Ultra-leftists and religious zealots really have a lot in common

[AndrewR]

I caught a snippet of McCain's speech today on the news, and there were some more Code Pink freaks there yelling about some nonsense. It dawned on me that the ultra-left and the ultra-right, particularly the religious right, have some things in common. Keep with me here.

Namely, I'm referring to the absolute intolerance for those who do not share their opinions, just look at Code Pink with any Republican or anyone in uniform and then religious zealots and the abortion debate (or gays, etc. -- multiple targets there). You could also take the radical environmental crowd (PETA) throwing ink on people wearing fur. The intolerance basically amounts to a desire to change other people's behavior, not merely an invitation for open debate or an attempt at informing the opposition. In a similar vein, you can also look at religious whackos and their relentless crusade against sex in society -- adult bookstores, porn channels (remember Spice?), adult toys, "wardrobe malfunctions", etc.

I guess it's similar to the fact that you can look at the political extremes in the 20th century and see tremendous similarities if you take the Nazis on the right and the Stalinists on the left. Totalitarianism on both ends of the spectrum.

Just musing, but I suppose the political spectrum is more like a circle than a flat line. I guess that I'm becoming Toaist as I age -- everything in balance*.


DISCUSS.


*Ironically, the wiki page on Taoism says that some enviros have used Taoism to justify their beliefs.

[edit] Changed the title to remove the liberal label. If you bothered to read the post, you would have noticed (I didn't!) that I didn't use the term in there. In my defense, I did put "ultra" in front of liberal.

 

[Stunt]

I agree with the statement that extremists of all walks of life are no better than others...
But throughout history it has been extremists, idealists, and those with views outside the norm that drive innovation, reform, change, and a point of view that the mainstream does not endorse wholeheartedly either through pessimism, conservative (as in status quo) nature, or lack of being informed.

If we sat around and refused to acknowledge extremists and pretend that the average person knows best; we are destined to a life of indecision, lack of innovation/motivation, and stagnation.
Careful what you wish for...populism, balance, togetherness sounds quite union-esque.

 

[bamacre]

http://www.lp.org

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.lp.org

I consider myself a libertarian of sorts...miniarchist type...but there's some real nut bars within that party too

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: bamacre
http://www.lp.org

I consider myself a libertarian of sorts...miniarchist type...but there's some real nut bars within that party too

We call those people anarchists.

In reality there is balance. We recognize that there are plenty of great things that can come out of sex, books, wars, laws and religion but also a lot of bad things as well.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I agree with the statement that extremists of all walks of life are no better than others...
But throughout history it has been extremists, idealists, and those with views outside the norm that drive innovation, reform, change, and a point of view that the mainstream does not endorse wholeheartedly either through pessimism, conservative (as in status quo) nature, or lack of being informed.

If we sat around and refused to acknowledge extremists and pretend that the average person knows best; we are destined to a life of indecision, lack of innovation/motivation, and stagnation.
Careful what you wish for...populism, balance, togetherness sounds quite union-esque.

Truth.

 

[Craig234]

No offense, but I'd say that's pretty simplistic, and you lump in people who are passionate on an issue for good reason with the rabid ideologues on another, and so on.

There are parallels interesting to note - such as between Islamic and Christian fundamentalists - but noting some code pink people protesting doesn't seem to add a lot.

You also have to look at the changes in the environment. If the commies invaded tomorrow and took over, would you be a 'radical' in opposition? The Bush administration is radical, and many have gone through a reaction to that. Again, there are some 'circular' aspects to some things, but the right-left paradigm is pretty inadequate for describing politics.

To quote a Bill Moyers speech excerpt:

The point of the story is something only a handful of our team, including my wife and partner Judith Davidson Moyers, and I knew at the time -- that the success of NOW's journalism was creating a backlash in Washington.

The more compelling our journalism, the angrier the radical right of the Republican Party became. That's because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned by them as liberal is to tell the truth.

This is the point of my story: Ideologues don't want you to go beyond the typical labels of left and right. They embrace a world view that can't be proven wrong because they will admit no evidence to the contrary. They want your reporting to validate their belief system and when it doesn't, God forbid.

