"How Liberals Think"

[Barbara Branden]

I strongly recommend that you hear a brilliant talk on youtube entitled "How Liberals Think." It was given by comedian Evan Sayet -- a former liberal who turned conservative after 9/11 -- and is the most convincing explanation of modern liberal nihilism I've ever heard.

Barbara

[Victor Pross]

Barbara,

Thanks for linking this, it was very interesting. While I can’t speak of the sincerity of the comedian who gave the speech, I can say that many religious conservative’s “positive speeches” enclose an apparent contradiction. It is vogue among today’s “free-thinking right-wingers” to espouse messages that urge earthly success of the “God wants you to prosper” variety while linking it to “see the miracle God can create in your sinful life” bait. But the pro-prosperity, pro-rational messages have no extraction in religion. This type of approach originated in its modern form in the Renaissance.

With this “new rational spirit” in the near pre-eminence, religious leaders and “conservatives” attempt to combine the religious and the secular traditions, thereby putting forth such ideas as: “God’s commandment is to enjoy life on earth! God wants you to be rich! God wants you to love him with all your heart and mind!”

Well, it must be very pleasant to know what God wants so clearly, but it is a contradiction on its face. It is not an example of religion preaching “the good”, but of religion seeking a way to preach the secular, while sneaking in the backdoor the supernatural. In the end, the nod to the latter destroys even the facade of valuing the secular.

Regarding the comedian, Angie asked me if the man is an Objectivist. I answered that there is no reason to suppose he is, based on this video alone—notwithstanding the Objectivist ring to his speech. I see this guy as being typical of so many people: his eyes opened up and saw the nihilism that is the New Left and figured that one ought to take flight to the right, usually the religious right. I told Angie he is simply a ‘thinking conservative’, which is an anomaly, and, perhaps, in this comedian’s case, a misnomer.

:turned:

-Victor

Edited March 28, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Barbara Branden]

Victor, the problem with easy generalizations about today's conservatives is that it sometimes seems that what was said of Israelis is now true of conservatives: Find three Israelis and you'll find four political parties. Conservatives include William Buckley, Rand-quoting Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Clarence Thomas, Bill Kristol, William Bennett, Victor David Hanson, Paul Wolfowitz, Thomas Sowell, Sean Hannity, George Bush Sr. and George Bush Jr, Ann Coulter, Daniel Pipes, Robert Bork. There are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, religious conservatives, states'-rights conservatives, militarist conservatives, neo-conservatives, Russell Kirk conservatives, libertarian conservatives, Republican conservatives, protectionist conservatives, anti-immigration and pro-immigration conservatives, environmentalist conservatives, racist conservatives, Goldwater conservatives, "compassionate" conservatives, animal-rights conservatives, paleoconservatives, pro-abortion conservatives, laissez=faire conservatives. . . I think the point is clear. And I just discovered Skeptical Conservatives, who decry the conservative emphasis on religion.

So where on this spectrum Evan Sayet belongs -- if anywhere -- I have no idea.

Barbara

[Victor Pross]

Barbara,

Perhaps you're right, I suppose I haven't been exposed to those other types of conservatives. But is there not a common denominator that links conservatives together that makes them “conservatives”? (Not that my designations does that). If not, that says something interesting about conservatives as a political or ideological force?

-Victor

[studiodekadent]

Conservatism has always been essentially a coalition of people that disagree with the left. Thats the only uniting factor really. Generally speaking 'conservative' is an anticoncept. But then again, there are many different factions of 'liberals' as well, many that disagree with eachother.

Quoting the speech: "They will use their movies and TV shows to promote teenage promiscuity as if its cool".... this is surprisingly a left-wing argument... its the "media is advertising is mind control" argument usually used by anticapitalists to say capitalism removes our free will, the difference is that its given a rightwing slant.

Then there is the comment about how pro-choice groups are holding "F*** Abstinance" fundraisers.... our comedian speaker is committing the logical fallacy of false dichotomizing.... it is NOT a choice between chastity and whoredom.

About Bill Maher... he actually considers himself at least in significant part a libertarian or classical liberal, not a modern liberal.

