« The moustache of terrorism | November 5's Blog | New media narrative, same as the old media narrative »
In defense of polarization
Now that we're living in a "postpartisan" world, there have been many
calls to end the current era of polarization. Older generations recall
that there was a time when the country wasn't so defined and divided by
political party. On inauguration day, I heard Tom Brokaw describe a
version of old Washington I've heard time and again: Democrats and
Republicans were rivals by day, friends by night - sparring in
political gamesmanship on the floor of Congress, coming together to get
things done whenever they could, throwing back whiskeys together
afterwards. People often sigh wistfully at this description, hoping we
can recapture that spirit.
Not me. At least, not until we re-establish some ground rules.
For starters, the clubbiness of Washington has long been decried as one of its great faults: there's so much back-slapping and quid pro quo and friendly rivalry that eventually our representatives can't tell whom they're representing anymore. So you know things must be bad when we find ourselves wishing that our representatives - who are after all there to protect our interests - would be more friendly and accomodating to their policy opponents.
But let's put that aside for now. What is it that's brought us as a nation - not just elected officials but ordinary citizens - to be so polarized along political party lines? I've heard countless people of the baby-boom generation say that when they were younger, they didn't even know or care what party their friends voted for...but in the last eight years many have had irrevocable fallings out with old friends over the Bush administration. Fewer young people I think have had such fights - but that's largely because they've already self-selected into politically homogenous groups.
The mainstream, moderate, respectable pundit answer to why we're so polarized is that the most radical elements of both parties have gained the loudest voices, for instance through talk radio and the Internet, maximizing differences at the expense of common ground. Indeed, over at Daily Kos, Hunter points to an instance of this common wisdom in yesterday's column from the WaPo's voice of reason David Ignatius:
Hunter's affecting response, asking what exactly he and the rest of Daily Kos did that equates with Rush, deserves reading in full. Here's a bit:
It is ludicrous to suggest an equivalence between Rush Limbaugh and Daily Kos, as anyone who reads Daily Kos regularly - or at all - knows (there is probably an equivalency to be made between the more virulent spectators who post comments on Daily Kos, which is an open community, and the more virulent callers to Limbaugh's show...but this is a distinction lost on nearly all press commentators). But Hunter's comments serve as an important reminder of something far deeper: there is no radical left in this country.
I do not, of course, mean that there are no people in this country who hold radical left-wing views. We are a diverse nation, and if you want to find Marxists, anarchists, pacifists, people who believe that farming is eco-rape, or that one guy who's on a life-long legal quest to get the word "God" removed from the pledge of allegiance and our currency, you can certainly find them - and conservative media has found them in abundance.
But there is no organized radical left that has any kind of political currency in America in the 21st century - and it certainly has no pull on the Democratic Party, which by any objective measure has operated in Washington over the last eight years as a center-right party. Perhaps Ignatius and all the other commentators and politicians who talk of "extremists" on both sides are still thinking of the Left of the Vietnam era, which certainly was full of Marxists, anarchists and pacifists who marched on Washington by the hundreds of thousands, and who derided returning American troops as war criminals.
There is, however, a radical right - and it has taken over the Republican party. Here are just three tenets of the modern Republican party:
1) It is permissable, even necessary, for the American government to kidnap and torture people.
2) The President is above the law.
3) Preventive war - the invasion and occupation of a country that may at some future point pose a threat - is justifiable.
Those things are so radical, so repugnant, so un-American, and so non-negotiable that yes, I am polarized in opposition to those stances. I do not find these things to be policy differences over which we can politely disagree, then go have a drink together. If you support these tenets, and especially if you play a part in enacting them, I think you are complicit in the loss of innocent lives; in the justification of one of the most despicable crimes against humanity, torture; and in the moral undermining and degradation of the ideals and principles of the United States. I emphatically do not seek compromise with you, because there can be no compromise on these things.
This is not the case for the vast majority of policy that is debated and enacted in Washington. Liberals and Conservatives of all shades of the ideological spectrum can have genuine, strenuous disagreements amongst each other about the right economic policy to get us out of the current mess, about the best way to fix the health care system, about how best to engage diplomatically with Israel and the Palestinians, or with Pakistan. We can all go have a beer together afterwards because though we disagree, we all are trying to do what's best for the country. But there are some things we must find polarizing or we've lost our way entirely.
I know that placing blame is supposed to be counter-productive in our new postpartisan age. I know we're supposed to admit that we all got carried away and it's time to come together again. But like Hunter, I'm just not clear what it is I'm supposed to be apologizing for. We must remember that a nonpartisan analysis of what went wrong doesn't necessarily lead to a bipartisan diagnosis, in which we're all equally at fault. There's simply no extreme left wing of the Democratic party that's been advocating a socialist government, or unilaterally laying down our arms and letting terrorists roam free, or bringing all American troops up on war crimes charges, or making our President get approval from the U.N. for his actions.
