empirically-proven conclusion, when that conclusion is insufficient. To be credible, 'liberal analysis' must explain why the same conditions that "cause criminality" do not do so universally. Why do some individuals from deprived and marginalized environments NOT become criminals?

If 'liberal analysis' is to prove a valid 'cause/effect' relationship between economic & social marginalization => criminal behavior, it must address the matter more thoroughly. I reject a conclusion that any of us are not responsible for the choices we make and our own behavior.

Second, and more to the point, (IMO) such an analysis is irrelevant.

A lesson many learn in maturity is that there are things one may control, and things that lie outside of one's control. In any population bell curve, there will be individuals who fall more than three standard deviations from the mean. Social remedies are unlikely to be perfectly effective in resolving all instances of violent criminal behavior. In the abstract I would support efforts to better the lives of my fellow citizens, however, I would not expect that such efforts would be universally effective.

Therefore, should I suddenly be confronted with a mortal threat, I do not care why my attacker is motivated to behave in such a manner. The fact that he was deprived in childhood is irrelevant, as are any other facts regarding his poor education, his poor job skills, and that fact that he may have made poor life choices for any of a number of reasons.

Why he is assaulting me is irrelevant.

The fact that I am being assaulted, however, may be something that falls within the sphere of things over which I have some control, and I prepare accordingly.

JMHO. YMMV.

Doc
'

[LouPran]

I think you're all over thinking this thread and certainly turning it from the intended message which had more to do with losing the victim mentality and taking up personal responsibility.

As I said ... her first story (IF TRUE) Tells the tale of her transformation to becoming a conservative. BUT That isn't what the thread is about. It was about a gun ownership mentality transformation.

I can see though this thread is now destined for close as some continue to opine the legitimacy of her political affiliation.

A fairly wise psychoanalyst once said ... sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[elkman06]

Interesting read about a "liberal" conversion or revelation as the case may be.

Being slightly left of center myself, I am one of those confused people to some on the right. Some used to be called Blue Dog Democrat, etc. It's interesting to me since I have a rather far left daughter, in college. I have teased her for sometime about being my little femi-nazi.
All that being said, we got into a conversation a while back about registration, her position being that she would hope for solid registration, playing toward my fatherly instincts about the possible tragedy of her rape and or murder and the inablility to track the perp. My only reply was that the real tragedy would be my failing to train her in situational awareness and her ability to defend herself in all situations. I was rather surprised that this completely made sense to her. She didn't debate it anymore. Interesting too since she is on the university debate squad, travelling nationally and being very exposed the the "Left" more than the average person. She simply shut up. We also were out putting about 300 rounds through her 9mm the next day. All in all, I know the values that she has and where she will be in years to come concerning these issues.
To whomever said it, take a liberal shooting, train them in the value of it, go ahead and play upon their common sense to make your point. It seems to work.
elkman06

[markj]

we don't need a left vs. right or a democrat vs. republican or conservative vs. progressive or pink vs. blue or communist vs. patriot or red vs. blue or anything like that. We need to all just be Americans and debate issues and problems as Americans, instead of as some arbitrary side.

I also feel this way. Devisive politics are not what we as a country needs. We are all in this boat so we all need to work together or we sill sink as a country. I keep thinking to win divide your foe, so who is really wanting America to be divided and conqored?

Cant we fire all of them and start over with a new bunch?

[Uncle Billy]

Originally Posted by Doc Intrepid

First, it is intellectually dishonest to claim an empirically-proven conclusion, when that conclusion is insufficient. To be credible, 'liberal analysis' must explain why the same conditions that "cause criminality" do not do so universally. Why do some individuals from deprived and marginalized environments NOT become criminals?

...and why do some individuals not from deprived and marginalized environments become criminals? If there is no link recognized except an absolute one- such as if all marginalized people were criminals and no non-marginalized people were, which is ludicrous, then nothing is known until all is known, and that, while ideal, is impossible and useless because it stalls the expansion of understanding. Finding a "conclusion" only in absolutes (all or none) when that's not what the situation presents, and ignoring less-than-absolute data is poor reasoning. There is plenty to learn from less-than-absolute data- the discoveries of science come from less than absolute, less than total data.

