Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals "Think"

The Heritage Foundation ^ | May 10 2007 | Evan Sayet

[Rurudyne]

EVAN SAYET

I call myself a 9/13 Republican. I grew up a liberal New York Jew; you don't get much more liberal than that--although it was lower-case "l," not what's considered Liberal today. I graduated from high school knowing only one thing about politics: that Democrats are good and Republicans are evil.

I tell a story. It's not a true story, but it helps crys­tallize my thinking that brought me to become a conservative. I say: Imagine being in a restaurant with an old friend, and you're catching up, and suddenly he blurts out, "I hate my wife." You chuckle to yourself because he says it every time you're together, and you know he doesn't hate his wife; they've been together for 35 years. He loves his daughters, and they're just like her. No, he doesn't hate his wife.

So you're having dinner, and you look out the window and spot his wife, and she's being beaten up right outside the restaurant. You grab your friend and say, "Come on, let's help her. Let's help your wife," and he says, "Nah, I'm sure she deserves it." At that moment, it dawns on you: He really does hate his wife.

That's what 9/11 was to me. For years and years I'd hear my friends from the Left say how evil and horrible and racist and imperialistic and oppressive America is, and I'd chuckle to myself and think, "Oh, they always say that; they love America." Then on 9/11, we were beaten up, and when I grabbed them by the collar, and I said, "Come on, let's help her. Let's help America," and they said, "Nah, she deserves it."

At that moment, I realized: They really do hate America.

[Rurudyne]

Yes. Have you ever noticed that the same people who once sang:

“He can’t even run his own life, I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine!”

... are the exact same people who now imagine that we can’t run our lives without their help ... no matter how well they can or can’t run their own lives?

[Rurudyne]

Landru, I don't disagree with your assessment of the Clintons at all.

I only think they didn't knowingly help 9/11 to happen and pointed to how some of them actually commented that if it had happened earlier than President Clinton, rather than President Bush, would have had a chance to strut his stuff.

Of course, I would dispute (and I'd think you'd agree) that President Clinton would have had any "stuff" to strut at all. He would have handled the whole thing like he did the earlier WTC attack (among others).

Did you ever see the editorial cartoon where a man and woman were in bed and the woman says: "Thank God for President Bush!" to which the man responds: "Shut up, Tipper!"

[Rurudyne]

Sure, as a way of diverting attention from their criminal incompetence which they want another shot at. As for this last, if Senator Clinton can even get nominated they’ll claim (citing it as “proof”) that the American people never believed the facts about the bumbling and corruption of the worst president ever.

[Landru]

"Landru, I don't disagree with your assessment of the Clintons at all."

Thank god.
The Clintigula subject hits my hot button like no other.
(~you couldn't tell, huh. {g})

"I only think they didn't knowingly help 9/11 to happen and pointed to how some of them actually commented that if it had happened earlier than President Clinton, rather than President Bush, would have had a chance to strut his stuff."

Fair enough, FWIW we were at 60Hz on [that] point all along.
I just never considered --a'tall-- their possible complicity, until it was mentioned.
Then the plausibility hit me given who they really are.

"Of course, I would dispute (and I'd think you'd agree) that President Clinton would have had any "stuff" to strut at all."

Not much *strut*; but, plenty of DNA. ;^)

"He would have handled the whole thing like he did the earlier WTC attack (among others)."

Non-handling, the Carter Method.

"Did you ever see the editorial cartoon where a man and woman were in bed and the woman says: "Thank God for President Bush!" to which the man responds: "Shut up, Tipper!""

HA!!
No, I don't believe I did.
But as Rush likes to point out, a[ny] successful parody *must* have one component to really work.

...a nugget of truth. :^)

[Carry_Okie]

I have always wondered why G-d said the Tree of Life brought knowledge of Good and Evil. Why would G-d put it that way? They already had knowledge of Good, so why would one want knowledge of Evil?

Hmmmm....

[Rurudyne]

I'm leaning towards the idea that they knew God's Holiness and were holy themselves (as a derivative fact to that); but, I don't think we should consider them to have been "moral" beings before the Fall.

This is because human morality is caught up in the discrimination for good and against evil. But apart from sin there was no and would be no human evil at all. That sin is the fullest summation of evil would seem an unremarkable statement; however, the second of the two special trees was equally the tree of the knowledge of good being the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That being the case the kind of "goodness" their disobedience brought can't be the same as God's manifest Goodness, but must be something much less than that, as He says: "My ways are not your ways."

Even when we try to be "good" as we understand it our righteousness is described a filthy rags to Him.

While it may well be me taking the notion too far: I suppose what God wanted was for Men to by discriminately good (to be of the sort that unfailingly arrives at the right, the good, and the holy in a knowing fashion) and that may account for the presence of the two trees — since you can't be "discriminating" without ever having had a choice.

