Can conservatives discuss important issues without our own form of virtue signaling — denigrating those who disagree with us on almost anything? If we take pride in being more conservative than others (aka holier than thou), how can we build a movement that brings people along on the spectrum of “right” thinking?
Bill Whittle and Alfonzo Rachel bring analysis of the news in the context of enduring values twice weekly, thanks to our Members. Joining unlocks access to the Member-written blog, forums and a vigorous comments section away from the toxic sewer of social media. Click the big green button above to join.
If you’d prefer to donate without joining, use the big blue button to give with PayPal or credit card. Either way, we’re grateful for your support.
31 replies on “Holier Than Thou: Disagree with a Conservative and “You’re Dead to Me!””
It really does annoy me when I see it manifest in ‘I’d rather have a democrat than someone who only agrees with me 70%. If I can’t have 100% I’d rather have zero.” Those ‘cut off my nose to spite my face’ people drive me batty. Take what you can get. Everything you can get. Don’t leave Potential teammates on the table because they don’t cheer loud enough. If we excommunicated every person who isn’t perfectly aligned with our beliefs, we’d have a party of one: us, and maybe not even that.
Restrictions for marriage go farther back than this, and mostly had to do with provisions on people who are too closely related from being joined. And I know many older couples who even remember having to take a blood test prior to getting married.
As for permission. I received my Sacrament through the Church, and it was the state that confirmed what was done through my parish.
Marriage, as an institution, really is established by copulation and was God given. Do we all respect these things perfectly… sadly no. But the blessings that come when they are speak for it favorably. Malachi serves us well in talks about marriage as God would see it. It is for holy offspring, for child bearing, and not necessarily just for sex.
Bill, I agree with you about Mitt. But have you carefully considered your position on Dave? Are there ENOUGH heterosexual parents out there to adopt all of the kid who need adoption?
According to americanadoptions.com there are somewhere in the vicinity of 2 million American families waiting on adoption lists. I have no way to know how many of those are heterosexual but statistically speaking it’s got to be a large majority. So yea, there are more than enough heterosexual parents out there.
Dave Rubin and his male lover didn’t adopt from that list anyway. They hired a live uterus and had their own baby gestated and decanted into their waiting arms. Considering that fact, they didn’t do anything noble by giving a kid a home that child might not otherwise have had.
I don’t see that there’s much more in the way of careful consideration merited thereby.
No, no no! It’s even worse than that. Marriage licenses were put in place to keep black and white people to be married.
And THEN these people pushed to make that very license … that nobody needed before, a tool to officially, by law, legitimize … to FORCE people to recognize something they do not believe is a marriage … a marriage. And if they don’t, they lose their jobs, their businesses … and the state backs it up.
So the thing that was made in order to keep people apart by requiring permission was then used to force people to violate their consciences, by law, by arguing that very permission that nobody needed before … was being withheld.
My argument all along on that is … stop requiring permission. Let people do whatever they want and anybody can call it what they want to … or not, according to their beliefs.
I have caught myself disagreeing with conservatives recently on the Ukraine. I think many are of the opinion that Russia needs to be soundly defeated with much, much more help from our side.
I look at the situation differently. Think about why NATO was created, with the concern that a weakened Europe could be overrun by the Russians. We sought to economically “blackmail” the area, promising trade and protection, in return for aligning against a dangerous world power.
But think about our own “Monroe Doctrine”, where any country IN OUR HEMISPHERE is not to be militarily aligned with anybody else IN THE WORLD. Imagine our country having setbacks and a new country being formed out of Mexico and the previous States of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Half of the new country wishing it was realigned with the USA and half not. And China signs a treaty promising protection against the rest of the remaining USA if they would align with them. What would we do?
I think that we have been aggressive in baiting the Russians for years by offering NATO protections for the old Soviet States, and this war is a consequence. It was inevitable. If nuclear war breaks out, it’s our fault.
Feel free to teach me and disagree.