His revelation that modern liberalism is based on skepticism. [sarcasm]oh how surprising! we never knew![/sarcasm]. Its not like he is actually saying anything we dont know. Postmodernism for example is pure Kant-inspired skepticism. Also, lets look at an epistemic breakdown of the culture wars: Our speaker's breakdown is "Left: we cant know anything, Right: we can know things". This is an incorrect analysis. The REAL breakdown (which surprisingly is a trichotomy) is Left: Skepticism, Right: knowlege through faith, Libertarians/Objectivists/etc: knowlege through reason. Some evidence for my trichotomy: In Evan's criticism of Imagine, he looks at the lyric "imagine there's no religions" as if religions are the only things man values, their only source of knowlege! He claims to defend rational thought but we all know that ultimately speaking, it is religion or reason, unless one wants to play the contradictions game.

"Koran's do not fit down the toilet"... that depends on the size of the Koran.

The comment on Brokeback Mountain saying "its OK to choose to be gay"... too bad the verdict of science and reason demonstrates gayness, straightness, biness or any other sexual orientation is not a choice. This shows how conservatives happily reject reason when convenient.

The "your son dying of AIDS because he wasn't abstinant" speech... um, its called USE PROTECTION!

The comment that Desperate Housewives promotes negative views of family and hence is anti-republican, blank out the fact that the show's creator is a Log Cabin Republican (who are usually quite sane)!

Edited March 28, 2007 by studiodekadent

[Victor Pross]

Conservatism has always been essentially a coalition of people that disagree with the left. Thats the only uniting factor really. Generally speaking 'conservative' is an anticoncept. But then again, there are many different factions of 'liberals' as well, many that disagree with eachother.

His revelation that modern liberalism is based on skepticism. [sarcasm]oh how surprising! we never knew![/sarcasm]. Its not like he is actually saying anything we dont know. Postmodernism for example is pure Kant-inspired skepticism. Also, lets look at an epistemic breakdown of the culture wars: Our speaker's breakdown is "Left: we cant know anything, Right: we can know things". This is an incorrect analysis. The REAL breakdown (which surprisingly is a trichotomy) is Left: Skepticism, Right: knowlege through faith, Libertarians/Objectivists/etc: knowlege through reason. Some evidence for my trichotomy: In Evan's criticism of Imagine, he looks at the lyric "imagine there's no religions" as if religions are the only things man values, their only source of knowlege! He claims to defend rational thought but we all know that ultimately speaking, it is religion or reason, unless one wants to play the contradictions game.

Andrew,

Good post. There is, after all, a common denominator that links conservatives together--keeping the caricature in tacked. :turned:

-Victor

Edited March 28, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

Thank you for posting this. Some of the concepts will be very useful in my study and dissection of the global warming controversy.

I liked Sayet's identification of a common philosophical principle unifying liberal ideology: indiscrimination. Despite having disagreements with some of his examples and what I am increasingly coming to call "scope" (meaning stretching a principle to cover everything poorly when it actually covers many things well), I can see this indiscrimination principle evident in enough acts and policies to see that it is one of the fundamental components of liberal thought.

An interesting thought is that, epistemologically, discrimination precedes integration. Where there is no discrimination, there can be no integration.

There is some real meat here to reflect on.

btw - Since you said he was a comedian, I had the impression that I was going to see a 10 or 15 minute stand-up routine. Instead, I saw a serious lecture (about 48 minutes including Q&A) at the Heritage Foundation.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Barbara,

But is there not a common denominator that links conservatives together that makes them “conservatives”? (Not that my designations does that). If not, that says something interesting about conservatives as a political or ideological force?

-Victor

Victor, there is a rough sort of common denominator -- that conservatives usually want less governmental inference in the economy (thought not necessarily in one's private life) than do liberals.

Andrew, when I recommend something, as I do strongly recommend Sayet's talk, this should not be taken to mean that I agree with or expect you to agree with every word he says.

Barbara

[Kevin Haggerty]

I've been thinking about Mr. Sayet's talk for a while now and the more I've thought about it, the more disturbed I have become.

I have to thank Objectivism for turning me onto the idea that "context" is the defining arena of reason--that without understanding our context there can be neither ethics, nor reality, nor judgment, nor reason--only illusion and whimsy. What we perceive as our context describes the limits of our ability to reason. The broader our context, therefore, the more rational our thinking will be.

