Yeah, you know, but the people I'm talking about are too. They're on the POLITICS list. It's not an easy to find list. You have to be seeking out a list for the discussion of politics.
One is a poli sci PhD. Another has a PhuD in history, teach as IUSB, fancies himself a connoisseur of politics. Another guy is a Bastard Operator from Hell by day, by night his avocation is studying Indians and doing life histories. He gives talks at libraries, etc. on it. This Bradich guy, don't know much about him to know. The lawyer, I don't know where he stands, but I'll bet he knows the differences -- just refuses to deal with it -- in spite of having the diversity of "the left" and "democrats" right in his face on that list every single day. The retired ex-army guy -- well, he might be willing to get it, but he's not going to. Similar things went on at a list for hackers/geeks/techs. Broadbrush caricatures of "the left" that encompassed everyone from lieberman to Stalin. The other cons have been quiet lately or left the list, so I can't remember where they stood.
They get told for years about the differences. They're never stimulated to find out why and, ultimately, seem to think we lie. If they believe that you might sue to be called a liberal Democrat, they'd think that you're embarrassed to be described as so far left.
It's not stupidity, of course. It's hegemony.
Which may be why some people here say there "used to be" smart conservatives -- and also why we think we see smart, marginalized conservatives today. They have to study the enemy and pay attention, yes? Dunno. Just a thought. A way to work through this "conservatives are stupid" claim by showing how it has a social structural and social/political movement basis, not congenital.
Gar: cool.
Kelley
"Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."
-- rwmartin