However if you had to listen to him rant, after he's had a few drinks (and often after he hasn't had a few drinks), you might assume that he was an uneducated moron. He gets everything wrong and is afflicted by the common liberal conceit that they are automatically smarter than any conservative. For instance he thinks that universities are controlled by conservatives. He is normally a very nice person... but also a very ignorant one...like most libs when they talk about politics or social matters.
Does anybody else remember when there was a guest host on Rush's show (I think it was Walter Williams, but it might have been Thomas Sowell), where a liberal caller phoned in, and stated that we NEEDED an activist court, like when the Supreme Court overturned slavery in the "Dread Scott" case? The host was somewhat stunned, and gave the caller a chance to restate his assertion... When he realized that the guy had EVERYTHING WRONG in his assertion, he didn't spend too much time making fun of him, but let his ignorance speak for itself.
Mark
"normally a very nice person" except when he's been drinking or not.
The Liberal Dogma has to be the most illogical concept ever drawn up!
A small example. I had a conversation this week with a liberal acquaintence: bright, well-educated (attorney), businessman, a thoroughly decent fellow who I would trust in any personal matter. The distribution of wealth came up in a glancing way and I brought up IRA's and 401(k)'s. The broader thrust of the conversation is not relevant here, but the interesting point is that he thought only about 1-2% of American families held wealth in equities. He simply refused to credit that the figure is actually over 50%. With ignorance this deep, one really has to start with a tutorial at about the 8th grade level on how the world works.
Such people clearly have chosen to remain ignorant, and this preference for ignorance puzzles me. I find that conservatives, confronted with an awkward (alleged) fact, will confront it, analyze it, perhaps attempt to refute it, but will in any event wrestle it into a broader framework. Liberals will just plow on as if nothing had been said.
I suppose part of it is that conservatives are regularly challenged to keep their arguments sharp by the liberal bias in academia and the media. But I think it goes deeper, into the territory David Horowitz (among others) explores: active bad faith, tolerance for dishonesty and hidden agendas, and the habitual conversion of issues disputes into ad hominen attacks. This approach to politics emerged from the hard left during the communist era, but it clearly has infected the broader left, probably through the tranmission belts of the universities.
Goodness knows, conservatives ain't perfect, but conservatives still deal in honest debate and will face facts. The left has worked itself into a very bad place.