It isn't invalid to draw expectations from data and experience (empiricism) and rate how strong the expectations are, that's how science is done- it calls its expectations "theories"and virtually every part of our understanding of the mechanics of the universe is expressed as a "theory". For instance, on Earth one reasonably expects a thing to fall if it isn't supported, which supports the theory of Universal Gravitation (Isaac Newton devised that theory but called it a "law", a term modern science finds to be too absolute and so calls it a "theory". Science is very skeptical and cynical about proofs of things and won't jump to conclusions or call things "absolute" without meeting a nearly impossible standard of proof. It's comfortable with "probabilities" of varying certainty which lead to predictions of corresponding certainty).

The only way to disprove that theory is for there to be 2 adjacent masses that don't draw on each other, and that requires putting all the masses in existence next to each other one a time and seeing that there are none among all of them that don't attract each other. That of course is impossible, but there is virtually no expectation of 2 masses not pulling on each other in human-scale events. Nonetheless, absent being able to do that and thus shadowing the certainty of the principle, modern science calls the operating principle a "theory".

It's science that speaks of the link between marginalized circumstances and crime, using the data at hand, and puts forth a theory of there being a connection, which is supported by the human psychological mechanisms that construct attitudes from experiences. The numbers show that deprived and marginalized environments, as you call them, produce more crime than do non-marginalized and resourceful environments- you know, the poor parts of town that you don't go into unless you're CCW which you don't need to do as certainly in other parts of town. The data show that when people are able to better their circumstances they tend to be less criminal; if they grow up in stable, nuclear families with some minimum of resources, they tend to be less anti-social than if they grew up in lesser circumstances.

I reject a conclusion that any of us are not responsible for the choices we make and our own behavior.
...
Why he is assaulting me is irrelevant.

I entirely agree. Why one performs criminal acts, and what those acts are and how society responds to them, are two different things. Read what I wrote again- I wrote "...But that isn't to say they weren't guilty for what they did and thus should escape justice and/or society's actions to protect itself from their behavior. You seem to be claiming that the factors you list are only "excuses" that liberals use to decriminalize anti-social behavior rather than relevant "causes" ...the tacit accusation that liberals excuse such behavior from society's actions to bring justice and/or actions protect itself is also a stereotypically uninformed judgment of liberal ideology."

If you aren't accusing "liberals" of pandering to criminals with your recitation of what you've heard "liberals" say about the sources of crime, then what was your purpose in quoting them?

[Doc Intrepid]

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

"If you aren't accusing "liberals" of pandering to criminals with your recitation of what you've heard "liberals" say about the sources of crime, then what was your purpose in quoting them?"

Forgive my repeating myself:

My comments were in response to a poster who noted "..."liberal" is defined by straw-man positions that have little to do with what most people on the left actually believe."

My statements offered my opinion that, based on having discussed the matter with folks who define themselves as liberals, it has freqently been my observation that they do indeed regard perpetrators as not entirely responsible for their own actions. In this respect, at least, the author's experiences appeared to substantiate my own.

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

"I entirely agree. Why one performs criminal acts, and what those acts are and how society responds to them, are two different things."

It's gratifying that we agree, fundamentally, on personal responsibility for one's actions forming an important philosophical foundation.

I suspect that if we were having a discussion of this nature over coffee, we might find that we agree more frequently than we disagree. Perhaps not.

Ultimately my opinions are not the focus of the thread. Clearly I find repugnant any response to a victim of a violent attack which is dismissive of the personal indignity or harm the victim suffered, and instead notes that the perpetrator is a victim too.

But the focus of this thread was the essay posted by the OP. My participation in the thread was to contribute my opinion that whether the author of the essay (Robin of Berkeley) is or is not a "liberal" or "recovering liberal", regardless, IMO she did indeed capture in her essay the essence of a paradigm that other self-proclaimed liberals have in fact expressed to me.

Regards,

Doc

[BillCA]

Once I read that she'd been assaulted and robbed, her diatribe almost perfectly fit the old adage...

A liberal is a conservative who has not yet been mugged.

Her message dovetails well with the experiences I've had with "liberal-left" thinkers who have experienced a personal assault.

So did her statement about being in the back-seat and daddy driving and protecting.

I won't relate to you the long story of "T", a young Berkeley student I knew in the 80's. Suffice it to say that the day a young gangsta type punched her in the face and dragged her into the bushes to rape her, formed a cruicial turning point in her thought processes.

