What is Sowell referring to when he says "Some on the left believe that they are innocent even after being proven guilty." The quote seems apropos of nothing.

I certainly hope he's not referring to organizations like The Innocence Project.

What is Sowell referring to when he says "Some on the left believe that they are innocent even after being proven guilty." The quote seems apropos of nothing.

If I had to guess, he'd probably cite things like Mumia Abu-Jamal (the Ward Churchill of the 1990s) and, as you suggest, efforts to defend death row convicts.

There is, of course, nothing wrong per se with believing that someone has been wrongfully convicted. But the point here is that Sowell is aruging that there is while doing it himself. That is what, as always, is so confounding.

Another example of this relates to military action. Many conservatives seem to have a ready inclination for our country to go to war. However, they want you and yours to do the fighting. They and theirs will cheer you on from the sidelines and from the safety of their homes. When pressed on this some idiotic reason is always given why they are not volunteering for military service. They truly are the "chickenhawk" brigade. And it is completely logical to them.

That is but a vivid illustration of how this political movement reasons.

Is it even possible to call this type of thinking "reason", which at the very least implies a degree of cognition that would reject the inherent contradictions of this movement functions with? As you've pointed out, it is impervious to logic, counter-argument and evidence.

How does one work to counter such a mindset?

…but I cannot help being endlessly amazed by the capacity of right-wing authoritarians so blatantly to hold and espouse completely contradictory thoughts at once without realizing they are doing it.

I don’t know whether Sowell realizes he’s doing this or not – maybe he does and just doesn’t care because it serves his “movement” and its attacks on the enemy.

I’m not disputing Altmeyer’s thesis (with which I agree), but just pointing out that in some cases the contradiction is so blatant, their position so untenable to their previous rhetoric, that they have to be conscious of it.

The Republican’s stance on the “filibuster” comes to mind. When they were in the majority they demanded an “up or down” vote and were so upset by the “obstructionist” rights of the minority that they almost eliminated the filibuster completely.

Yet, without a moment’s hesitation, the second they became the minority they began filibustering and preventing up or down votes. Doing exactly what just weeks before they proclaimed with certainty was “unconstitutional.”

This is one case, and I’m sure there are others, where they realize they are holding contradictory positions, but just don’t give a damn, since it now serves their purpose.

'... the sentence "some on the left believe that [people] are innocent even after being proven guilty," a basically functioning brain should have alerted him to the fact that he and his ideological comrades constantly do exactly that, and did precisely that all year long with regard to the conviction of Lewis Libby.'

Yes, that is exactly on target.

It is also true that people on both sides (Dem v. Repug) will excuse the behavior of those 'on their team' while yelling 'hypocrite' at those on the other team that do this.

We must all find a way to return to the idea that 'what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.' We must start holding all people in the political caste to the same standards of behavior. Otherwise; we are doomed.

Thomas Sowell, from his Townhall column today:
We all believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. Some on the left believe that they are innocent even after being proven guilty.

Thomas Sowell, March 2007, on Lewis Libby's conviction on four felony counts:
In the course of this pointless investigation, it turned out that some of Scooter Libby's statements conflicted with the statements of some reporters. So Libby was prosecuted for perjury and obstruction of justice -- and a Washington jury convicted him.

He has really perfected the art of oozingly contemptuous prose. Contempt for "some on the left", contempt for a "Washington jury" -- they are both indistinguishably beneath him, and his esteemed readers of course.
The wingers who read Townhall posts with any regularity don't need to have a favorite ball team, a beloved alma mater, etc -- they've got a team to root for that cannot lose.

Except, at the polls.

Your post assumes Sowell -a sometimes Limbaugh sub host and a man G Gordon Liddy calls one of America's great thinkers- is in the business of providing reasoned commentary. He is in the business of providing attacks on "the Left" (however he chooses to define it).

He may be perfectly aware he is espousing a do as I say, not as I do philosophy and it will not matter on whit to him. He, and his fellow right wing pundits, are not attempting to score points for intellectual consistency or honesty, they are attacking the other side with anything they can.

And though I have no doubt these attacks are motivated by their authoritarian love of dear leader, they are not necessarily the sign of an intellectual breakdown.

False Premise

Your post assumes Sowell -a sometimes Limbaugh sub host and a man G Gordon Liddy calls one of America's great thinkers- is in the business of providing reasoned commentary. He is in the business of providing attacks on "the Left" (however he chooses to define it).

No, I do not assume that.

He may be perfectly aware he is espousing a do as I say, not as I do philosophy and it will not matter on whit to him. He, and his fellow right wing pundits, are not attempting to score points for intellectual consistency or honesty, they are attacking the other side with anything they can.

Why do you think that this contradicts anything I said?

And though I have no doubt these attacks are motivated by their authoritarian love of dear leader, they are not necessarily the sign of an intellectual breakdown.

Very few people consciously think to themselves: "I know that what I am saying is false and deceitful, but I am saying it anyway because that is my purpose." There is a tendency to create simplistic, cartoon-like depictions of one's political opponents based on these visions of Lex Luthor-like Supreme Evil, and the notion that the "other side" is consciously aware that they are being deceitful and doing it anyway is, more often than not, a by-product of that process.