The greatest problem I see facing those of us who love reason is the apparent inability and profound disinclination of most people (all of us, at one time or another) to perceive--or at the very least grant--the difference in context which leads our intellectual and ideological enemies to speak and act as they do. After all, if we are rational beings, our most strongly held beliefs will be the ones founded on the soundest reasoning available within our context--to even try to think like our enemies literally "goes against everything we believe." Put another way, unable to see the logical thread underlying the beliefs of people with whom we most strongly disagree, we tend to ascribe utterly unconscious, tribal, unmediated emotionalism to their thinking. In psychological terms we project all our disowned and denied irrationality onto our enemies.

But such formulations proceed from a faulty premise: that rational men will always agree. Which in turn proceeds from the equally faulty premise: there is only one right answer to any question. The reason this premise is faulty is because rational questioning always takes place within a given context and that context will determine the right answer to the given question. The obvious example: Is killing another human being wrong? Well, it depends on the context.

*Sigh* The idea of figuring out "how Modern Liberals think" as Sayet attempts to do reminds me of nothing so much as Freud's infamous conundrum: "What do women want?" Women, that aggregate thing-a-ma-jig that we men will never fathom, but must find a way to control. Liberals, that uncouth mass of infantile frauds that we must--oh, I don't know--defeat? Debunk? Destroy?

If I want to know what women want, for instance, mightn't I start by asking a few? Mightn't I start by looking inward at my own natural psychological and biological femininity and seeing what it is I want? How can we imagine that we understand another human being without trying to bridge the gap that separates our thinking, rather than widening it by ascribing untenable illogic to their entire world view?

Sayet, like all happy tribalists, sees only reason in himself and his "us," and only emotionalism in his "them." He looks at the film Brokeback Mountain and takes away this message: "Heterosexual marriage isn't that important, go be a homosexual if you choose." How did he do that? By dropping the context which forms the beliefs and emotions of the individuals depicted in the film--the context which makes their emotional reactions logical and individual--and seeing only the strong emotions which in his own personal context--that of a presumably contented heterosexual man--seem alien and hostile. For the two main characters in the movie heterosexuality isn't just unimportant--in fact it's a lie, a prison, an injustice they perpetrate upon themselves--but that's because they're gay. Their individual gayness is the context which Sayet drops to paint the film as "anti-heterosexual" and "anti-marriage." He sees an emotional proposition like "behaving as a heterosexual is cruel and dishonest," which the film very powerfully and movingly depicts, and blanks out the context "...if you're gay."

Sayet has afforded me an important insight here, because this kind of thing has always baffled me in the past. One of my favorite films, Thelma & Louise was widely criticized in its day as "man hating." How could anyone think such a thing, I wondered, what with the extraordinarily sympathetic performance by Harvey Keitel in that picture, or even Michael Madson's very decent and devoted boyfriend to Louise? And Sayet supplies the answer: if we ignore the main characters' individual circumstances, the context from which they derive their anger and frustration, and look only at the raw emotionalism, untethered to any context other than the putative affluence and comfort of our own lives, then the movie is simply one anti-male emotion after another. Unable or unwilling to see the world Thelma or Louise see, all the film's detractors saw was the anger and desire for vengeance in the hearts of these two characters.

Or take a film that many liberals I have known hated: Forest Gump. Many folks saw the film as somehow "right wing" simply because the main character's individual experiences of Vietnam did not reflect their own most cherished beliefs about that war.

And so it is with the "Modern Liberals" for folks like Sayet. He sees their raw emotion vividly, lots of anger and hate and disgust, but can't or won't bring himself to look at what it's all about from their point of view. Which is not to say that "Modern Liberals" always make sense--like the rest of us, Modern Liberals are sometimes subject to low self-esteem and fully capable of scapegoating and denial.

Low self-esteem, scapegoating and denial are the problem here, folks, not political philosophy. As it happens, I was at a gathering of Modern Liberals the other night--a planning meeting for the Fremont Solstice Parade and Pageant here in Seattle. They were tossing around "themes" and "global warming" was the big favorite. But nobody had any science to share or any statistics, no one wanted to educate or enlighten anyone, it was all simply in service to the self-loathing victim's mantra that knows no political or geographical limits: EVERYTHING SUCKS AND IT'S ALL THEIR FAULT! And now I've listened to Sayet's talk about the "leftist indoctrination centers" and guess what: EVERYTHING SUCKS AND IT'S ALL THEIR FAULT!

