One of the odd phenomena I've noticed is that a large percentage of those who would be externally identifiable as liberal tend to embrace conservative ideas in some or more areas.

On one extreme, you have people who are entirely conservative, who, for some inexplicable reason (to me, anyway) faultlessly support liberal candidates.

I'm reminded of the Christian African-American voting bloc, who opposes abortion, gay marriage, increasing secularization, and is aware that the (Democratic) policies which have shaped the cities for the last half-decade are a massive failure -- and then nearly faultlessly vote people who represent and advance those policies.

Also I've noticed that many Air America talk show hosts espouse conservative values -- while lending support to candidates who don't. (I'm reminded of Randi Rhodes' affection for Judge Judy, for example -- though she'd surely excoriate Clarence Thomas for saying, word-for-word, any pithy quote chosen at random from a typical JJ episode.)

Frankly, I'm not sure I can entirely explain this phenomenon, except, perhaps, to note that there is some other value overriding these. For example, a black friend of mine holds strongly conservative beliefs -- much closer to those of Bush than Kerry in the last election -- but voted for Kerry because he felt (so he told me) that Bush was part of an evil conspiracy to undermine Christianity and turn America into a dictatorship. (Bush really needs to get moving on that one.)

Interestingly, I don't think this goes the other way much: I don't know any people who strongly believe in and advocate, say, socialism or the need for socialized medicine, who then voted for Ronald Reagan or another "supply-side" Republican. And reversing the situation described above: I don't know of many people who feel that "creeping religionism" is one of the top threats to our society, but who would then vote for a conservative Christian Republican. (Other than Christopher Hitchens -- whose very isolation underscores my point. Truly principled leftists are admirable but often lonely people.)

Moving towards the other end, you have people who mostly hold liberal beliefs, but also have pockets of strongly conservative values. And, it seems to me, the "conservative" bits often seem to the very areas in which they have the most direct experience.

I'm reminded of a therapist I know who has a view of medicare recipients which sounds to my ears almost like a liberal's parody of conservativism: These people are lazy cheats, blah, blah, blah... But I suspect her frustration comes from the fact she regularly moves among this community in her job. (Well, actually, she said so.) But her disenchantment with Medicare doesn't seem to lead to disenchantment with the idea of government running everything (or anything) else.

Another contemporary example appeared recently in The Weekly Standard, in the form of economist Jeffrey Sachs -- who undoubtedly doesn't oppose capitalism or markets per se, and yet...

Economist Jeffrey Sachs, delivering the BBC's prestigious 2007 Reith lectures, is currently one of those keeping hope alive. His gospel is a familiar message of global cooperation--rich nations delivering money and resources to developing countries--that can defeat poverty in almost no time flat. We need merely to shed our petty rivalries and rearrange our spending priorities. "We can end poverty, at home and abroad, with the technologies and tools that we have, if we trust each other sufficiently, at home and abroad," he predicts.

Economists, I've noted, are often at least fiscally conservative. But it often seems that when they propound about areas outside their expertise -- global warming, nation building, sexual behaviors -- they frequently end up advocating a "leftist" or "liberal" position. And because Sachs is dictating policy in areas outside of his expertise (African culture, human nature, religious conflict), we find him in precisely that spot...

Despite his reputation as a globe-trotting economist, he seems to barely appreciate the complexity of problems embedded in the cultures he is so eager to rescue. He brushes aside warnings from African economists that Western aide will continue to be wasted on corrupt regimes that resist reform. He hardly mentions the social devastation caused by civil and regional wars--and, when he does, he reinterprets them as a clash of economic interests. The genocidal bloodletting in the Darfur region of Sudan, for example, is reduced in his telling to a struggle over natural resources. (Tell that to the women being raped by Arab militias who despise their non-Arab identity.)

Home-grown conservative filmmakers (ProtestWarrior, for example) often have fun taking video cameras to protests. Here you have people holding up signs and screaming -- and yet also often seem to lack even basic knowledge about the issues at hand: Whether Communism worked, why Islamists are fighting the West, whether a minimum wage will raise or lower unemployement.

And do I need to mention the Hollywood crowd?

Perhaps this implies that the perfect liberal is someone who advocates strongly in almost every area, and knows about absolutely none of them in any depth.

(Yes, I know: Ouch.)

To be fair: this doesn't mean all (or even most conservatives) have a clue either: they could also be blindly advocating what they picked up from their culture or parents, without having any more clue as whether it's right or wrong. (In fact, I'd suspect a huge percent of conservatives positions are held for this same reason.) BUT (and here's the qualifier) since, outside a few counter-cultural pockets (the Amish, for example), conservative beliefs aren't currently fashionable: meaning that today's conformist sheep tend to increasingly bleat leftward.

Am I wrong? If so, please attack me (politely, lest ye be deleted, mateys) for my overwhelming ignorance. Thank you!

And in either case: Have a nice day!

(Hmmm: How very early-1970s.)