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

[Xavier434]

Extremists of all kinds have a lot in common. They are all counter productive hard headed embarrassments to creation. All they do is cause damage and delays. The only difference between them is the weapons they choose to use when causing that damage.

 

[AndrewR]

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.

Passion without reason does imply an absence of intellect, or at least the relinquishment of it. The people on the fringes, on both sides, who exist to throw epithets at their targets ("Stop The War"..."Abortion Is Murder") are hardly icons of intellect, rather knee-jerk automatons. The lack of honest discourse from these kinds of people (hit a nerve with you?) is the problem, not their passion, except that their passion overrides their ability to see any relevant point from the opposition as valid.

The anti-war activists refuse to acknowledge that any good is being done, despite the fact that Iraqis are benefiting in a variety of ways from the rebuilding of their country (much of the rebuilding to compensate for the lack of infrastructure investment under Saddam, incidentally). The anti-abortionists refuse to acknowledge that there are circumstances where an abortion is not only justified by essential. Neither of those groups abides by any evidence which is contrary to their absolute beliefs, regardless of the supportable facts.

I only point out those two groups as examples, not the only examples.

Maybe you should stop thinking. [/quote]

Ah, yes, you exhibit some of the characteristics I address. If someone doesn't agree, then obviously they are ignorant and should stop communicating. You've exhibited that attitude in the past (it's quite prevalent in this forum), but thanks for making my point again.

 

[AndrewR]

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:

True. I should have put "far left" or "radical left". Liberal is synonomous with leftist with many people, however.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

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:

True. I should have put "far left" or "radical left". Liberal is synonomous with leftist with many people, however.

Ya well, let's face it. "Many people" do not understand jack about politics or the verbage which goes along with it. I believe that lack of knowledge fuels propaganda and results in more false conclusions than anything else. At the same time though, there really isn't anything we can do about that except to try and be informative towards others without pissing them off. :laugh:

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: 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.

Allow me to address a couple points.

First, the Left's indignation (or "true liberals'" indignation) at the possible "misuse" of the term "liberal" should have as much vitriol for the radical Left as it does for the rampant labeling of anyone left-of-center by certain conservatives. I'd venture that the radical Left is as much to blame for co-opting the term to represent themsevles as some conservatives are to blame for inappropriately lumping together radicals and moderates. Mea culpa for falling into the popular definition of the term -- I'll edit the post to reflect that.

Second, let's not forget the systematic demonization of "conservative" by the Left -- to deny that is intellectually dishonest in the extreme (not that you are -- only pointing out the omission). If "liberal" has been misused, then "conservative" certainly has as well. Look at "RightIsWrong" as a handle on this forum -- that encapsulates my point exactly because that sentiment is hardly unique to the person behind that handle. To wit, just look at what you wrote above:

conservative horseshit is at long last on the ropes

Is that phrase "open minded"? I realize you didn't use those words, but it seems to be a current which runs through the concept of "liberalism", at least as defined by some. If you were in fact referring to only certain conservative principles, perhaps "neo-conservative" tenets from some of the current President's cronies, that didn't make it into your blanket statement of disdain. However, that doesn't seem to be the case by calling President Reagan's policies "toxic" or by derisively referring to him as "Saint Ronnie".

If liberalism is partially defined as "[f]avoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded" (your quote) then by definition liberals should not reject out of hand ideas that emerge from right of center in the political spectrum. The Left does not have a stranglehold on rational thought, contrary to what some might think, nor are "liberal" ideas (in the popular parlance of left-of-center) necessarily 'new ideas for progress' or reformist. Note that I'm not saying that the Right does either, since people love to make incorrect inferences and fly off the handle around here. If you are in fact rejecting right-of-center (I'll drop "liberal" and "conservative" entirely to avoid the issues surrounding the labels) ideas out of hand, you are in fact being dogmatic and not pragmatic -- "Right is wrong; Left is good". If you were merely defining what the ideal is and pointing out your failings at achieving it, then I agree.

