Search Box

Sunday, October 30, 2016

A basic difference between Right and Left

I was recently criticized for not being positive enough about Trump, and Trump's chances on November 8th. It's true, I was probably paying too much attention to the polls, which are turning out to simply be another branch of the mainstream media.

But it got me to thinking: virtually every Trump supporter I've spoken to who's going to vote for Trump has been willing to concede his shortcomings: he's boorish, vengeful, egotistical, inarticulate, etc. And often, when they say they're going to vote for him, they'll say something like, "Listen, I know the guy's a jerk, but the country needs a change."

Yet almost no one who's going to vote for Hillary concedes anything about her. The most they'll say is something like, "Well, I'm not that crazy about her, but we can't have Trump as President!" But they'll almost never go into specifics about why they're not crazy about her.

I've heard people say I'm voting for Trump, but I sure wish he'd stay off Twitter."

I've never heard anybody say, "I'm voting for Hillary, I just wish she'd stop lying all the time."

I've heard things like, "I'm for Trump, but it's frustrating to watch him in the debates, he's sure got a limited vocabulary. And really, the guy's sort of a pompous jerk."

I've never heard, "I'm for Hillary, but geez, she sure comes across like a strident harridan."

People who support Trump will say, "Yeah, he's guilty of hyperbole, and he shouldn't have wasted his time going after the Khans and Alicia Machado. But I'm in favor of enforcing our borders and trying to keep American business from exporting jobs, so......"

But you'll never hear a Democrat say, "Yeah, I know she's corrupt, I mean she's been that way ever since she took that cattle futures trading bribe back in Arkansas, but I support her policies."

This is a basic difference between Right and Left. People on the Right are generally more willing to look at both sides of an issue, and both sides of their candidate. People on the Left simply turn a blind eye to anything which doesn't fit their viewpoint.

People who are willing to admit fault are open-minded. People who refuse to consider the possibility that something might be amiss with their side are close-minded.

How ironic that the latter group is the one which constantly congratulates itself for its "open-mindedness."

And never admitting faults (of their own, or their side) certainly fits with the idea that Social Justice Warriors tend to be narcissistic.


Anonymous said...

I just typed "I'm voting for Hillary but" into Twitter and what you say isn't strictly true. There are people going in about her emails, for example:

I do see what you mean though about the Left being unwilling to criticise their own politicians. Everyone on the Centre or the Right knew Ed Milliband was never going to be voted UK Prime Minister, and he was indeed slaughtered at the election. Instead of replacing him with someone charismatic who had a chance, they deluded themselves that he could win. They're doing exactly the same now with Jeremy Corbyn, who is on course to lead Labour to a crushing defeat in 2020. I reckon it's psychological projection: they think Corbyn has a chance so they assume everyone else does too.

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
I just typed those same five words into Google but didn't get anything like that, at least on the first page. It was all "why I'm voting for Hillary"-type stuff.

It may be partly psychological projection, but I'd analyze a lot of it as just plain narcissism. They're just not the types to admit that anything is wrong with them or their candidate.

Rifleman said...

Pathological Lying

Lucian Lafayette said...

To some extent, you are also seeing the logic driven versus emotion driven sides of the population. The extreme case of this is the "hate" charge where statements of policy disagreement are called "hate" by the lib/progs. They can't quantify any shortcomings with their candidate because their world doesn't exist in measurable objective values but feelings.

John Craig said...

Rifleman --
Ha! That's great, someone put Hillary's picture up there. I wondered how long that would last before someone took it down, and just Googled "pathological lying Wikipedia" and the regular article, at least, no longer has her picture. But it was a nice touch while it lasted.

John Craig said...

Luke --
Good point. And that's partly why women favor Hillary whereas men favor Trump. I've always been very leery of that "hate" charge, though, and have always seen it much more as a matter of projection. I see far more of that emotion emanating from the Left and the Right.

Anonymous said...

Good observation.

Here’s another thing I’ve noticed – I’ve yet to talk to any Hillary person who will even mention one policy reason they’re voting for her.


John Craig said...

Ed --
Good point, I've found the same. You're far more likely to hear something to the effect of, "Oh, we can't have that horrible man Trump in the White House!" -- delivered with a mock shudder, designed to show that the speaker has such refined sensibilities that he/she could never abide by such a vulgar, egotistical boor.

Anonymous said...

Easy homework here John. Essential reading:

Read the whole thing. This is about Obama, as much as Hillary. They really have more in common than meets the eye, even if they hate each other.


John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Thank you, yes, so true: Napolitano is always on target.

Obama is nothing but a con man, and the fact that the general public does not realize as much is testimony to both the MSM stranglehold on the public, and the public's fear of being called "racist." (Which anybody who criticizes Obama is called.)

Anonymous said...

Napolitano is a libertarian who doesn't much like Trump. I'm a realist and actually something of a social democrat. The vast majority of people who are dependent on the "System" can't totally fend for themselves, so I can't be a libertarian. But that's beside the point. The linked article was the best single description/expose of the corruption that is the FBI.