Here's a thing: people hate other people because they feel threatened or endangered by those people. Sometimes the other people's existence is itself perceived as a threat. You know, if you want to live in a world where heterosexuality is "good" and homosexuality is "bad" then the existence of happy healthy homosexuals is a "threat."

To any tribalist, who naturally ascribes to the notion that his tribe is the "rational" and "good" tribe, any suggestion that other tribes are also "rational" and "good" undermines his "rightness." Aha! See: it's not really about being right, for a tribalist, it's about being superior, because all tribalists suffer from low self-esteem. Tribalism is the enemy of self-esteem--whatever self-worth the tribalist enjoys is granted him by the righteousness of his tribe. And therefore, any attack upon his tribe, undermines his own self-worth.

Someone, please, tell me: how is it possible to posit a political "they" without ourselves becoming tribalists? How can we maintain our individuality while condemning vast and varied populations of our fellow individual minds as "them?" If we cannot see the individual "Muslim" or "communist" or "feminist" how are we to keep in mind the individual "American" or "Objectivist?"

--Kevin

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kevin,

How I enjoy your posts when you get going! You are so correct to identify the tribalism behind Sayet's entire approach, and that of the liberals and other groups, too, for that matter.

I happen to like the indiscrimination thing Sayet mentioned because it identifies a general premise for many liberal attitudes I have personally observed, but I strongly reject Sayet's wholesale "they don't think" position. He took a good idea way way too far and made a bad idea out of it. Instead of being an important component of liberal philosophy, he made it into THE POISONED PREMISE OF ALL LIBERALS, then derived hatred of mankind and evil from it (even when the person does not want to be evil).

In a certain manner, this is like racism. Yes, some people are black (or for the discrimination issue, yes, some people think too much discrimination leads to bigotry). Therefore their souls are black (discrimination-wise, they have no criteria or hierarchy of values at all—they are all nihilist life-haters). I cannot buy this kind of oversimplification.

Sayet made me think, though, and that is a good thing. I think people should listen to his lecture for his profound insights into one aspect of liberal thinking. But that is where it stops—one aspect only. Outside of that, Sayet proves to be one tribal caller damning another tribe and going overboard doing it.

I have just made the argument elsewhere that one does not fight one tribe with another if one wishes to fight for reason. One makes appeal to individual minds and sidesteps the whole scapegoating thing altogether.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Andrew, when I recommend something, as I do strongly recommend Sayet's talk, this should not be taken to mean that I agree with or expect you to agree with every word he says.

Barbara

Barbara,

Thankyou for the clarification. I never actually expected that you or I would agree with everything he said (after all, Heritage Foundation output does tend to be a mixed bag), but I do agree with you that it was a good talk. Although I think it misses the key issue (of modern 'liberalism' being based on skepticism), it does come very close. It certainly comes closer to hitting the truth than most conservatives usually do. Thankyou for directing me to it actually, I enjoyed it in spite of (or maybe because of) my disagreements.

[BaalChatzaf]

Barbara,

Thankyou for the clarification. I never actually expected that you or I would agree with everything he said (after all, Heritage Foundation output does tend to be a mixed bag), but I do agree with you that it was a good talk. Although I think it misses the key issue (of modern 'liberalism' being based on skepticism), it does come very close. It certainly comes closer to hitting the truth than most conservatives usually do. Thankyou for directing me to it actually, I enjoyed it in spite of (or maybe because of) my disagreements.

What is it you mean by "skepticism"? If by "skepticism" you mean a denial that knowledge is possible a priori, then it is clear this view annihilates itself. If, on the other hand, you take "skepticism" to mean a very critical and careful examination of ideas or principles before they are accepted, I would ask -- what is wrong with that? Would you buy a pig in a poke? Would you purchase a horse before checking on its teeth? If you are prudent, you would not. Did not Rand admonish us to check our premises?

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Edited April 19, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[studiodekadent]

What is it you mean by "skepticism"? If by "skepticism" you mean a denial that knowledge is possible a priori, then it is clear this view annihilates itself. If, on the other hand, you take "skepticism" to mean a very critical and careful examination of ideas or principles before they are accepted, I would ask -- what is wrong with that? Would you buy a pig in a poke? Would you purchase a horse before checking on its teeth? If you are prudent, you would not. Did not Rand admonish us to check our premises?

