"Disagreement with some people becomes more than disagreement. If you're in a group of people who disagree with you, it can become self indictment ... When I meet new people, I often wonder about the advisability of telling them what I think, especially if they show signs of being in kneejerk group agreement on a given issue ... Even disagreeing in the most diplomatic manner can require an enormous expenditure of energy, which is pointless when you're dealing with a drunken pack of people you know disagree with you 100% and can't wait to pounce."

Well said. I am a gay conservative, living in Canada (no, those three traits are not mutually exclusive). I am occasionally at social occasions where dozens of well-educated, wealthy, self-actualized gay men are chatting about politics, and the universal assumption by 100% of the people in the room is that, by virtue of being gay, you are a liberal (or Liberal - the Canadian equivalent of a Democrat). At that point I usually just stop contributing to the conversation - who needs the antagonism? Then someone inevitably accuses me of being morose or withdrawn, and to just lighten up.

For a group that has fought long & hard for tolerance, gay people can be remarkably intolerant of divergent thinking in these situations.

If only the intolerance were limited to gay issues, I could at least understand. It's the bigotry by association that drives me nuts. If you support the war, you're on the side of the bigots! If you think the country should control it's borders, you're "just like Pat Buchanan." Etc.

Join an identity politics group, and lose your brain!

While it is certainly true that this kind of insanity spans the political spectrum, I do think that right now it is more prevalent on the Left in America. There are several reasons for this.

First, the Left is just more invested psychologically in politics. It is, after all, one of their fundamental tenets that social/political change is the way to the Good. (As opposed to, e.g. Christian conservatives, who would say that Christ rather than Caesar is the way, or libertarians who would say politics is an obstacle to the Good.) So it is harder for a Leftist to not think politics is all-important.

Second, the modern Left is highly invested in group identity. They scarcely consider anyone as an individual. You are your race, your sex, your economic class, and your political party. Those are what define you. That's one reason Leftists are so especially vicious about conseratives who are women, black, or gay -- they've slipped out of their assigned category!

Finally, the Left is currently more invested in dissatisfaction than the Right. After all, if you are a Progressive, looking for wrongs to right and social injustice to correct, society must be riddled with wrongs and injustice. The conservative is more ready to be more or less content with how things are. The leftist is inherently discontented, and thus angry.

Experimental test: go to a social gathering of conservatives (say, an NRA turkey shoot) and make some pointedly liberal remarks. You may get some friendly argument, but you're more likely to get laughed at. Try the reverse at, say YearlyKos, and I guarantee you'll get screaming, eye-popping, vein-bulging vituperation.

Again, I'm not saying everyone on the left is this way, nor am I saying it's unknown on the right. But if I had to make a wild-ass estimate, I'd say twice as many leftists are brittle and hostile the way you've described.

Great site! Would you consider a link exchange to The Internet Radio Network?? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 26 of America's top Talk Shows via FREE STREAMING AUDIO!

http://netradionetwork.com

Eric:
"I am a gay conservative, living in Canada (no, those three traits are not mutually exclusive). I am occasionally at social occasions where dozens of well-educated, wealthy, self-actualized gay men are chatting about politics, and the universal assumption by 100% of the people in the room is that, by virtue of being gay, you are a liberal (or Liberal - the Canadian equivalent of a Democrat). At that point I usually just stop contributing to the conversation - who needs the antagonism?"

Yeah, I'm a self-loathing fascist who supports the very people who want to kill me, too. But for better or for worse, I inherited a deep mischievous streak. I don't bring up politics in mixed company, but when provoked by others, I enjoy throwing out lines like "Well, really, the Palestinians should consider themselves lucky the Israelis haven't wiped them out by now"...you know, just to see who faints.

Racial politics is never pretty. It has been headed that way ever since people started hyphenating what kind of American they are. Suffice it to say that leaves me awful confused since I would be a Latino-Jewish-black-Native America-Dutch-Christian American. That is way too long to put on an application.

If only Mr. Simon had paid attention to anthropology when he was in school. Harvard I believe (or was it Yale?).

All this fear and emotion put into politics like it was life or death comes from a time (the alpha male transition) when it was life or death.

In some places it is still life or death.

I enjoy throwing out lines like "Well, really, the Palestinians should consider themselves lucky they haven't wiped themselves out by now"...you know, just to see who faints.

M. Simon:
"In some places it is still life or death."

Meaning that poker-faced sanctimony is the only tone one can properly adopt in discussing it? Not sure what your point is.

Sean Kinsell:
"Meaning that poker-faced sanctimony is the only tone one can properly adopt in discussing it?"

Probably more like "Smile when you say that, pardner."

After all, I can return to my blog, where I'm still permitted to think what I think

Well, Hillary is leaving the door open to regulation on that ....

There's a quote that goes something like "When people stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing, they'll believe anything."

Do note that the most rabid of those that engage in "identity" politics are those that have made their political beliefs their "religion"

It's not just politics. I recently posted on author David Eddings and his The Belgariad. Which "inspired" a post at another blog in which the author get a tad bent out of shape about the matter. You'd think I was buggering the spirit of Professor Tolkien or something.

Some people just have no sense of proportion. Or any sense of discrimination for that matter. I want to support the defense of Iraq and selective abortion, that's my business.

(In case you're wondering, The Belgariad is mainstream fiction set on an imaginary world with working magic. :) )

If you don't fight you can't win. Unbelievable not to stand up to the enemy within. This is why the struggle is taking so long. This is the main problem the conservative base has with Bush and the conservatives in congress. Only a warrior wins, all else is "pablum for permissiveness". Fog God's sake, get a backbone! There is no room for playing nice with the enemy, on the battlefield, in the "parlor". It is seen for what it is, weakness. Only speaking your true mind to those who share your sentiment is craven.

"If you don't fight you can't win."

That is very true in war. But isn't there a time and place issue? Aren't there times you might just want to eat dinner with friends? Is shouting preferable to discussion? I've never known anyone to be persuaded by debates anyway, so much of it strikes me as a tedious waste of time.

Raising niggling doubts in the minds of true believers can do more than all the high-flown rhetoric ever preached.

Very true. Which is why I quit a UU church. Now we attend a Lutheran church where people would rather talk about kids than politics.