When positing scenarios it’s important to try to stick to reality. The more fiction in the scenario the less applicable it becomes. For example …
In a recent visit sponsored by YAF to Yale University, Ted Cruz and Michael Knowles were asked a question by a male audience member and obvious Leftist. The question was “If it would solve world hunger, would you fellate another man?” The question is a nonsensical absurdity intended to be offensive and cast the questioned in a bad light. If you answer no, you’re a monster who condemns millions to starvation for your own peccadillos. If yes then you’re admitting to being a faggot. It’s a frame-up. The way to defeat an ambush is always to attack directly into the ambush. So …
The answer is “Sure, just as soon as you prove to me that doing that would actually solve world hunger and by what mechanism such an act would accomplish that. Otherwise you’re just looking for a free blowjob.”
Because if throwing that little prick into a volcano or a school of piranha would solve world hunger, I’d do that too. We all know neither action is going to solve world hunger. Absurdities are absurdities and should never be given credit for more than they really are.
Another example is one time I was in a class with a not-real-bright instructor and he got off on a tangent totally unrelated to the course material. “The Walking Dead” had just come out and gotten popular and he asked the class “What would you do if you saw a hoard of zombies coming down the street right now?” I put up my hand and when he called on me I said …
“I’d vaporize them all from the safety of my laser armed tank.”
He scoffed in an attitude that clearly conveyed he believed me to be an imbecile beneath his amazing intellect and replied “Where the hell are you going to get a laser tank?”
I said “The same place you got your damned zombies.”
Think for a minute or two about what I’m saying here and how it applies to what you said. It does, I’m trying to be nice about things.
This is why you might consider being careful about “what if blah, blah, blah”. We kind of already covered some of this ground when you said you were scared silly about Putin having a spasmodic nuclear temper tantrum.
The scenario you posit in North America is not compatible and has no equivalency with the current situation in Eastern Europe. There are a bunch of valid reasons for that incompatibility. If you want I’ll spell them out but for now I’ll just stipulate that’s so and spare you having me vaporize all your zombies one by one. The incompatibility will become clearer shortly.
The scenario regarding North America you projected isn’t a “what if the shoe was on the other foot” thing so much as a “let’s nail a horseshoe on a human foot and see if the human likes that” thing. There are shoes and feet involved but not in the way your scenario paints things.
Empathy is good, as a rule. Empathizing with the wicked is an exception to to that rule. Vladimir Putin is a KGB thug who rose to power on a mountain of his dead countrymen who opposed him. He is a dictator in all but name. He is even worse for the people of Russia than Joe Biden and Co. are bad for America by several orders of magnitude directly in proportion to his unchecked political power. He started a war under guise of pretext. He’s killing women and children non-combatants apparently intentionally. He is a force of evil in the world and there’s not really anything ambiguous about that.
If he wins this war his forces will be on the Polish Border. The small nations of Slovakia and Hungary will be under threat, along with several other previous Soviet satellite states. Putin has openly stated that he intends to restore Russia to its former Soviet power and glory. When someone like Putin tells you something like that, you do well to believe he’s serious and take him at his word.
Here’s a much more appropriate and accurate “what if” for you —
What if we had the means and the foresight to stop Josef Stalin before he gobbled up all the Eastern European nations. Nations that Putin says he wants back and proves his intentions by taking active measures to accomplish that exact goal?
Would the world be a better place today not having fought a domino-effect encroachment on Western Democracy and not having let the Soviet Union gain all that territory and power in the first place? Would you like to encourage another series of domino-effect wars by letting Putin gobble up Ukraine? Are you aware that’s what he’s clearly doing, having been successful previously in gobbling up Crimea, a part of Ukraine? That sort of thing has to start somewhere and it’s clear where it is starting this time.
Do you remember the fall of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia? The Soviet tanks in the streets of their capital cities? Because they didn’t want to be ruled by Moscow? Wanna see that happen again?