Ba'al Chatzaf.

By skepticism, I am referring to the view that objective knowlege is unknowable. Yes, its an obvious contradiction. But people still believe it, i.e. saying all ones knowlege is a product of cultural prejudices, etc.

[Barbara Branden]

There has been a fascinating demonstration of Sayet’s theme in the news yesterday and today: Alec Baldwin’s diatribe against his daughter, and the reaction of many liberals to it.

Apparently Baldwin and his ex-wife, Kim Basinger, have been having a prolonged battle over the custody of their eleven-year old daughter, Ireland, who now lives with her mother. A court ruled that Baldwin could telephone his daughter (they don’t live in the same city) at certain specified times, but for two days running the daughter did not answer her phone when her father called. Baldwin left an infuriated message on the girl’s answering machine, which was leaked to the press and played on television.

The message is truly horrifying. Baldwin, at the top of his lungs, warns his daughter that he won’t put up with her “continuing to make a fool of me,” he tells her he is coming to see her and that he will once and for all “straighten her out,” so she had better be ready. In between profanities, he informs the child that she is “a worthless, rotten little pig.”

If it were in my power, Baldwin would not only not be given custody of the child, he would not be allowed to see her at all. A father who threatens his child as he has done, and who calls her such demeaning names, is unfit to deal with children. No wonder she doesn’t want to speak with him! She must be terrified of him, and with good reason. A man who threatens to “straighten her out” must be taken seriously.

Many of the commentators on television were, as I was, appalled at Baldwin. But several liberals were quick to excuse him, saying that “anyone can lose his temper,” that “we don’t know what Baldwin has been put through by his ex-wife,” and that Kim Basinger should be hauled into court if it were she who leaked the tape. They quickly skipped over the damage Baldwin is doing to his daughter, and focused only on “the other side of the picture.” Listening to them, I thought of Sayet’s talk, and I could almost hear a voice whispering in their ears: “Don’t discriminate! Don’t discriminate! Don’t discriminate!”

And they did not discriminate. Even without knowing any of the facts surrounding the leak of the tape, even without knowing what Baldwin might or might not have been put through by his ex-wife (all of which is irrelevant in any case) they were quick to find someone else whom they could blame just as much or more than Baldwin.

And as always happens, when one does not discriminate between perpetrators and victims, it is the latter who are once again victimized.

Barbara

[Kevin Haggerty]

Hey Barbara,

Thanks for injecting some much needed simplicity and sanity into the hysteria surrounding Alec Baldwin's recent verbal abuse of his daughter (I have to say the fact that he couldn't be sure if she was 11 or 12 was particularly damning). From where I sit, I don't so much see the forgiving of Alec Baldwin being a liberal issue as much as it reflects a culture of abused children and abusive parents protecting the status quo. I read many people who were abused similarly by their parents, claiming that it's "no big deal." These folks are simply protecting their idealized image of the parent. In psychotherapeutic circles this is called "fusing with the abuser."

When a parent abuses his child, the child must fuse with that parent as a matter of survival--whatever abuse he chooses to heap upon the child, the young child is bound to accept as right and appropriate. As the child matures, she has the opportunity to discover that her parent was wrong. Many, many folks never come to that realization. Having desensitized themselves to the abuse as children, they've grown up desensitized to it and repeat the old programming they got as children--the child probably deserved it, we don't know what the father was going through, etc. Such folks really are regurgitating what they learned in kindergarten! Robert Fulghum would be proud!

Also, I've found that many people believe that how a parent chooses to treat his child is absolutely no one else's business. This is also reflective a culture that protects the parent's prerogative to abuse his child. We've all witnessed parents abusing their children in public. When I've spoken up and objected, the parent invariably has instructed me to "mind my own business," sometimes with other adults present in vocal agreement. Again, whole generations of people defend the abuse they suffered at the hands of the previous generation, rather than go through the pain and grief of individuation.

That said, I will agree with you that the politically liberal stance in America is often a very disempowered stance--no more so than in recent years; a weak, know-nothing defense of the status quo; a disempowered, anti-individual (anti-self-esteem) sentiment which such folk indeed learned in childhood and perpetuate in their adult lives.