Rather, even the most liberal wing of the Democrats has been holding the reasonable middle ground on almost every issue: a market economy, but properly regulated; stopping terrorism and hunting down terrorists with all the tools at our disposal, not just military, and within the law; honoring and supporting our troops by making sure they have the best benefits and keeping them from serving endless tours; insisting that the President of the United States be bound by the Consitution. Have we, in our anxiety, advocated these things vociferously, angrily, stridently, employing humor and satire and sometimes name-calling? Absolutely.
But make no mistake: it was the radicalism of the Republican Party that polarized the country. We didn't all just let policy differences get personal. Torture is not a policy difference. The Constitution is not a policy difference. The Republicans have been messing with the fundamentals of American law and decency. Someday, if we get back to genuine policy differences, I stand ready to buy a Republican a beer and toast the great American tradition of disagreement and debate. But as long as the opposition party continues to propagate its current radical vision, I plan on staying polarized.
Not me. At least, not until we re-establish some ground rules.
For starters, the clubbiness of Washington has long been decried as one of its great faults: there's so much back-slapping and quid pro quo and friendly rivalry that eventually our representatives can't tell whom they're representing anymore. So you know things must be bad when we find ourselves wishing that our representatives - who are after all there to protect our interests - would be more friendly and accomodating to their policy opponents.
But let's put that aside for now. What is it that's brought us as a nation - not just elected officials but ordinary citizens - to be so polarized along political party lines? I've heard countless people of the baby-boom generation say that when they were younger, they didn't even know or care what party their friends voted for...but in the last eight years many have had irrevocable fallings out with old friends over the Bush administration. Fewer young people I think have had such fights - but that's largely because they've already self-selected into politically homogenous groups.
The mainstream, moderate, respectable pundit answer to why we're so polarized is that the most radical elements of both parties have gained the loudest voices, for instance through talk radio and the Internet, maximizing differences at the expense of common ground. Indeed, over at Daily Kos, Hunter points to an instance of this common wisdom in yesterday's column from the WaPo's voice of reason David Ignatius:
Obama's speech showed us, once again, that the new president really means it when he says that he wants to create a new kind of politics for a "postpartisan" America. This has been difficult for some of his supporters to accept, in their rage against the Bush presidency and their understandable desire to settle scores with those who took the country into a dark and painful time. But Obama wants none of it. "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics." Did that cause a moment of self-reflection at Rush Limbaugh's offices, or at the Daily Kos? I doubt it, but one can always hope.
Hunter's affecting response, asking what exactly he and the rest of Daily Kos did that equates with Rush, deserves reading in full. Here's a bit:
Which were [the petty grievances]? Was it speaking too loudly of the devolution of the United States into unapologetic torture? Was it complaining of the lives lost in Iraq, or making petty noises that even the president should follow the Constitution when it came to spying upon certain Americans, or making the case for their internment?
... When Rush Limbaugh was playing "[Barack] the Magic Negro", all in good fun, of course, what abominable slight was it precisely that makes David Ignatius think of him and me as cut from the same cloth?
What were the worn out dogmas, the ones I should avoid? The insistence that energy policy be rational, or scientific fact be given plain acknowledgement regardless of ideological convenience?...The staggering assertion that competence should be not only be expected of government, but that it could and should be judged?...Is it my fury at the plainness with which powerful men can avoid the law, was that the bridge too far...?
It is ludicrous to suggest an equivalence between Rush Limbaugh and Daily Kos, as anyone who reads Daily Kos regularly - or at all - knows (there is probably an equivalency to be made between the more virulent spectators who post comments on Daily Kos, which is an open community, and the more virulent callers to Limbaugh's show...but this is a distinction lost on nearly all press commentators). But Hunter's comments serve as an important reminder of something far deeper: there is no radical left in this country.
I do not, of course, mean that there are no people in this country who hold radical left-wing views. We are a diverse nation, and if you want to find Marxists, anarchists, pacifists, people who believe that farming is eco-rape, or that one guy who's on a life-long legal quest to get the word "God" removed from the pledge of allegiance and our currency, you can certainly find them - and conservative media has found them in abundance.
But there is no organized radical left that has any kind of political currency in America in the 21st century - and it certainly has no pull on the Democratic Party, which by any objective measure has operated in Washington over the last eight years as a center-right party. Perhaps Ignatius and all the other commentators and politicians who talk of "extremists" on both sides are still thinking of the Left of the Vietnam era, which certainly was full of Marxists, anarchists and pacifists who marched on Washington by the hundreds of thousands, and who derided returning American troops as war criminals.
There is, however, a radical right - and it has taken over the Republican party. Here are just three tenets of the modern Republican party:
1) It is permissable, even necessary, for the American government to kidnap and torture people.
2) The President is above the law.
3) Preventive war - the invasion and occupation of a country that may at some future point pose a threat - is justifiable.
