For a bunch o’ gun-slinging freedom fighters, those neo-ultraconservatives sure can act like a bunch of pansies. You’d think that, what with their jaded perspective of reality, they would be rather desensitized by now. But, point to their duplicitous inconsistencies, idiosyncratic ideas, phony facts and jaded bigotries one too many times and the next thing you know, you’re defriended and blocked on Facebook and blacklisted as a “Commie” for your differing opinion. Egad.
I must have said something that really hurt – or hit home, one of the two. I have been called every unimaginative name in the proverbial book for my postulation of entirely objective and wholly nonbiased critiques, yet, I deserve such an extreme of heinous treatments? Surely, these folks would be impervious to the accuracy of my well-informed assessments by now. I mean, who listens to a liberal anyway? Certainly, not a Tea Party fundamentalist whose scatter-brained methodology is so solidly grounded in evangelical puritanism that it will remain forever justified and untouchable ‘til the end of kingdom come. Apparently, my dissimilarity is relevant because there could be no other reason for one of such a sturdy ilk getting his panties all up in a wad.
Now, keep in mind that this person (et al) does not have the angle of the once-typical Republican with whom one could formerly entertain a modicum of logical, interactive discourse. This is the neo-ultraconservative, whose vitriolic hyperbole has unfortunately become the acceptable standard of Republican politics. That pendulum has swung, shrinking the gap between general comprehensibility and mad-capped, fantasy-based chaotic thought. Long gone is the jaunty, jocular debate with Republicans of yore, replaced with an impenetrable, seething and repellant scorn that oozes derisive contempt. Sadly, I know very few who remain willing to ponder a differing point-of-view for its potential merit: I’ve come to accept insincere, perfunctory and obdurate responses to as the general standard. Even when I slip into rare agreement, I am met with outrage based solely on my liberally inclined position.
For instance, I could say that the trickle-down theory does work (for, using it to dissipate top-to-bottom party rhetoric, it most certainly does) and, without asking for clarification, I will be immediately reprimanded with an opposing argument, presumably for the shallow sake of disagreement. If I should state that increasing taxes for the middle class would not be stimulating to the economy, rather than agreeing, today’s ultraconservative will proffer some irrelevance about “class warfare” (a most dastardly attempt to adapt a Marxist concept to their own conflicting ideas) on the rich. (I love it when they try to adopt a liberal colloquialism in converse.) I can authentically state that I oppose banning gun ownership, that I am for fiscal responsibility, and that big government sucks for its inherent extravagance; nevertheless, this hard-to-crack batch of nuts will run me off the ranch shooting at my heels (inducing me to reconsider that stance on guns). I really feel quite persecuted.
I inevitably point to the intolerant, narrow-minded nature of the neo-ultraconservative (Republican) movement as it is spoon-fed to their public and wonder at the lack of individual liberty and freedom that it supposedly implies. I question the fanatical and outrageous response to opposition, the overly fixed nature of dubious principles and the strong prejudices (among infinitesimal others) that oppose that central tenet. So strident in their impermeable beliefs and negligible in thoughtful discourse, they antithetically declare all others either crudely ignorant or willfully blind. Neo-conservatism doesn’t bat an eye to consider that the word “liberal” implies active, broad-minded contemplation. For the most part, liberals swim in a stream of common sense, critical thought and rational reasoning, which I suppose can be a tad off-putting to those unaccustomed to such cogitations.
Perplexed by the liberal’s uncanny ability to rapidly discern faulty logic and to realistically analyze a (seemingly) complex argument, these neo-conservative types invariably lapse into convoluted argument-bashing and pubescent verbal abuse. It is inevitable that we “Libiots” (such a touché use of imagination) will piss these folks off (what with our thinking ways and all) and, without a playground monitor, the repercussions to we wimps can be rather harsh.
The only way to condense this approach in brief is to give it a cheesy sobriquet: The neo-ultraconservative shrinkage factor. Similar to what inevitably happens as a guy takes a cold shower (if you catch my drift), you’d think that these folks had frozen in a communal igloo for their collective shrinkage of intellect. I deem the shrinkage factor to be representative of the entire neo-conservative movement’s diminutive predispositions. The neo-ultraconservative shrinks from the already narrow Republican mindset, shrinks from any feasible party-line challenge, shrinks from analytical thought and shrinks from recognizing faulty platform ideology. As far as I’m concerned, the entire mentality of today’s ultraconservative (now Republican) political podium is mired in shrinkage: Prosaic incongruous policy, bourgeois sociopolitical dogma and insular exclusionary credo. With this tendency toward shrinkage and something else is bound for size reduction, too – like a supportive voting base.
The neo-ultraconservative (Republican) philosophy of perpetual reductive reasoning has alienated nearly every feasible demographic, and then some (excepting, of course, the wealthy, white male and conundrum who votes in opposition to personal interests). For starters: Women, African-Americans, Latinos, the LGBT, the elderly, the disabled, the unhealthy, the poor, the middle class, moderates, public-sector workers, union workers, small business owners, non-Christians, environmentalists, college students, the educated, teachers, parents, anyone pro-education or pro-progress, anyone hurt by the G.W. economy, anyone who values their payments into Social Security and Medicare, anyone who expects the Senate to do its job, anyone who expects a fair tax code, anyone who has difficulty voting with added restrictions, and everyone else who is in any way opposed to such rejection and discrimination (including many old-school Republicans).
Not bad! (Talk about divisive, angry and hateful politics at work.) Perhaps I needn’t assuage my overly delicate sentimentality over the loss of one of these "friends," after all. (Although, I can’t help but rather shrink at the thought.)
If you like to write about U.S. politics and Campaign 2012, enter "The American Pundit" competition. Allvoices is awarding four $250 prizes each month between now and November. These monthly winners earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize, to be awarded after the November election.