But sure enough, you and I seem to be in step on the argument.

I guess my point is how can one feel that the government shouldn’t be involved in progressivism but then get pissy when someone else points out that strict conservatives don’t want the government to help people?

Okay, perhaps this is where I misunderstood you. I took your original comment to mean that conservative individuals were unsympathetic and would not be inclinded to charitable giving. Todd pointed that out when he said that, “Conservatives aren’t opposed to helping people, they just don’t think this help should necessarily be coming from the government.”

But if what you meant was that conservatives would be opposed to progressive government, then I agree.

The rub is that there are a lot of people who conflate opposition to progressive government with lack of empathy and charitable instincts.

Then the government has to raise taxes by 1% and start giving deductions for charitable giving again and now those that give are paying, say, 4% tax on their gross income while those that don’t are paying 6% tax on their gross income. It’s a simplistic example, but other than the numbers being way off scale I’d argue that it wasn’t such a big leap to create that scenario where the people are once again “enabled” to give.

So to me either the government has to “leave people to their own devices” (for the most part) or else it really isn’t that great of a leap.

I guess my point is how can one feel that the government shouldn’t be involved in progressivism but then get pissy when someone else points out that strict conservatives don’t want the government to help people? It is illogical to assume that because one thinks the conservative movement is unsympathetic then one must also assume each conservative individual is unsympathetic. Just as it is also illogical to assume that because one thinks the government should be progressive one must also believe that an individual would be uncharitable of his own accord.

There isn’t much of a leap between encouraging people to help others and then enabling (forcing?) them to help others by taking a bit out of their paychecks.

There is a huge leap between forcing someone and not forcing. If you don’t believe, try not paying your taxes this year.

And that’s not to say there isn’t room for a conservative movement to leverage the government to help out in certain situations (security), especially abroad (political injustices).

the conservative ideal is to leave people to their own devices

That is a strawman set up in an attempt to discredit conservative thought. There are lots of ways to help people that don’t involve government intervention.

I’m not sure that Barry was making that claim…maybe just using it as an example.

I’m not that tuned into this, but I don’t agree that ‘the conservative ideal is to leave people to their own devices’. Conservatives aren’t opposed to helping people, they just don’t think this help should necessarily be coming from the government. As long as the government isn’t funding the movie, that wouldn’t be an issue.

On the whole, I agree that Hollywood studios are inclined to produce movies that will make money, regardless of idealogy. However, similar to Sullivan’s complaint, it’s telling that American liberals were silent about the murders of Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn. Or perhaps since both those murders were committed either by Muslims or sympathetic Dutch leftists, the point about fear and intimidation takes precedence.

I think you nail it with this:

…the important thing for the liberals would appear not to be standing up for their base morals of equal rights for all, but rather to guard against anything that could shine a positive light on Republican policy.

Anybody But Bush.

I don’t think the claim is that Republicans support brutalization. Even if the conservative ideal is to leave people to their own devices, I’d never say this meant a conservative would support brutilization. The statements are more about the left. The left is the propenent of equal rights in this country (e.g. affirmative action, women’s rights). So the implication is that the left is hypocritical for not drawing attention to the brutalization of women in Islamic countries. I’m sure one could argue that when it comes down to it, the right is actually being more genuine in its support for liberal democracy and protecting the basic human rights of all citizens around the world.

In this argument, the important thing for the liberals would appear not to be standing up for their base morals of equal rights for all, but rather to guard against anything that could shine a positive light on Republican policy. Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

Most political parties which identify themselves as liberal claim to promote the rights and responsibilities of the individual, free choice within an open competitive process, the free market, and the dual responsibility of the state to protect the individual citizen and guarantee their liberty.

As the argument would go, the liberal power structure of Hollywood does not trust us to take a movie opening our eyes to the brutilzation of women in Islamic countries at face value. They are more worried that by extension we will then support the President in all he does. In reality it sure seems like a true conservative (especially an isolationist conservative) should be a helluva a lot madder at the President today than any liberal.

And naturally, if a conservative were to make this film it would be considered a bunch of propoganda.