Now now, guest pdq,

Saying things like "the liberal knows that he is not at fault"--I think that's what's being most fairly objected to. I'm a liberal and know I am at fault. The fact that others may be more so, if you look at it that way, doesn't absolve me of anything. Nor do I go around dressed in guilt and shame, I just try not to kid myself.

Hm. I've formed an idea that there's an unspoken existential basis for some conservative views. I'm just poking in the dark, trying to figure out what nobody will explain to me. It's like trying to find out when and what my mom has decided I'm going to do for her--I just have to stab at it because she doesn't want to say that she's worked it all out regardless of my schedule.

   But the existential idea that To do is to Be--seems to explain some things about conservative views of fairness and balance. People who do more, bigger things--they properly exist more, matter more. It's not exactly about working-hard=reward or about just kow-towing to the wealthy, those things are just sometimes spurious correlations.

I'm a liberal Socratic To Be is to Do-er, and often find conservatives to be very impressionable. With big good there's big bad, it seems to me, and I don't tend to give extra credit for scale of itself.

And it would help to explain how conservative leaders often seem to view their jobs as more kingly, how this one can behave as though he had a mandate when it could hardly be clearer that he never did. It's the maxim of truth to an individual essence--to be large.

I don't mean any offence. Just keep trying to figure why we see things differently, and conservatives and existentialists both always tend to baffle me, so I drew a link.

And please, I think we've all heard of Sinatra's Do be do be do philosophy.