Even some cons are waking up...

We all know how badly bias wreaks havoc on human perception and objectivity. Study after study seems to confirm that many seek out information that confirms their world view (hence the popularity of FOX News). Some of us have a better handle on this than others, but I suspect even the best of us are guilty at times. Regardless, while avoiding the bone-in-nose, fur-loincloth conservatives such as Malkin, Little Green Footballs, Limbaugh, and the other blowhards, from time to time I pop in on National Review, American Conservative, Washington Monthly, et. al to see what the more intellectually-inclined opposition is talking about. Sometimes it's no different in its stupidity, selfishness and shortsightedness than the other stuff, but once in a while a few insightful things pop through the muck. Plus, if I don''t fully understand my opponent's arguments, how can I say I fully understand my own?

For your perusal, a feature over at this month's Washington Monthly...'Time For Us to Go: Conservatives on Why the GOP Should Lose in 2006'. It's seven articles, from noted cons such as Joe Scarborough, Christopher Buckley (son of William F.), and William A. Niskanen (Cato institute). It's basically a rundown of how badly G.W. and the current crop of Repubs have screwed this country up so badly, and why it might not be a bad thing (from their conservative perspective, of course) if the GOP lost its grip on power. All of the articles unequivocally voice support for the divided government as the Founding Fathers intended, as well as why divided government works best. Of course, there's the obligatory ass-kissing to the ideals of Adam Smith and other conservative nonsense, but I found myself agreeing, at least in principle, to much of what was said, for it could just as easily explain why it would be good for liberalism in some parts.