-Kevin

[Brant Gaede]

When I first tried to listen to the man's diatribe a few days ago on AOL Media Player, my computer froze. I just went back and heard the whole thing on tmz.com.

This is the kind of crap parents have been doing to their children since time immemorial, also husbands to wives. Sometimes women are the abusers.

I also watched some videos of Alec Baldwin on tmz.com. I've never liked the guy and they reminded me why: He's a complete phony who seems to be using his daughter as a weapon to bash and fight his ex wife. He also uses her to illustrate for the public what a wonderful person he must be to have such a wonderful daughter. Some people proselytize for God, some for themselves alone. Daddy Dearest.

His lawyers are saying Kim Basinger or her lawyers released the audio against the wishes of the court dealing with the custody of the child. Maybe. Probably. But what if the child herself did? I don't know of course, but what intrigues me is she could have. Modern technology is empowering kids, and the rest of us.

--Brant

Edited April 22, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Barbara Branden]

Hey Barbara,

When a parent abuses his child, the child must fuse with that parent as a matter of survival--whatever abuse he chooses to heap upon the child, the young child is bound to accept as right and appropriate.

Kevin, that isn't necessarily so, although I grant that it often is the case that a child acceots the parent's negative estimate, especially if there is no second parent to present a different estimate. But I remember my own attitude as a child. I was by no means abused in any manner, but my mother did have a temper and could get extremely angry with me. I was a rebellious child -- I probably should change that to "rebellious brat" -- and was quite capable of driving her up the wall. And when she was angry, she would sometimes say unkind things that I realized only much later she didn't realy mean. I have a very clear memory of listening to her, feeling terrible, wanting to cry and to beg her to stop -- but feeling something very stubborn inside me silently insisting "It isn't true! I know it isn't true. She's wrong about me. I'm not like that!"

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm going to go out on a limb. I read Robert Fulghum's All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten several years ago and I thought it was a charming book devoted to looking at the bright side of living.

I see where it apparently ties in with Sayet's thesis because of the title, but I don't remember the theme of the small stories being "don't discriminate" or "don't think." I remember it being a call to see the simple good in the things around you.

Frankly, Fulghum is much more Edgar Guest than a liberal guru.

I liked that book because it is sentimental and so am I at times. I read it and did not expect it to be more than it was. And it was delightful.

(Oh hell... There goes my my reputation for good taste...)

Michael

[Kevin Haggerty]

I'm sorry, Barbara, I think I stated my case a bit too strongly, and it came across too one dimentionally. Clarification lies in the concept of "fusion" as I understand it. The fused identity is definitively inauthentic, it is a role, a safe façade behind which the child hides. In fusing her identity with the abusive parent, the child experiences a split within her own psyche. So the child accepts the parent's actions as appropriate, and does not accept; the authentic self is merely eclipsed, not destroyed or absent. My own childhood was actually pretty violent and I can remember from a very early age thinking with steely conviction, "I'm going to get out of this." I remember taking great comfort in that conviction which I understand to be the voice of my true self, my self-esteem.

[Alfonso Jones]

Barbara,

But is there not a common denominator that links conservatives together that makes them "conservatives"? (Not that my designations does that). If not, that says something interesting about conservatives as a political or ideological force?

-Victor

Victor, there is a rough sort of common denominator -- that conservatives usually want less governmental inference in the economy (thought not necessarily in one's private life) than do liberals.

Andrew, when I recommend something, as I do strongly recommend Sayet's talk, this should not be taken to mean that I agree with or expect you to agree with every word he says.

Barbara

A bit of a flashback, to read that last sentence.

Alfonso

[C. Jordan]

I will make a full response after hearing the full speech. (That will take some time). However, I will point out that Alec Baldwin's behaviour is unforgivable.

To the extent that liberals apologise for him, then they are guilty of a great hypocricy. (I must be clear, only those liberals who do this are my targets.)

This hypocricy can be illustrated by a Mad Magazine article: Only a True Republican can believe that Bill Clinton is a sexual harrasser and Clarence Thomas is not. Only a True Democrat can believe that Clarence Thomas is a sexual harrasser and Bill Clinton is not.

And simply have a problem with anyone who has a double standard like this.

And the action I cannot forgive is child abuse.