I do want to echo your sentiment regarding a civil discussion. I rarely come in P&N anymore because of the fact that such a discussion is hardly the norm (and I admit to falling prey to uncivility). Hopefully we can keep it that way, at least for a majority of the posts since some have already seen fit to act otherwise.

(Note: I capitalized "Left" and "Right" to ease reading comprehension, not to imply monolithic political movements.)

 

[AndrewR]

Of course it was simplistic as I tried to frame it narrowly for a written discussion online when I have limited time to address the issues, as opposed to a lengthly academic discussion or treatise. Blame the method, not the messenger.

See, the problem is that rabid ideologues believe they always have good reason for their passion. Passion is not an excuse for rigid thinking, and passion does not excuse gross behavior. When your passion causes you to seek to drown out the opposition rather than out-debate or out-maneuver them, perhaps it's time to rethink your position. The Code Pink reference was the impetus for my post, not the sole example of the behavior.

Your reference to the Bush administration can also be made with regard to Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, FDR, etc. The problem that I've seen both with President Clinton and now on the opposite side with President GW Bush is that opponents label EVERYTHING that the other side does as "evil" or wrong or misguided or radical. Absolutism accomplishes nothing and is hardly based upon rational analysis.

Originally posted by: 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.

I take issue with Bill Moyer's assertions based on one fundamental principle: that the "truth" as he mentions it in his speech equates to "fact". Nevertheless, that's a discussion for a different thread.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: 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.

Allow me to address a couple points.

First, the Left's indignation (or "true liberals'" indignation) at the possible "misuse" of the term "liberal" should have as much vitriol for the radical Left as it does for the rampant labeling of anyone left-of-center by certain conservatives. I'd venture that the radical Left is as much to blame for co-opting the term to represent themsevles as some conservatives are to blame for inappropriately lumping together radicals and moderates. Mea culpa for falling into the popular definition of the term -- I'll edit the post to reflect that.

Second, let's not forget the systematic demonization of "conservative" by the Left -- to deny that is intellectually dishonest in the extreme (not that you are -- only pointing out the omission). If "liberal" has been misused, then "conservative" certainly has as well. Look at "RightIsWrong" as a handle on this forum -- that encapsulates my point exactly because that sentiment is hardly unique to the person behind that handle. To wit, just look at what you wrote above:

conservative horseshit is at long last on the ropes

Is that phrase "open minded"? I realize you didn't use those words, but it seems to be a current which runs through the concept of "liberalism", at least as defined by some. If you were in fact referring to only certain conservative principles, perhaps "neo-conservative" tenets from some of the current President's cronies, that didn't make it into your blanket statement of disdain. However, that doesn't seem to be the case by calling President Reagan's policies "toxic" or by derisively referring to him as "Saint Ronnie".

If liberalism is partially defined as "[f]avoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded" (your quote) then by definition liberals should not reject out of hand ideas that emerge from right of center in the political spectrum. The Left does not have a stranglehold on rational thought, contrary to what some might think, nor are "liberal" ideas (in the popular parlance of left-of-center) necessarily 'new ideas for progress' or reformist. Note that I'm not saying that the Right does either, since people love to make incorrect inferences and fly off the handle around here. If you are in fact rejecting right-of-center (I'll drop "liberal" and "conservative" entirely to avoid the issues surrounding the labels) ideas out of hand, you are in fact being dogmatic and not pragmatic -- "Right is wrong; Left is good". If you were merely defining what the ideal is and pointing out your failings at achieving it, then I agree.

I do want to echo your sentiment regarding a civil discussion. I rarely come in P&N anymore because of the fact that such a discussion is hardly the norm (and I admit to falling prey to uncivility). Hopefully we can keep it that way, at least for a majority of the posts since some have already seen fit to act otherwise.

(Note: I capitalized "Left" and "Right" to ease reading comprehension, not to imply monolithic political movements.)

AndrewR...you are spot on !!! :thumbsup: