How the left lost its way

[0roo0roo]

..

 

[Genx87]

Dont feel too bad, at least the left is holding onto many of its core values. The moderate right has succumbed to neo-cons and their big govt social crap. Effectively minimizing themselves in the process. There is actually a war going on between the conservatives and Bush's neo-cons right now.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is actually a war going on between the conservatives and Bush's neo-cons right now.

Too bad this didn't happen earlier. A bit too late, the damage has been done.

 

[Jaskalas]

Why is it that apologies for a militant Islam which stands for everything the liberal left is against come from the liberal left? Why will students hear a leftish postmodern theorist defend the exploitation of women in traditional cultures but not a crusty conservative don? After the American and British wars in Bosnia and Kosovo against Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansers, why were men and women of the left denying the existence of Serb concentration camps? As important, why did a European Union that daily announces its commitment to the liberal principles of human rights and international law do nothing as crimes against humanity took place just over its borders? Why is Palestine a cause for the liberal left, but not China, Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Congo or North Korea? Why, even in the case of Palestine, can't those who say they support the Palestinian cause tell you what type of Palestine they would like to see? After the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington why were you as likely to read that a sinister conspiracy of Jews controlled American or British foreign policy in a superior literary journal as in a neo-Nazi hate sheet? And why after the 7/7 attacks on London did leftish rather than right-wing newspapers run pieces excusing suicide bombers who were inspired by a psychopathic theology from the ultra-right?

In short, why is the world upside down? In the past conservatives made excuses for fascism because they mistakenly saw it as a continuation of their democratic rightwing ideas. Now, overwhelmingly and every where, liberals and leftists are far more likely than conservatives to excuse fascistic governments and movements, with the exception of their native far-right parties. As long as local racists are white, they have no difficulty in opposing them in a manner that would have been recognisable to the traditional left. But give them a foreign far-right movement that is anti-Western and they treat it as at best a distraction and at worst an ally

Wow, this is very powerful and accurate. I?m impressed by this writer.

 

[ProfJohn]

Umm where are all the liberal posters? Hiding from this thread I guess.

For all their talk about human rights and democracy why is that the world leader who visited the White House the most under Clinton was a terrorist named Arafat?

 

[blackllotus]

I don't see any leftists excusing militant Islam, defending the exploitation of women, or excusing suicide bombers. Arguing that Islam is not a violent religion is not equivalent to defending a radical Islamic minority.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Why is it that apologies for a militant Islam which stands for everything the liberal left is against come from the liberal left? Why will students hear a leftish postmodern theorist defend the exploitation of women in traditional cultures but not a crusty conservative don? After the American and British wars in Bosnia and Kosovo against Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansers, why were men and women of the left denying the existence of Serb concentration camps? As important, why did a European Union that daily announces its commitment to the liberal principles of human rights and international law do nothing as crimes against humanity took place just over its borders? Why is Palestine a cause for the liberal left, but not China, Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Congo or North Korea? Why, even in the case of Palestine, can't those who say they support the Palestinian cause tell you what type of Palestine they would like to see? After the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington why were you as likely to read that a sinister conspiracy of Jews controlled American or British foreign policy in a superior literary journal as in a neo-Nazi hate sheet? And why after the 7/7 attacks on London did leftish rather than right-wing newspapers run pieces excusing suicide bombers who were inspired by a psychopathic theology from the ultra-right?

In short, why is the world upside down? In the past conservatives made excuses for fascism because they mistakenly saw it as a continuation of their democratic rightwing ideas. Now, overwhelmingly and every where, liberals and leftists are far more likely than conservatives to excuse fascistic governments and movements, with the exception of their native far-right parties. As long as local racists are white, they have no difficulty in opposing them in a manner that would have been recognisable to the traditional left. But give them a foreign far-right movement that is anti-Western and they treat it as at best a distraction and at worst an ally

Wow, this is very powerful and accurate. I?m impressed by this writer.

There's a crapload of false assumptions and accusations in just that first paragraph you posted.

This is nothing but a bunch of FOX News-esque "some say" type rhetoric.

Cohen is a latent neocon.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Umm where are all the liberal posters? Hiding from this thread I guess.

I often wonder who these liberal left guys are. Who posts here that fits into this article
I'll bet there is no one hiding, its just that they don't exist here
Are you part of the radical right Prof?
You guys have so many boogiemen it's hard to keep track of it all

 

[Rainsford]

Disclaimer: I use the word "righties" a lot below because there isn't really a better term. But I don't mean all righties, in fact, I don't mean very many of them at all. I mean the types who read Cal Thomas and think "hmm, that guy makes a lot of sense".

Man, you righties sure are easy to impress. This guy is not "powerful and accurate", he's simply repeating some fairly low-brow conservative points that barely reach the level of Bill O'Reilly, much less that of intelligent discussion. Maybe all you're looking for is an intellectual reach-around, but I'm not sure reasonable discussion begins with calling one side or another "anti-American".

One interesting thing I've noticed about this general discussion is that, while righties constantly come down on lefties for being "elitist", they also manage to display some truly astonishing arrogance in their world view. It's one thing to think that you're view of a situation is the correct one, and it's even somewhat acceptable to think that no intelligent person could disagree. But when it comes to the war on terrorism, you either agree with the righties or you hate America. Not only can't you possibly be right, but your MOTIVES for holding any position other than the one popular with angry white men on TV must be suspect. You can't possibly think that the money spent on an inefficient military response to terrorism would be better spent on intelligence and police forces, no, you CLEARLY are not only an apologist for "militant Islam", but you hate the very foundation of this country. It's one thing to think you're smarter than everyone else, but it takes a special kind of arrogance to think that everyone else is a bad person. I think the folks calling lefties "elitist" need to take a closer look in the mirror.

And for what it's worth, I think that the righty position on the war on terror is about the least effective thing we could be doing...even surrendering (I mean REALLY surrendering) would probably yield better results than the international dick measuring contest that righties seem to think constitutes effective anti-terrorism measures. So far as I can tell, it's either a matter of being a hopeless Bush fanboy or someone who thinks "getting tough" is the answer to any problem. The military is a fine tool for a lot of things, but fighting terrorism is not one of them. 9/11, and any future attacks like that, could have been stopped with some good intelligence work and a few dozen beat cops. But don't try telling the righties that, because it's not macho enough. It doesn't allow the fight to become the Super Bowl of international relations that all recliner-bound "tough guys" need. You guys seem to LOVE Reagan, but apparently not enough to actually pay attention to what he did while he was President. Had the current crop of "conservatives" been in charge back then, no doubt we'd have started out ending the Cold War by lobbing nuclear weapons at Ecuador and calling it the "War for the Free World" or some other similarly insipid name.

You people couldn't protect a hardware store, and the only thing making your "side" LESS appealing is that you all prance around thinking you're the only ones that love this country. Stupidity and arrogance are not a particularly great combination, and while conservatives may think gay folks will be the downfall of American society...I think it will be the Bush voters slapping "Support the Troops" bumper stickers on their Tahoes and confusing that with being a good American.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Umm where are all the liberal posters? Hiding from this thread I guess.

For all their talk about human rights and democracy why is that the world leader who visited the White House the most under Clinton was a terrorist named Arafat?

Yeah, I personally hate human rights and democracy. But that's because I'm a lefty. Now the Republicans with their illegal wire tapping, lying to the american public about a war, letting themselves get bought by lobbyists... THAT, my friends, represents human rights and democracy.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Umm where are all the liberal posters? Hiding from this thread I guess.

For all their talk about human rights and democracy why is that the world leader who visited the White House the most under Clinton was a terrorist named Arafat?

Yeah, I personally hate human rights and democracy. But that's because I'm a lefty. Now the Republicans with their illegal wire tapping, lying to the american public about a war, letting themselves get bought by lobbyists... THAT, my friends, represents human rights and democracy.

I also happen to hate Jesus and freedom. And every morning, when I wake up, I take my morning piss on an American flag, followed by some nice bald eagle egg omelets.

Sometimes I listen the right-wing pundits and wonder how someone can actually be speaking those words without stopping themselves and thinking about how stupid they sound when they say them. And even more disturbing is considering just who their audience is composed of.

 

[Jaskalas]

Hit a nerve has it?

 

[Vic]

The problem with the "liberal" left in this decade is that they stopped being liberals. IMO it's eerily similar to what happened to the conservative right during the Clinton admin, which gave us the rise of the neocons and the Shrub admin. Radical Islam has sh!t to do with it. It's what happens when partisanship becomes the sole focus of your political ideology.

 

[Craig234]

The right loves any sort of 'reformed leftist' who tells them what they want to hear, with lies reinforcing the straw man of the left they are spoon fed by the propagandists.

I've said before the liberals are sometimes a bit too unable to use force when it would do good, but that issue is tiny compared to the way the right uses force for wrong far too often. Excessive war is far larger a problem than excessive peace.

The right fails to note so much, and one thing is how it's the US (and England) who has set up so much of the corrupt power in the Middle East.