If Putin wants to oppress Russia, and the Russian people let him get away with that, that’s one thing. It’s bad and we should discourage that, however … If he wants to conquer and oppress countries that are now liberated from being stomped in the face with the iron boot of Soviet Russia that’s another matter entirely. If we won’t help others be free, we don’t deserve freedom ourselves either. Freedom isn’t just one of many equal alternatives.
We’re learning in real time that the Russian Bear is not nearly so powerful as we’ve been led to believe. Nearly 900 Russian tanks have been destroyed at $50 million a copy, that’s seriously weakening both military and economy and it’s not done by a long shot yet. That’s a $45 billion loss just in tanks, which the Russian economy cannot bear for long. This war is bleeding Russia both militarily and economically.
He can clearly be defeated if sufficient effort is made. Yes, he still has nukes so no, we don’t want to menace the Rodina, his homeland.
We don’t need to do that. We don’t need to send American or even NATO forces to oppose him directly. We can help keep that Russian Bear in his Russian cage with less direct methods. Which we need to apply as vigorously as possible. Keep the blood gushing from that Bear as long as we can.
Russia lost the Cold War because the West outspent them and clearly that lesson needs to be driven home to ol’ Uncle Vlad in a manner even he can see with those beady little pig eyes of his.
Russia is making it undeniably clear that those old Soviet States NEED protection from Russia. Starting with Crimea and proceeding as opportunity presents itself. We didn’t “bait” Russia. Russia ate a whole lot of real estate, lost it and now wants it back. After the better part of a century in conflict and with considerable loss of blood and treasure in the West that it took to make Russia cough up that meal of free people.
The people living on that real estate were not free under Russian tyranny, and now they are or are at least have a hope of freedom by their own efforts. That’s the bottom line.
Russia claims “antagonism” as an excuse to reverse that loss, take that real estate back and put all those people back under their iron boot. Russia is fulfilling the very thing that caused us to offer NATO protection to those nations Russia is now bitching about. Russia is proving itself untrustworthy and crimally aggressive. Which is neither new nor at all surprising, we saw this coming long ago.
The idea that Russia needs a buffer zone that NATO is encroaching on is nonsense. No one has any desire to attack Russia in a suicidal war of conquest against a nuclear power controlled by a dictator. The very idea is preposterous and only makes sense as a pretext for Russian aggression. If anything, Western Europe needs a buffer against Russia.
As bad as things are in Russia for Russians right now, do you really think that Russia taking over other countries is going to be good for the people in those other countries? How is being reabsorbed into a Russian tyranny good for them or the world? Do you seriously believe that the power and wealth stolen thereby won’t be used to prop up a growing shadow of evil Russian power once again being cast across the globe?
Do you see any realistic way that doesn’t lead to another Evil Empire and set Ronnie Reagan spinning in his grave like a jet turbine?
We’ve seen this movie before. We know how it ends.
There is no moral equivalency between Russian dictators and industrialized Western Democracies. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that there is, that they’re like us deep down inside. There is no American screaming to get out in their blackened, shrivelled little evil hearts.
Be very, very careful about listening to Russian propaganda. A study of history betrays those particular Russian lies that are now absurdly offered as justification for the invasion and attempted absorption of a former Soviet satellite.
Russia is doing the exact equivalent of the man who beats his wife and then yells at her “Look what you made me do!”
Be careful about those “shoe on the other foot” analogies too. The reason that the shoe is a problem is that it’s an iron boot, there is no equivalency on our side. You might as well try to identify with and be empathetic to a nest of scorpions. “If the shoe were on the other foot” means reversing roles and trading places, don’t forget that.
If the other side is evil then you have to take evil’s place for the argument to apply in an apples-to-apples equivalency. You can’t just ignore and leave out the evil part if it suits you. That would constitute evil deception. Either of yourself unintentionally or of the rest of us on purpose.
I’m pretty sure you’re one of the good guys so casting yourself in the role of such people, even if only for purposes of argument, is doing yourself no favor.