What's going on now is anyone's guess. Comey was appointed by Obama, by definition he is a tool and a hack. A cowardly piece of shit. But something or someone forced his hand and it's a joy to behold. All the criminal investigations going on in the Southern District Court will uncover this mess. I believe they are one of the few bastions of honesty in this corrupt cesspool "Obama's America."


John Craig said...

Puzzled --
You may be a social democrat, but I'm guessing you're a Sweden-circa-1980-style one. The problem with being a social democrat these days, it doesn't work in a multicultural society, especially one with open borders.

Comey appeared to be owned by Obama when he made that initial decision about Hillary's carelessness not reading the stage of recklessness. But maybe these recent developments mean he's developing a spine, or has decided to throw off the yoke. Who knows. It's my general (vague) impression of the FBI that the rank and file are more or less honorable. I did hear that a lot of them are furious that Comey ha subverted their previously pristine reputation with his political decision.

Steven said...

Bernie Sanders had more support then Hillary among white democrats. He was the candidate that excited and mobilised a lot of people on the left and a lot of his supporters had a negative view of Clinton. Reddit loved Sanders and disliked Clinton. People on there were well aware of her lying and knew she is in bed with the banks. Sanders had more of an anti-establishment vibe. She has courted minorities and SJWs but the occupy wall street type of left are not holding out any great hopes for her. They more or less know what she is.

I think a lot of those ex Bernie supporters have gone over to Hillary as the lesser of two evils. That's why this piece doesn't really ring true to me. Like me, you probably just don't spend time in the left wing parts of the internet. They probably do hate Trump but they probably don't love Hillary.

I totally agree that SJWs are narcissistic but a lot of people on the left are not. We're talking half the country voting Hillary.

John Craig said...

Steven --
It's true, I don't hang out on the Left wing neighborhoods of the internet. But I do know a lot of people who are voting for Hillary, and I haven't heard a single one phrase their intention in an apologetic way, or hedge their endorsement of her. Trump supporters, on the other hand, seem to hedge their support of express some acknowledgement of his ridiculously egotistical personality over half the time. at least with the Trump supporters I know personally.

Yes, Bernie had a lot more integrity than Clinton, and yes, his supporters were wildly enthusiastic about him in a way that Clinton voters are not. But the point of this post was, even if the Hillary voter are lukewarm, they still don't feel compelled to acknowledge that they see her shortcomings.

Steven said...

That could be because Trump is much more under attack in the mainstream- and they themselves see his obvious flaws and bad points- so they feel the need to phrase their intention more apologetically.

I do think a lot of people who vote for Hillary will have a less than favourable view of her but see her as the lesser of two evils.

Anonymous said...

I'm voting for Trump happily now, John. What happened in the last few days pushed me over the edge. I'm doing this w/eyes wide open. Trump has flaws. He should be looked at carefully - but I've thought that about every President. He's a freakin' elected official, not God.

John Craig said...

Anon --
Amen. (Who are you? It looks as though you forgot to identify yourself.)

Anonymous said...

I think the most partisan hacks are the loudest re: HRC. In real conversations, the people I know voting for her say that they are holding their noses to do so. Michael Gerson has a relatively thoughtful op-ed in the WaPo today, acknowledging HRC's weaknesses:

Chris Matthews has always been a very partisan Dem in my estimation, so this, which comes very close to a Trump endorsement, really was a surprise.


Anonymous said...

I think I jumped the gun in my last posting, and there was more context to the clip. Apparently, this was how Chris Matthews was suggesting Trump should have run his campaign.

Funny, though, how spot on it is.

- Gardner

John Craig said...

Gardner --
Hmm, I've had a different experience. In regular conversation, the people I know who are voting for Hillary simply say so, without either hedging or speaking enthusiastically about her.

Gerson did acknowledge HRC's weaknesses, but I thought he was still quite biased in her favor.

Wow, the Chris Matthews speech really floored me. I haven't watched him in a long time, but I have to give him credit, that was a very straightforward appraisal of HRC.

John Craig said...

Gardner --
Ah, gotcha. yeah, that makes much more sense.

Anonymous said...

Sorry that was me, up at October 31, 2016 at 11:17 PM.

I've frankly never had much of a stomach for political corruption. I think that's how the Clinton Mafia has survived: us normies just can't even, y'know? We just give up.

But by chance I came across the name Dave Schippers, in this article:

He was a staunch Democrat who was chosen by Henry Hyde to prosecute the Clinton impeachment. (The first one, LOL.) He wrote a book,

I figured it was a fix, but reading about this book really opened my eyes. The depth of corruption in Bill is breathtaking.


John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Part of the reason the Clinton Mafia has survived is because normies, as you put it, don't see them for what they are, just because they can't comprehend the depth of their depravity and and greed and duplicity. That's how a lot of sociopaths survive; people don't suspect them, because most people just assume the people are like them.

Good article. I don't blame him for being scared. And yes, I suspect that the Clintons have "disappeared" a lot of people.

That comment sounded like either you or Gardner.