Is it as simple as "negative vs positive"?

[kentuck]

A caller to C-SPAN called while Michelle Malkin was being interviewed this morning. She pointed out how "negative" the conservatives are in their expressions.

Another caller, a Southern male, said that conservatives had taken their First Amendment right to free speech as a means to "hate speech".

On reflection, there may be more to their argument than first meets the eye. They do think the worst of people. They are negative. Some of their expressions are hateful. Anything "liberal" is discredited in the most vile terms. They pit their "righteous" conservatism against "evil" liberalism and "evil" big government.

They are nattering nabobs of negativism.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Weeeelllllllll.....

In fairness, I think, we also do this, a very vocal minority.

Organized Religion? EVIL!
Gun anything? EVIL!
Utility company? EVIL!

I mean, it's hard to get a reasonable discussion going sometimes with some of us.

Conservatives don't have a monopoly on knee-jerk, OTT, reflexive, self-righteous commentary.

I think plenty of reasonable people exist throughout the political spectrum, it's just that the nuts get the most airtime and, lately, are elected to office as Republicans.

[reddread]

2. its more than that

it is hate.
as if there is one superior form of the art.
I cant decipher the distinction between hating a misinformed cable customer and someone with developmental disabilities.
But I sure cant stand those haters!

[NYC_SKP]

4. It does seem that the RW haters take it further, make it personal.

But you can see some, maybe less, similar personal hating from the left:

They will hate on obese white people from the south with mullets. Is this fair?

I'll grant that it's different than hating gays and women, but it's still personal and mean.

Hate almost invariably is a function of fear. When it's passed from generation to generation it, sadly, becomes culture.

Trying to trace things back to the original fear is usually the effective means of treating the hate, but damn that's hard to do sometimes, especially with older folks.

[reddread]

5. I pretty much confine my concerns with those mingling among Democratic voter/supporters

one of the most appalling forms of self subjugation rears its ugly ass whenever I hear a progressive
lady/woman remarking upon body size or fitness issues that are misinterpreted as personal failings rather than
consequences of genetic conditions and/or industrial infrastructure failures.

[FSogol]

3. They think everyone else is full of the same selfish thoughts they think constantly. n/t

[Proud Public Servant]

6. The current crop is, to be sure

I've said this before, here and elsewhere: if there's one thing you can pretty much bet on in presidential politics, its that happy beats angry every time. That's a big advantage for us at the moment. But if Reagan and Shrub taught us anything, it's that it's possible to stand for hateful things while appearing positive. If the GOP can find someone who can deliver their message with a smile and a twinkle in her/his eye, we'd have something to worry about. (Huckabee could once have done it, but he's soured.)

[reddread]

7. terror and happy is a tough trick

unless, of course, the fix is in.

[Proud Public Servant]

9. Agreed. And Fox complicates things further

You can't be the GOP candidate without winning over Fox viewers, and those folks are addicted to bile.

[Freelancer]

8. What would Darwin say? ...

Probably Darwin would say that there are so much negativity and crotchetiness in Americans because it was helpful to survival, and people like that made more people.

Personally, I think some Republicans ate too many paint chips as babies. Seriously. Read the long term symptoms of lead exposure, and it sounds like a right-winger to a T (visualize Louie Gohmert). If part of a generation was poisoned by lead in a borderline way, and it affected all of their brains the same, later on, wouldn't that group see the world in a different fashion -- slightly skewed, but common to each other?