It was hard for her to adjust because suddenly the world contained more threats than she could deal with all at once (her opinion). Her ideology today is more that of a libertarian than "conservative". She says she "woke up" to the harsh reality of the world all at once. Now she can't stand the thinking of her former classmates (the few who didn't abandon her).

[MTT TL]

Ask yourself if there is one incident that would make you abandon everything you believe.

There are. But I am open minded.

Extremists tend to have made up their minds and have no interest in examination of facts that challenge their world POV. This indicates failure to continue growing as a person. The more extreme the more suspicious they are about things that do not conform to their world POV.

For example, a life long "liberal" who "converts" to "conservatism"? Pee-shaw, obviously a fraud.... she must be outed. Let us build up "evidence" to disprove her as a person rather than examine the beliefs and why they became such. I imagine the same would be true if the opposite occurred.

[Uncle Billy]

Originally Posted by Doc Intrepid

Clearly I find repugnant any response to a victim of a violent attack which is dismissive of the personal indignity or harm the victim suffered, and instead notes that the perpetrator is a victim too.

If it's your contention that liberals cannot speak of the perpetrator as a victim of his circumstances without concurrently dismissing the harm he has done to the one he victimized, then you've got a lot to learn about liberal thought. That's the sort of thoughtless assumption that's typical of conservative "reasoning".

If, for example, I truly believed that mankind was fundamentally good, and that humans were not inherently prone to acting in their own best interest in all things, but instead acted in moral and ethical ways as a near-instinctual response, I might be shattered to discover that this was not so - especially if the price I paid for the discovery was dear.

That so oversimplifies and misunderstands liberal thought that it's clear there's nearly a total absence of understanding it.

But it's typical of conservative ideologues to be 100% positive they know what liberals think and only about 0.02% correct. The entire theme of the OP's essay is flawed with that assumption, which clearly shows what "she" wrote to be a conservative fabrication because it misunderstands a true liberal's perspectives. But other conservatives buy it as truth because they are equally out to lunch about the nature of liberal thought and ideology, and how a liberal would handle having been mugged, beginning with the certainty that they wouldn't abandon ALL of their liberal values. They might decide to arm themselves in their own defense, which has happened much, much more often than conservatives could be comfortable with, and not always requiring a mugging first. You'll find a large number of such people here on this forum- the debate about the NRA's evangelical neo-conservative identity and how that misrepresents a large and growing number of gun enthusiasts, the poll on whether Fox Network is fair and unbalanced, and other threads here indicate a lot more participants with liberal values than the conservatives here would expect, and it's clear they don't like it.

If you think that "a liberal is a conservative who has not yet been mugged", you've way overestimated the effects and made a hopeful but wholly inaccurate assessment of the result of being mugged. It's reasonable to suggest that "an anti-gun perspective is really a pro-self-defense perspective that hasn't been mugged", but a broader change in attitudes than that is a hopeful conservative fantasy. As Buzz wrote, "...Certainly with new information I might (and have) changed my perspective on specific issues. But to abandon the whole framework would be absurd. Ask yourself if there is one incident that would make you abandon everything you believe." Not likely, conservatism is totally without any appeal that would induce a liberal to convert to its principles and prejudices.

[Doc Intrepid]

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

"If it's your contention that liberals cannot speak of the perpetrator as a victim of his circumstances without concurrently dismissing the harm he has done to the one he victimized, then you've got a lot to learn about liberal thought. That's the sort of thoughtless assumption that's typical of conservative "reasoning".

Uncle Billy,

Let us focus for a moment -- I personally am not contending anything. I am responding to a statement in the essay posted by the OP, the 13th paragraph from the top, where the author (Robin of Berkeley) writes:

Originally Posted by Robin of Berkeley

"Witness the response of a left wing friend, Judy, when I told her I was mugged. She said, and I quote, "I don't think what you went through was so bad. And anyway he was a victim too." (Maybe it's a good thing I wasn't armed back then.)"

It would appear, unless the entire essay is nothing but someone's fantasy, that a "left wing friend" who lives in Berkeley manifested a disregard for the victim of a mugging, and simultaneously expressed a belief that the perpetrator was a victim as well.

I contend absolutely nothing about "liberal thought" as a result of this episode (assuming it occurred). It is my opinion, however, that that's a pretty cold response for a "friend".

I personally would find such a response "repugnant" because it seemingly transfers personal responsibility for the harm caused from the person who violently assaulted the author to some ambiguous, vague 'other factors'.