Consider that the choice that Adam was presented with is very different from what we, as moral beings, experience. We make choices nominally unaware of what the consequences of those choices will be; however, Adam was presented with the choice between consequences first and foremost.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil offered something in exchange for the implicit and explicit promise of death — the consequence. Adam HAD TO HAVE understood what that meant considering there was nothing in his constitution before the Fall to cause him to not understand God (like the body of death that Paul refers to).

Clearly if they had eaten from the Tree of Life they would have lived (as per Genesis 3:22), but what isn't stated is if there would would've been anything else "gained" along with life.

If you view the choosing between these two as a choice between consequences then it may stand to reason that they were expected to discriminate against one in favor of the other — of course they chose wrong but God thankfully hasn't left it at that (ie: salvation).

But had they chosen right, had they chosen Life, in what light would they have then come to understand the choice they had made?

It might be possible that they would have come to understand the folly implicit in the TotKoG&E without ever having become evil or becoming subjected to sin.

Really, I can't know and it may even be the case that I'll never be told — still I will trust Him.

[Scotswife]

“no matter how well they can or can’t run their own lives?”

exactly.
The Clintons are a perfect example...nothing but scandal from the earliest days in Arkansas up to the present - but who manages to sound the most self-righteous and condescending?

Hillary thinks the oil market cannot function without her - nor the banking industry - nor the fed...but when in her life has she shown any economic prowess apart from shady dealings and suspicious fundraising?

There is no reality-based thinking - just alot of bluster and attitude.

[RobbyS]

Thanks.

[tpanther]

Sure, and once they have PROOF they can unimpeach him...for historical purposes, to repair his legacy...AND worse yet, get the taxpayers to foot their legal bills AFTER ALL!

[tpanther]

yup...and you got one that I had forgotten...capitalism and communism...they’ve got gobs of evidence and yet focus on Enron...as if that’s killed tens of millions of people...actually I think that’s exactly how they visualize that I think!

[tpanther]

No no! Laura Mylroie, Daniel Pipes, alot of people were screaming from the mountaintops after the first WTC attack, the USS Cole, the African embassy bombings...

Read some of Mylroie’s stuff...it’s QUITE chilling even today!

Most of this stuff was on National Review Online, or other conservative outlets, but that’s the ONLY place you’d read or hear it, but it was there!

My next prediction in fact is people will say no one was talking about a dirty and/or suitcase bomb either.

[wtc911]

I stand corrected....thank you (sincerely).

[tpanther]

You bet...but you’re right in that most of the country wasn’t getting that infomration because of the drive-bys...those that did didn’t fully heed the dangers...

9-11 was a wake-up call even to those that saw it coming!

[ModelBreaker]

May I suggest a thorough reading of Romans 14.

Paul does not say or intimate that perspective changes the truth--in fact, he explicitly notes that judgment is the Lord's. He was counseling how to get along with folks who have different habits--vegetarian or not, for example. I don't understand what that has to do with the immutability of truth and whether the truths is actually different, depending on your perspective.

Elsewhere, Paul was pretty hard nosed on the issue of the truth we were discussing previously--the messiahship of Jesus.

[Eva]

No, they don’t exactly hate America, they only hate the characteristics that aren’t a part of their agenda.

A young man at our caucus explained to me that the real difference between a conservative and a liberal is that the conservative sees government as something outside of them, a necessary evil, so to speak. A liberal sees government as themselves.

They are, or should BE the government, because they have the best interests of the people at heart and have all the answers. What they can’t control, they hate.

[Carry_Okie]

You missed the point entirely, my guess is because you probably hold that "the weaker brother" of Romans 14 is one who still upholds the Mosaic Law. There is now a more scholarly treatment of the topic (virtually missing from Christian analyses stuck with Luther's jilted interpretation).

[Rurudyne]

To answer that I would probably have to at least post an analysis I wrote a while back called “There is no ‘General Welfare’ Clause” for context. This is because the ill termed “liberals” actually do at least disparage America and would be loathed to actually be governed by its Constitution.

But it would be a long vanity piece (not that I haven’t written those before: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1647824/posts ;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1718921/posts ;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1736726/posts ;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1628444/posts ).

[gobucks]

bump

[Rurudyne]

Thanks! But what gets me is that reading the comments it would seem that few have visited the YouTube presentation when compared to the text.

I tried to post the link to YouTube in my comment but it didn’t work ... of course that’s a different issue.

[Rurudyne]

BTW ... since Mr.Sayet is a Freeper, maybe I'll take this moment to ask you if he has posted anything about the book he mentioned: Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals "Think".

Who is the publisher? Is is available yet?