Never mind that their own stars were getting a fair shake on NOW: Gigot, Viguerie, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, Stephen Moore, then with the Club for Growth, and others. No, our reporting was giving the radical right fits because it wasn't the party line. It wasn't that we were getting it wrong. Only three times in three years did we err factually, and in each case we corrected those errors as soon as we confirmed their inaccuracy. The problem was that we were telling stories that partisans in power didn't want told ... we were getting it right, not right-wing.

 

[Drift3r]

Ultra Conservatives are so open minded and tolerant of others view....yeaaaaah right.

 

[maddogchen]

Ultra Liberals are so open minded and tolerant of others view....yeaaaaah right.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

nm

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
nm

and if you don't agree with the ultra conservative agenda you are anti-god, a terrorist sympathizer, unpatriotic, gay, etc..

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Topic Summary: When you think about it

Passion does not imply an absence of intellect. If you can't make an intelligent determination of right versus wrong based on facts and evidence over propaganda and supposition, and you can't then stand up to express your views with passion and to act on them, you've surrendered one of the greatest and most rewarding pieces of your humanity.

Maybe you should stop thinking.

 

[Painman]

Doctrinaire is as doctrinaire does. There's nothing "liberal" about groups like Code Pink, Greenpeace, etc. They're far left ideologues.

Far Left != Liberal. The distinctions between these 2 worldviews has been muddy for a long time.

I'd cross to the other side of the street to avoid a bunch of "God Hates Fags" picketers or a bunch of Code Pinkers with equal speed... but I'd buy a front row seat to watch them both in a cage match :laugh:

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Painman
Doctrinaire is as doctrinaire does. There's nothing "liberal" about groups like Code Pink, Greenpeace, etc. They're far left ideologues.

Far Left != Liberal. The distinctions between these 2 worldviews has been muddy for a long time.

I'd cross to the other side of the street to avoid a bunch of "God Hates Fags" picketers or a bunch of Code Pinkers with equal speed... but I'd buy a front row seat to watch them both in a cage match :laugh:

Shhhhh, you're disturbing our resident Taoist's chi.

 

[Vic]

The political spectrum is a circle, not a line. Go too far to the right and you become a leftist and vice-versa. The extremists on both sides share far more in common from an ideological standpoint than they do with moderates.

And please... do not refer to far leftists as liberals of any kind. They, like any other authoritarian ideology, are nothing of the sort.

 

[Butterbean]

I would have to agree with Vic on this one

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Painman
Doctrinaire is as doctrinaire does. There's nothing "liberal" about groups like Code Pink, Greenpeace, etc. They're far left ideologues.

Far Left != Liberal. The distinctions between these 2 worldviews has been muddy for a long time.

I'd cross to the other side of the street to avoid a bunch of "God Hates Fags" picketers or a bunch of Code Pinkers with equal speed... but I'd buy a front row seat to watch them both in a cage match :laugh:

Of *course* code pink and greenpeace are 'liberal' groups.

You're right that liberal != far left, because liberals generally are in favor of the US having an economic system based on some balance of regulated capitalism with the state providing some essential or basic services, while "far left" means at least socialist and probably communist economics.

If you're trying to apply some very old definition of 'liberal', get with the times.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Topic Summary: When you think about it

Passion does not imply an absence of intellect. If you can't make an intelligent determination of right versus wrong based on facts and evidence over propaganda and supposition, and you can't then stand up to express your views with passion and to act on them, you've surrendered one of the greatest and most rewarding pieces of your humanity.

But I thought we were supposed to be open-minded.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Topic Summary: When you think about it

Passion does not imply an absence of intellect. If you can't make an intelligent determination of right versus wrong based on facts and evidence over propaganda and supposition, and you can't then stand up to express your views with passion and to act on them, you've surrendered one of the greatest and most rewarding pieces of your humanity.

But I thought we were supposed to be open-minded.

Open minded doesn't mean retarded. This is a common misrepresentation by the right that because the left asks for people to be open minded that you can never decide something is right and wrong. Being open minded simply means acting upon the evidence without prejudice.