(P.S. Someone clicked ‘thumbs down’ on your comment. I don’t know who but whoever it was, I don’t approve personally of doing that to someone who is trying to understand things by asking questions. So I clicked the ‘thumbs up’ button to even you back out to 0. It’s only fair, you openly asked for another viewpoint. It probably doesn’t matter to you but it offended my sense of fairplay.)
This problem has chapped my hide for years.
Just saw another example today. Ben Shapiro says something nice about Megyn Kelly. And there was this flood of “she said something bad about Trump once! She’s dead to me!”
It’s weird. But yes, there IS virtue signaling on the Right. And it’s embarrassing.
Thumbs up simply because I haven’t heard “Chapped my hide” for years!
And yes, Megyn and Ben both fall into the category of people whom others say are “dead to them” for some apparent slight or other.
Much of it around those who preferred someone other than PDT the first time around or were critical of him while in office.
We should be able to be critical of elected officials if they are not meeting our (individual) expectations without our own side disowning us.
I love you guys too, but not in the way that would require a license. Yet.
Excellent discussion guys. Zo thanks for always pointing out who it is we should trust and who it is that we should not, and which side has brought most of the mistreatment that that same side complains about.
This is the very best V.S. I have watched. I have but two thumbs, both are up. Love you both.
I know that you didn’t want to talk all day, but I’m surprised that you only skirted around the Vichy Republicans – the Bulwark, The French Davidians, National Review, etc.
National Review was a staple for me for years, and while I saw some slipping it wasn’t until they went full anti-Trump that the mask came off. My last holdout was Jim Geraghty until the 2020 election when he went out of his way to ignore any election “irregularities”. The last I saw of him was a tweet laughiing at the political prisoners from the 1/6 Reichstag Fire. I blasted back something like “Dude, WTF is wrong with you? Even if you don’t like them you’re laughing at people’s lives being destroyed for tresspassing?”
Those folks are dead to me, save for occasionally mocking onTwitter
All of the “publications” you mention have long since passed to paid shills for the DNC, who was the highest bidder for their services. I don’t think they fall into the category of difference of opinion on the spectrum of conservatism. I worry about people who are actually ideological conservatives but just have a few areas upon we disagree.
Those (we) are the people I don’t want to use a flamethrower against.
I haven’t read French, et al, in years as they add nothing to the conversation IMO.
Those publications were infiltrated and neutered. I’m not talking about some sort of Leftist conspiracy aimed against them. They were infiltrated by the ever growing crop of Ivy League intelligencia.
(Interesting, unrelated fact — Back when the National Review was still worth reading, I had my name mentioned in one of the articles. It’s not much, but it’s kinda fun to me that I made the National Review.)
The same neutering was proceeding apace with the Republican Party until Conservatives started barking and took the Party back again. Most people these days seem to forget that the Republican Party wasn’t always staunchly Conservative to a significant degree. It was “its own thing”, The Republican Party, and exemplified by the likes of John Boehner. Mostly populated by people who sought power for the sake of power and were tough to tell apart from a Democrat.
Back in those days I stopped calling myself a Republican and self-labelled as an Independent Conservative. Because Conservatism is my political view and I didn’t feel the Republican Party was representing me.
Strangely enough, and this is how much things have changed, there used to be Conservative Democrats too. They were called Blue Dog Democrats and they got my vote a few times because they represented my Conservative views better than their Republican opponents did. I vote for what I think is the lesser of two evils for my country, no matter what Party that is. The way I see it, this isn’t a local football game between two rival small towns, it’s an existential fight for the future of America. I’m not on anyone’s team but Team America.*
Those days are now long gone too. With Nancy Pelosi sitting on the Democrat Throne the platform of the Democrat Party has taken a hard and dangerous Left turn to the detriment of us all. The Democrat Party’s answer to a resurgence in Republican Conservatism has been to go full Commie, and worse. It’s more than reactionary, it’s retarded and that’s fixin’ to cost the Democrats bigtime because it has created a marked decrease in the quality of life in the U.S. There’s only so much smoke they can blow up our collective posteriors and we’re now over that hump.
Sadly I have little faith that the Republican Party will have the good sense to take full advantage of the pit Democrats have walked open-eyed into of their own volition.
Time will tell.
(*So I am probably more appreciative than most of what you’re trying to say and do with this criticism of the absurd “you’re dead to me” attitude. While I do not subscribe to the “team” view of politics I will use a football analogy even so. Anything that moves the ball down the field towards our goalposts is a good thing and to be supported. The “you’re dead to me” attitude is the unrealistic position that the ball can be run full field post hike on the first down. It doesn’t happen, it’s not going to happen. This is an incremental fight. We were losing by increments and if we can’t turn that around and work our own direction in increments we’re not going to win this game. Right now the Democrats are unwittingly helping us but I know there’s likely as not a fumble on our part coming up and soon. We need to do everything we can to prevent that.)
Thanks for your comments. I sent the email to Bill mostly due to some attacks I got elsewhere and legitimately wanted some more bullets in the chamber. The Dave Rubin example was just a strawman talking point. I was just trying to elicit discussion. Ultimately I think we are all trying to get to a similar place. I just get tired of people trying to tell me that if I don’t believe X, I am not a real “conservative” and not sufficiently whatever the right version of woke is.
I know exactly what you mean. In some cases it’s even worse than if you don’t believe X. If you offer the slightest constructive criticism you get the same treatment. That’s happened to me even here on this site.
That’s caused by a form of hero worship and pseudo-religious fervor.
Human beings are human beings, we have the same problems with human nature on our side as the Left does on theirs. The difference is that we on the Conservative side of the spectrum, by the very nature of Conservative thought, have a right to expect better from our nominal allies.
What about the Drudge report? Has it been bought out by the dnc, or did Matt just change sides?
the National Review came out against the Florida legislature and DeSantis for pulling Disney’s special status, they are openly pro-groomer. the lincoln project is full real pedo, not groomer, real pedo
those institutions, are fully left, they are right in name only, no one there still holds a right leaning policy position
Rick Rubin would have been a cool tangent had you decided to follow that verbal slip. He is the man responsible for getting me into Rap (A music genre I had despised up to that point) when he combined Slayer with Public Enemy!
I actually remember that episode from PJTV and it was a good one
Gentlemen – First thank you for reading the email I sent. Second, this was much more than I hoped for as a discussion. I used the Rubin example just because I knew it would generate a good back and forth between you two; it was not the genesis of the rending of garments that was directed at me.
We do need to be able to agreeably disagree. but more importantly we need to be able to listen to each other. While each of us is a party of one, we are not all knowing. If we were, we wouldn’t need to listen to the four of you each week.
FWIW – I think Reagan’s 11th Commandment is useful so that we focus our energies against the correct, common foe; rather than parsing each other into smaller, less potent groups.
For those who have not watched it, the series with Dave and Bill is available on this site under After Hours. I think it is from 2016.It is well worth the watch.
It is actually from July 2017.
Ron, I’m not sure if we’re close enough in age or NJ geography for you to get this reference, but with this post you scored the equivalent of making one of Uncle Floyd’s “Pictures on the Wall”!
I think we have discussed Uncle Floyd before. Yes, I grok. 😉 Thanks
Glad that we don’t avoid – we watch Uncle Floyd!
Posting error or crosslink — Home page says “Steve Green’s Lightning Round LV” and link comes to this episode of The Virtue Signal.
Got the wrong thumbnail image. Fixed now. Thanks for your careful scrutiny of this site, in your role as a producer.
You’re always most welcome. Feel free to delete this thread now if you want, it serves no purpose now that the error has been corrected.
Sure it does. It demonstrates that your synapses are still functioning this morning. 😉
Nah, better to remember that as good a job that Scott does, he’s still only human!
Some men’s sins are evident, going before unto judgment; and some men also they follow after.
— 1 Timothy 5:24