Conor Friedersdorf Doesn't Know Much About Conservatives

Anyone who has read Conor Friedersdorf's columns at the Atlantic already knows that he's a regular critic of conservatives who doesn't actually know much about them. His latest column, called "The Heresies of Chris Christie," makes that abundantly clear. Regarding Christie's speech at the Reagan library, Friedersdorf writes,

he also made four key assertions that are now heretical within the Republican Party, and the significance of his speech is almost entirely wrapped up in those passages of politely stated dissent.

Unfortunately for his premise, none of those assertions are "heretical" to Republicans.

First, Friedersdorf thinks that political compromise is "anathema" to Republicans, "who regard compromise as tantamount to selling out principle." Republicans are not opposed to reasonable political compromise and never have been. The question is what is reasonable. If the compromise is in fact a selling out of principle, which some compromises are, then yes, many Republicans would oppose that, just as Democrats oppose selling out their principles.

Second, he makes a big deal out of Christie's comments on American Exceptionalism, apparently reading into them much more than was there, and creating a strawman regarding how conservatives might view them. Christie was primarily arguing from an economic perspective that U.S. exceptionalism requires us to lead by example. If our country is a fiscal mess, it ceases to be much of an example to the rest of the world. There are very few conservatives that would take issue with Christie on that point.

Third is more of the same. Christie argues that if America is a mess, and we can't fix our own problems, it lessens our influence. This is not even close to being "heretical" to conservatives, let alone Republicans in general.

And finally, Friedersdorf seizes on this passage,

"We certainly cannot force others to adopt our principles through coercion," he said. "Local realities count; we cannot have forced makeovers of other societies in our image. We need to limit ourselves overseas to what is in our national interest so that we can rebuild the foundations of American power here at home - foundations that need to be rebuilt in part so that we can sustain a leadership role in the world for decades to come."

Very few conservatives would disagree with those points, especially since they can be interpreted various ways, particularly with regard to limiting ourselves to what is in our national interest. There's certainly nothing there that would rise to the level of "heretical."

Friedersdorf has demonstrated on many occasions that he is a poor political analyst. In my opinion he's a pretentious, intellectual lightweight who has nothing more than a simplistic, caricatured view of conservatives and the GOP in general. There are actually plenty of things conservatives don't like about Chris Christie, such as his pro-gun control views, for example. It would be very easy to write an accurate article about why conservatives aren't thrilled with Chris Christie. Others have even done so.

"Myths" about Progressives.

Campaign for America's Future, a liberal blog, has an interesting article up that outlines what the author holds to be ten myths that conservatives believe about progressives.  Are they really myths?  

1.  Liberals hate America.  Yes, this is mostly a myth. There is a segment of the left that is virulently anti-American, but it is a minority. Calling all liberals anti-American is just a smear.

2.  Liberals want to leave us defenseless.  This is a myth because of the emphasis on what liberals want.  It is true that liberals often advocate policies that conservatives think would weaken the U.S.  But like conservatives, most liberals believe their policy positions are best for the nation.

3.  Liberals hate the free market.  Whether or not this is a myth depends on your definition of the free market.  If you think government regulation of every facet of the economy, public & private partnerships, massive government spending on stimulus & bailouts, blind support for unions, higher taxes on investors & the most productive elements of the economy, and support for every socialistic program short of outright socialism is love for the free market, then liberals love the free market. Otherwise, not so much.  This is not a myth, at worst it's an oversimplification.

4.  Liberals hate our troops.  Like point #1, this is definitely a myth except for a small minority of the left that really does hate America & the troops.

5.  Liberals are a bunch of elitists who hate decent working- and middle-class Americans.  Many liberals are indeed elitists -- as are many conservatives.  But whether elitist or not, I do not believe they hate working and middle-class Americans.

6.  Liberals are against "family values." As with the free market, this depends on your definition of family values.  I'm ok with calling it a myth.

7.  Liberals want to raise our taxes.  I'm sorry,  but this is most definitely not a myth. Liberals certainly do want to raise taxes, and most do not appear to understand simple economics, such as the fact that higher taxes on businesses result in higher cost to consumers -- in effect raising taxes on the consumers. 

8.  Liberals are Godless—and therefore, amoral.  Obviously a myth. Belief in gods is not a requirement for morality, and many liberals are believers anyway. 

9.  Liberals don't believe in personal responsibility. This is a myth only if asserted that starkly.  I don't think it's a myth that many liberals tend believe less in personal responsibility than conservatives.

10. Liberals are wimps.  This is myth as a blanket statement.  Whether or not it is true depends entirely on the context in which it is used.  When applied to liberal positions on foreign policy and some other issues, it can contain an element of truth.