Something else the right fails to note is that the alternative doesn't include doing the 'right thing' much - the alternative to the left's policy is immoral war.

It's like how they want republicans practising fiscal responsibility - it's not availble, they get corrupt overborrowing overspending republicans as the alternative.

But they can get lip service, at least, from the republicans *saying* they're for fiscal responsibility.

The right is also just utterly partisan in their views - the US can do 100 things wrong, but they'll wear the rose-colored glasses and criticize the muslims.

Did the muslims kill millions of Vietnamese for no good reason, pouring jellied gasoline and carcinogens across the nation, torturing thousands?

The radical muslims are a problem, their societies suffer terribly, and liberals should be concerned and consider what can be done. The right offers garbage, however.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Let's just put it this way.. there are FAR fewer people in this country that want a Soviet-style government than there are people who want a Hitler/Mussolini-style government. The left in this country are mostly those who oppose the idea of a neo-conservative agenda. If you were to plot on a political chart this country, it'd look something like this:

|--------*-----------|--- USA ----------*--|

* = liberals
* = conservatives

We, as a nation, are right of center.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Let's just put it this way.. there are FAR fewer people in this country that want a Soviet-style government than there are people who want a Hitler/Mussolini-style government. The left in this country are mostly those who oppose the idea of a neo-conservative agenda. If you were to plot on a political chart this country, it'd look something like this:

|--------*-----------|--- USA ----------*--|

* = liberals
* = conservatives

We, as a nation, are right of center.

I suppose you could come to that conclusion if you defined the entire political spectrum by the 2 extremes of authoritarianism. Which is ridiculous. What most people in the USA want is neither of those, nor anything in between them. As far as most of America is concerned, there is precious little difference between communism and fascism besides the labels given them by fanatic ideological extremists. And yaknow what? They're right.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Let's just put it this way.. there are FAR fewer people in this country that want a Soviet-style government than there are people who want a Hitler/Mussolini-style government. The left in this country are mostly those who oppose the idea of a neo-conservative agenda. If you were to plot on a political chart this country, it'd look something like this:

|--------*-----------|--- USA ----------*--|

* = liberals
* = conservatives

We, as a nation, are right of center.

I suppose you could come to that conclusion if you defined the entire political spectrum by the 2 extremes of authoritarianism. Which is ridiculous. What most people in the USA want is neither of those, nor anything in between them. As far as most of America is concerned, there is precious little difference between communism and fascism besides the labels given them by fanatic ideological extremists. And yaknow what? They're right.

Hannity and Limbaugh like to call the left communists and such, though. The people who listen to them then pick up on it and think in terms of that. So what's the difference?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Let's just put it this way.. there are FAR fewer people in this country that want a Soviet-style government than there are people who want a Hitler/Mussolini-style government. The left in this country are mostly those who oppose the idea of a neo-conservative agenda. If you were to plot on a political chart this country, it'd look something like this:

|--------*-----------|--- USA ----------*--|

* = liberals
* = conservatives

We, as a nation, are right of center.

I suppose you could come to that conclusion if you defined the entire political spectrum by the 2 extremes of authoritarianism. Which is ridiculous. What most people in the USA want is neither of those, nor anything in between them. As far as most of America is concerned, there is precious little difference between communism and fascism besides the labels given them by fanatic ideological extremists. And yaknow what? They're right.

Hannity and Limbaugh like to call the left communists and such, though. The people who listen to them then pick up on it and think in terms of that. So what's the difference?

Who cares about what the talking heads say? If that's the limit of your political science education, we're not gonna have much to discuss here. Talking heads spew propaganda for entertainment purposes. Don't confuse it for actual news or commentary. They're the filler that sells paid advertisements.

But it's true, the extreme left has become increasing socialist/communist (this is what I meant in my post above where I said the liberal left stopped being liberals), much like the extreme right stopped being conservatives and became increasing fascist (which we call "neocon") over the 80-90s leading into the disaster of the Bush admin. And much like the mainstream conservative right is revolting against the neocon fascists, the mainstream liberal left is already beginning to reject its extremists (look at the 2006 election, where the Dems won by moving to the middle and away from the left, although the tumoil on the right certainly helped them). Perhaps the greatest irony of all this is that the heroes of the extremists on both sides don't even actually represent them (Bush isn't actually a fundie, Kerry was opposed to abortion and gay marriage, and Hillary is Third Way aka the "Radical Middle.") So like I said in my post above, it's partisanship as ideology. Like rooting for your favorite ball team.