Candidly I do not consider my response to be either 'conservative' or 'liberal'. It would seem to me that a more friendly response would have been to comfort the person who was bleeding, commiserate with them, and support any acts they might take to regain a feeling of personal power after having been violated...but that's just my definition of "friendship".

It is certainly true that studies link disadvantaged backgrounds and crime, no doubt, but I suspect - based on your posts above - we would agree that just because a criminal's background is disadvantaged, this does not excuse the fact that the criminal chose to commit a violent crime. (But I could be reading into your posts here...please let me know if I'm mistaken.)

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

"...it's typical of conservative ideologues to be 100% positive they know what liberals think and only about 0.02% correct. The entire theme of the OP's essay is flawed with that assumption, which clearly shows what "she" wrote to be a conservative fabrication because it misunderstands a true liberal's perspectives."

Because, as you may have guessed, I am not a true liberal, it is entirely possible that I misunderstand a true liberal's perspectives. (My wife reminds me frequently of the depth and breadth of the many issues I misunderstand.)

If Robin of Berkeley's essay, posted by the OP, is flawed by a similar misunderstanding, I confess it escapes me. I would be grateful if you would provide me with a true liberal's perspective (within the limitations of this medium, of course - I understand we're talking thumbnail sketches).

What are a true liberal's perspectives with regard to violent criminals, victims of violent crime, and society?

[Uncle Billy]

The simplest answer to all of this is to realize the OP essay is an obvious and oversimplified fabrication by a conservative author who has tried to write of the conversion of someone with liberal ideologies (and by implication ALL liberals) to one of conservative ideologies as the result of one negative experience and the dialogue of one thoughtless liberal (and by implication ALL liberals) using inaccurate conservative stereotypes of liberals, a clear misunderstanding of the passion with which representative liberals hold their views, the dumb assumption that everyone with liberal ideologies is concurrently anti-gun and anti-gun rights, and that changing one's mind on one issue from a typical stereotypical liberal slant to a stereotypical conservative one infers similarly changing their views on all issues and would include simplistic conservative derision and crude oversimplification and characterization of "the Left".

Thus this fairy tale is unrealistic, based on a consummate misunderstanding of liberal thought and those who hold with it, and representative only as a catalog of how inaccurately this conservative author understands those he obviously hates.

Any conservatives who believe this to be an accurate representation of the juxtaposition of "liberal" and "conservative" is equally uninformed and deluded. It makes a pleasing story for those of conservative ideologies anyway, because it fits with all their misconceptions and misunderstandings and paints a derisive, dismissive picture of "the Left" that, while amusing to "the Right" shows them to be out to lunch about their political and social opposites.

[maestro pistolero]

Thus this fairy tale is unrealistic, based on a consummate misunderstanding of liberal thought and those who hold with it, and representative only as a catalog of how inaccurately this conservative author understands those he obviously hates.

Interesting analysis, but I think he is a she.

[MTT TL]

The simplest answer to all of this is to realize the OP essay is an obvious and oversimplified fabrication by a conservative author who has tried to write of the conversion of someone with liberal ideologies (and by implication ALL liberals) to one of conservative ideologies as the result of one negative experience and the dialogue of one thoughtless liberal (and by implication ALL liberals) using inaccurate conservative stereotypes of liberals, a clear misunderstanding of the passion with which representative liberals hold their views, the dumb assumption that everyone with liberal ideologies is concurrently anti-gun and anti-gun rights, and that changing one's mind on one issue from a typical stereotypical liberal slant to a stereotypical conservative one infers similarly changing their views on all issues and would include simplistic conservative derision and crude oversimplification and characterization of "the Left".

You would also have to disprove the existence of Ted Turner and John Paul Stevens. Watching TBS and reading some of JJPS rulings kind of define simplistic liberal ideologies, as well as a crude oversimplification of the right.

[Buzzcook]

You would also have to disprove the existence of Ted Turner and John Paul Stevens.

Well no, you see Turner and Stevens are verifiably real as a quick look at the googles would show you. The same can not be said by the author of the article in question. Stevens and Turner do not claim to be converts and the don't claim special knowledge about conservatives.

I have no problem with right wing polemics. I don't like the masquerade which is the only thing which gives the argument any currency.
Since the only way to verify the bonafides of the author is through deconstruction of her or his work, that is what I and other posters have done.