By the way it's been interesting to see how people are responding in this thread, because it appears that nobody in it thinks they are a member of the ultra left or ultra right. Neato.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Topic Summary: When you think about it

Passion does not imply an absence of intellect. If you can't make an intelligent determination of right versus wrong based on facts and evidence over propaganda and supposition, and you can't then stand up to express your views with passion and to act on them, you've surrendered one of the greatest and most rewarding pieces of your humanity.

But I thought we were supposed to be open-minded.

Since you apparently didn't bother to read, or forgot, my response the last time you made this same specious, snarky comment, I'll cut and paste the exchange for you.

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21
You know, for voters of a party that touts diversity and open-mindedness

You should understand that open-mindedness doesn't mean all views are equally valid.

Take the shape of the earth. It requires open-mindedness to overcome the dogma that it's flat as was taught by the Church; but it doesn't take open-mindedness to say it's flat.

You can say all 'it's just a matter of perspective and each is equally valid', but that's not the case in the view of most liberals. If you want to call that not being 'diverse and open-minded', we can agree to disagree. Liberals are in favor of diversity in terms of welcoming all genders, races, sexual orientations and such to have a voice and a share, as opposed to the desire for a narrow spectrum. They're against the bigotry for no good reason. They do discriminate against some where there is a reason such as, say, warmongers. It's not blind acceptance.

The fact that the right doesn't understand the distinction between opposing closed-mindedness, and not being discriminating in selecting, is why the opponents of liberals often believe things such as liberals liking to be 'so open minded their brains fall out', and such childish caricatures of liberal views that leave them feeling, deluded as it is, satisfied not to hold liberal views.

And it leads them to complain loudly when the version of open-mindedness they think liberals tout doesn't include their poor positions.

I see a lot of righties complain about that, but can't recall ever seeing one say that their own party should do better at liking diversity, being more open minded. Wonder why.

 

[Painman]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Painman
Doctrinaire is as doctrinaire does. There's nothing "liberal" about groups like Code Pink, Greenpeace, etc. They're far left ideologues.

Far Left != Liberal. The distinctions between these 2 worldviews has been muddy for a long time.

I'd cross to the other side of the street to avoid a bunch of "God Hates Fags" picketers or a bunch of Code Pinkers with equal speed... but I'd buy a front row seat to watch them both in a cage match :laugh:

Of *course* code pink and greenpeace are 'liberal' groups.

You're right that liberal != far left, because liberals generally are in favor of the US having an economic system based on some balance of regulated capitalism with the state providing some essential or basic services, while "far left" means at least socialist and probably communist economics.

If you're trying to apply some very old definition of 'liberal', get with the times.

Yes, I'm appying a very old definition of "liberal", indeed.

1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

By that definition, a Liberal is not a dogmatic creature It's a pragmatic creature.

Craig, I don't really disagree with your worldview. My views re: what ought to be Public Goods vs. Private goods vs. yours are probably pretty damn close, and are based on what I view as basic human rights (such as healthcare).

But, I do view groups such as Greenpeace and Code Pink - while perhaps fighting for worthy causes - as having a destructive, dogmatic approach. By calling them "liberal" you legitimize the right wing's successful reframing of "liberal" as something sanctimonious and dogmatic - ie. Authoritarian.

As the old saying goes, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

I don't think any human on earth is a true "liberal". We all have our persuasions that put us to one side or the other of that center.

Please take the time to read this essay whenever you have it: Essay

 

[Siddhartha]

Sign, YALBT, yet another liberal bashing thread.

Yep being for an open and tolerate US is the same as religious zealotry.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Painman

By that definition, a Liberal is not a dogmatic creature It's a pragmatic creature.

I don't think that the dogmatic/pragmatic distinction captures the definition of liberal, either.

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

That seems fine for the classic definition, still with relevance today (you can't merely define an ideology relative to the status quo, what happens when it gains power?)

I expect liberals to be guided by a rational analysis of the issues and open to improving things with 'new ideas for progress' and reform.

Whether they're writing pamphlets and handing them out, or going to jail for not paying taxes for an immoral war like Thoreau, or activists like Greenpeace, it still fits.

You seem to equate dogmatism with opinionated, and I disagree. Liberals can be dogmatic, but they need not be.

Liberals are not required to open mindedly look at an issue and conclude both sides are correct. They are allowed, or compelled, to reach an opinion.