I have come to the conclusion that the author is false.
You might have come to a different conclusion. If so then perhaps you could argue the point? For instance the author makes assertions that she claims are universal, assertions that I say are not. Perhaps you would like to prove the universality of those statements.

[Uncle Billy]

If you've read my deconstruction of the essay and think I've erred in my analysis, then show where my errors are. That story only has traction with conservatives who haven't objectively tried to understand what liberal ideology is and instead settle for simplistic, derisive stereotypes and find significance in a story made from them that ought to begin "Once upon a time..." and end with "... and I lived happily ever after".

[Mike Irwin]

I don't think it's of any value to know if the author actually exists.

The contents of the article are what is important, and it mirrors examples of the "dawning of enlightenment" that I have seen over the years in liberals AND conservatives both over personal hot button issues.

[Uncle Billy]

The "dawning of enlightenment" in this case seems to have come from a traumatic event which unbalanced the victim and generated the need for a cathartic vent of negative emotions expressed in generalities and seeded by confusion and a loss of a solid base from which to relate to the world. The rest of this essay is consistent with that suggestion.

The paragraph that says "But, I am rethinking absolutely everything. There is not a single thing that I believed, that I held absolute and holy, that is not up for grabs. My brain is in a tizzy 24/7 and I don't know if up is down, or if east is west." speaks of someone who has lost their footing and are reaching for answers, for a restoration of some internal solidarity to believe in, someone who is in deep uncertainty and without anything to believe in.

In that sense, if there is a Robin, I see her to be a victim of the physical crime against her she spoke of, and a victim of loosing her center in the rage, fear and uncertainty it generated. This essay reads like the entries in a journal, which is one of the therapies recommended for people trying to sort out something of great impact on them- been there, done that, and it works. If Robin is really a psychotherapist she's familiar with that therapy.

But the oversimplified generalities, emotional suppositions and derision heaped on liberals and liberal ideology that pours out of the essay, which make it sound like a simple fiction, seems to indicate where it came from is midstream in her trip from fear, anger and self-questioning that brings negative answers, to confidence in the accuracy of her view of her relationship with the world and what the truths are. I hope she's smarter than to stop with such generalities, inaccurate suppositions and group-centered identities, especially if she expects to be a competent psychotherapist. There's a danger in the inaccurate stereotypes of liberal ideology and oversimplified generalities of its tenets becoming permanent, which would pretty much put her out of a job in Berkeley.

The last paragraph: "As I continue on the path to independence and personal responsibility, perhaps looking to myself for protection is another step on my journey." indicates she's still not at ease yet, and that she's discovered a truth that isn't incompatible with the reasoned out and reasonable parts of liberal ideology, which she'll discover when she comes out from under her confusion and doubt.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

To me, the issue of whether she is real or not is irrelevant. The issue for me is "Does her article convince anybody who wasn't already convinced?"

I don't see it as being effective in that regard. It may make some people who were already convinced feel good about their choices; but I don't think it will have any significant impact in making other people consider their opposition to the Second Amendment or self-defense in general.

[Mike Irwin]

Enlightenment often arrives on the heels of a crisis or traumatic event.

Why?

Because a crisis or traumatic event, by its very nature, destroys the status quo and forces an individual to face the new and unexpected and to think about personal beliefs in ways that probably were never broached before.

[zukiphile]

...we don't need a left vs. right or a democrat vs. republican or conservative vs. progressive or pink vs. blue or communist vs. patriot or red vs. blue or anything like that. We need to all just be Americans and debate issues and problems as Americans, instead of as some arbitrary side.

This assumes that the divisions you describe are arbitrary. I think the values people bring to issues are not arbitrary but pivotal.

The people that hate guns aren't democrats or communists or pinkies or leftists or whatever: the people that hate guns are generally the pig headed and the uneducated. That doesn't mean that the other camp (of which I assume we all belong, which is a much better educated guess than to assume all of us on here are "conservative") doesn't have its pigheaded. We need to unite under issues and specific problems, not some banner that's marked by a political party.

Why?

I would caution against assuming that people whose conclusion you do not share do so primarily from ignorance. To paraphrase RWR, it isn't what we do not know that gets us in trouble; it's what we do know, but are wrong about. You can be very smart, but still have values and socialisation that turn you away from valuing the role of armed individuals in a society.

If a you only mean that people are ignorant and "pig-headed" generally ab out everything, I concur generally but don't think it sheds light on this issue specifically.