As such, Greenpeace and Code Pink activists are possibly dogmatic, but not at all so by definition as you implied.

Craig, I don't really disagree with your worldview. My views re: what ought to be Public Goods vs. Private goods vs. yours are probably pretty damn close, and are based on what I view as basic human rights (such as healthcare).

I think that's more important than the definitions of some political attempted groupings.

But, I do view groups such as Greenpeace and Code Pink - while perhaps fighting for worthy causes - as having a destructive, dogmatic approach. By calling them "liberal" you legitimize the right wing's successful reframing of "liberal" as something sanctimonious and dogmatic - ie. Authoritarian.

I disagree on a number of points. One is that they're inherently 'destructive' (I've already rejected inherently dogmatic). Were our founding fathers destructive for the Boston Tea Party, fighting for economic justice, or in other battles fighting to create a nation based on democracy?

Another is that the right's attacks on them are as you describe. You might have a desire to 'reclaim' the word liberal for an older, classic definition and keep it 'pure' (which may be a bit dogmatic itself), but I'm ok with the modern definition too. The right attacks the left for many things, some absurd and some accurate, but not the ones you listed that I recall much at all. The more legitimate attacks on the left typically seem to be on some of the left's legitimate weak points (for example, I had asked people on the left to consider that we didn't exactly have a wonderful plan for dealing with Saddam ourselves while he oppressed a nation), or differences of opinion about the proper levels of things like concentrations of wealth.

As the old saying goes, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there; I'm not sugar-coating the discussion here to try to catch flies to much as to just get the points of view communicated.

I don't think any human on earth is a true "liberal". We all have our persuasions that put us to one side or the other of that center.

Who do you think is closest that you know of? That my illuminate your definition.

Please take the time to read this essay whenever you have it: Essay

I read some of it, and find a few things, most notably that, again, I find the excessive discussion on the definition of the 'groups' somewhat destructive to getting to the issues, that the article had both some good points and some I disagreed with (placing Milton Friedman near Kennedy on the graph is absurd, IMO. I recommend you read Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine' for an outstanding expose of some of his far-right wing (and yes, corporatist) activities.

You seem like a nice person to have a discussion with, but are we really talking about much more than whether to try to use an older or more contemporary meaning of 'liberal'?

It's not as if the right is going to change its attacks in any meaningful way because the word's older definition is cited sometimes.

 

[Painman]

Originally posted by: Craig234
You seem like a nice person to have a discussion with, but are we really talking about much more than whether to try to use an older or more contemporary meaning of 'liberal'?

It's not as if the right is going to change its attacks in any meaningful way because the word's older definition is cited sometimes.

It's getting too late, and I'm getting too tired, to address you point by point. But I agree - I appreciate the respectful discussion.

The Right's current cries of "LIBHHRULL!" are about as meaningful as the T-1000's flailings in the pool of molten steel at the end of the movie - as long as we on the left frame things correctly.

That means throwing entities such as the ones we've been talking about overboard. I'm happy to alienate them and see them vote for Nader or McKinney, quite frankly - most of them stick their noses up at the Dem party already - we need Middle America on our side. This is where "catching flies with honey rather with vinegar" comes in. This is where Barack Obama comes in.

At least as far as I see it, his campaign embodies an attempt at shifting the Overton Window.

Reagan got the country comfy with some downright toxic policy by convincing folks that it was "American". Obama talks about populist, progressive policy in terms of being "American", and now is a prime time to do so while conservative horseshit is at long last on the ropes, and regular folks are more open to the message.

Beating them over the head isn't the way... the way forward is to remind these foks that these have been their values all along, and welcome them back home.

Obama is more of an incrementalist when it comes to progressive policy, but we can't start out with a wrecking ball. Hammers and chisels are more appropriate for a country that is still more or less in thrall to Saint Ronnie.

We can introduce these folks to Code Pink and Greenpeace once they're ready.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic
The political spectrum is a circle, not a line. Go too far to the right and you become a leftist and vice-versa. The extremists on both sides share far more in common from an ideological standpoint than they do with moderates.

And please... do not refer to far leftists as liberals of any kind. They, like any other authoritarian ideology, are nothing of the sort.

:thumbsup: Vic is spot on, as usual.