But my major point is this: who the hell cares if you're left or right, what matters is the issues. You can be pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-welfare and still support troops, as such: you can be pro-life, anti-gun, anti-welfare and still support troops or any combinations of the options. Either way: you're still American. This article just further pigeonholes gun owners as one side vs. the other in the "left vs. right" debate.

It seems only reasonable to note who usually stands with you and who against. It doesn't make them an enemy necessarily, but it does indicate some underlying difference that can be interesting to address and useful to identify.

[zukiphile]

I am intrigued by the impulse to label the author a fraud simply because she has a recent history of writing from a perspective critical of the reform liberal american tradition.

As for the OP- She's a liberal no longer (if she ever was one at all, and I'll bet Berkeley was picked because it was thought to be the epicenter of liberalism about 40 years ago), and not much of a psychologist either, which is probably also a fraud. It sounds way too much like it was written by someone of neo-conservative emotions (I'm reluctant to call them "ideas") and is a sham, a fiction whose purpose is to denigrate "liberal" perspectives for the entertainment of non-liberals in a blatant performance of "preaching to the choir".

A neo-conservative, i.e. someone new to conservatism, will generally be a former liberal. These people often consider themselves to still be essentially liberal, but with an asterisk. No mystery there. Neo-conservatives include Irving Kristol and Bill Bennett. The pattern ordinarily involves a sort of loss of faith or community with a liberal orthodoxy.

Only those who hate liberals and really don't objectively understand what they stand for would take it seriously.

Or people who used to be liberals and have come to reject all or part of their framework. Ever talk to a militant anti-smoker? They are routinely former smokers. David Horowitz was a red-diaper baby. It is an often observed phenomenon.

Upon reading the catalog of stuff that comes up on taking that link to "American Thinker", it seems to me it ought to be called "Neo-Conservative American Non-thinker", but that's redundant.

That's nice. Is it possible that the author feels the same sort of passion about her former views that you feel about her current position?

Taking a discussion of ideas very personally is not usually a good idea, but that can be difficult where those ideas have personal significance.

[MTT TL]

Stevens and Turner do not claim to be converts and the don't claim special knowledge about conservatives.

Actually Stevens claims to be a reformed conservative now libertarian but his rulings and decisions put him firmly in the socialist style left. Turner claimed to be a conservative till he married Jane Fonda then claimed to be a liberal but most of his recent statements and gifts to the UN place him firmly in the far left too. I guess Turner could be a neo-con but I don't even know what that really means?

Ever talk to a militant anti-smoker? They are routinely former smokers. David Horowitz was a red-diaper baby. It is an often observed phenomenon.

How about a recently born again Christian? No one proselytizes more than a convert.

If you've read my deconstruction of the essay and think I've erred in my analysis, then show where my errors are

You are attacking the arguer and not the argument. I think we have made that pretty apparent.

To me, the issue of whether she is real or not is irrelevant.

For me it is relevant. If the story of the writer is indeed not true than the argument begins with a lie. Fruit of the poisoned tree and all that.

But the oversimplified generalities, emotional suppositions and derision heaped on liberals and liberal ideology that pours out of the essay, which make it sound like a simple fiction, seems to indicate where it came from is midstream in her trip from fear, anger and self-questioning that brings negative answers, to confidence in the accuracy of her view of her relationship with the world and what the truths are. I hope she's smarter than to stop with such generalities, inaccurate suppositions and group-centered identities, especially if she expects to be a competent psychotherapist. There's a danger in the inaccurate stereotypes of liberal ideology and oversimplified generalities of its tenets becoming permanent, which would pretty much put her out of a job in Berkeley.

Of course they are oversimplified. Same as how the left paints the right. Check out the Doonesbury cartoons of the Starbucks open carriers. At least as a cartoon it is a "honest" lampoon. But the garbage spilled forth by the political hacks and media spokesmen are not. Sort of like the liberal media's intentional attempt to disguise the racial identity of the open carrier of the rifle at the Obama rally as black.

[SigP6Carry]

Alright, Zukiphile, explain to me why lines drawn concerning State power vs. Federal power has anything to do with gun control, abortion, environmental laws and welfare? That's what I mean. It's fine if you adhere to the "Republican mindset," but the issues aren't all based in what Republican v. Democrat means, that's what I'm saying. That we shouldn't split the community that way, when (on this forum) we're obviously all for gun-owners rights.