Those things are so radical, so repugnant, so un-American, and so non-negotiable that yes, I am polarized in opposition to those stances. I do not find these things to be policy differences over which we can politely disagree, then go have a drink together. If you support these tenets, and especially if you play a part in enacting them, I think you are complicit in the loss of innocent lives; in the justification of one of the most despicable crimes against humanity, torture; and in the moral undermining and degradation of the ideals and principles of the United States. I emphatically do not seek compromise with you, because there can be no compromise on these things.
This is not the case for the vast majority of policy that is debated and enacted in Washington. Liberals and Conservatives of all shades of the ideological spectrum can have genuine, strenuous disagreements amongst each other about the right economic policy to get us out of the current mess, about the best way to fix the health care system, about how best to engage diplomatically with Israel and the Palestinians, or with Pakistan. We can all go have a beer together afterwards because though we disagree, we all are trying to do what's best for the country. But there are some things we must find polarizing or we've lost our way entirely.
I know that placing blame is supposed to be counter-productive in our new postpartisan age. I know we're supposed to admit that we all got carried away and it's time to come together again. But like Hunter, I'm just not clear what it is I'm supposed to be apologizing for. We must remember that a nonpartisan analysis of what went wrong doesn't necessarily lead to a bipartisan diagnosis, in which we're all equally at fault. There's simply no extreme left wing of the Democratic party that's been advocating a socialist government, or unilaterally laying down our arms and letting terrorists roam free, or bringing all American troops up on war crimes charges, or making our President get approval from the U.N. for his actions.
Rather, even the most liberal wing of the Democrats has been holding the reasonable middle ground on almost every issue: a market economy, but properly regulated; stopping terrorism and hunting down terrorists with all the tools at our disposal, not just military, and within the law; honoring and supporting our troops by making sure they have the best benefits and keeping them from serving endless tours; insisting that the President of the United States be bound by the Consitution. Have we, in our anxiety, advocated these things vociferously, angrily, stridently, employing humor and satire and sometimes name-calling? Absolutely.
But make no mistake: it was the radicalism of the Republican Party that polarized the country. We didn't all just let policy differences get personal. Torture is not a policy difference. The Constitution is not a policy difference. The Republicans have been messing with the fundamentals of American law and decency. Someday, if we get back to genuine policy differences, I stand ready to buy a Republican a beer and toast the great American tradition of disagreement and debate. But as long as the opposition party continues to propagate its current radical vision, I plan on staying polarized.
Advertisement
Thank you November 5! You have contributed a lot to chew on here. I am on my way out the door to work, but I look forward to responding and to the discussion that is sure to follow.
It's a great piece, and very well written. Definitely Rec'd!
January 22, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign. Wholeheartedly!
January 23, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too! This lays out the basics of this argument very well. My hats off to ya! Bravo!
January 23, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your contention that there is no radical left in this country is utter bullshit.
-- a moderate lefty
January 22, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your comment, Ripper. Could you name some of the leaders of the radical left and describe their agenda?
January 23, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
It exists, they just haven't been all that effective at achieving their goals.
Perhaps that is why Obama got elected - since we really progress to happen on a number of fronts and the existing "leftie" champions weren't getting it done, as you have pointed out by noting the absence of a truly progressive power base in America.
Absence of power and influence doesn't necessarily imply absence of having tried and failed to convince the country. We have forty years of failed "radicalism" to suggest we need a different way to achieve those goals.
January 23, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the words of your model demlican hero Ronnie, I must say "There you go again!" with the claim of "40 years of non-effective liberals" nonsense.
I believe the question in play here was:
As I might have expected, your response was not only totally evasive, but the rehash of your failed talking point about how us greybeard libruls must step aside to let you whippersnapper "liberal Republicans" set the progressive world on fire grows increasingly tiresome. Having been fully discredited by the facts pulled from the real world, your continuing repetition of this "40 year" canard carries all the gravitas of a man "speaking" through a paper asshole.
Meanwhile, the very pertinent question remains unanswered.
January 23, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go again with the ad hominem attacks. I have never once idolized Reagan. Provide a single quote to prove that assertion. The rest of your comment is just as inane.
The simple fact of the matter is that when it comes to big ticket, progressive items (health care, living wage, eradicating poverty, a more justice legal system, etc, etc,) your crew of Raging Radical Lefties has failed miserably. You point to things done a generation ago as being proof positive of the efficacy of your tactics today. I point to a 40-year dearth of real accomplishment to prove we need to find another way.
It is not incumbent upon me to answer every question a poster posits. You are asking me to prove a negative. I am saying that a lack of credible leaders or movement on any number of progressive ideals IS the answer to that question.
By all means, fire back with any number of ad hominem assertions that can't be backed up rather than confront the idea that, perhaps, your side's tactics haven't been nearly as effective as you dreamed they were. Otherwise, we would not be having this conversation right now.
January 23, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet the question remains unanswered.
Lots of bluster here, but I point out again that you were responding to a comment that asked a simple, singular question.
Play the poor, misunderstood victim all you want (That's an ad hominem attack, by the way. See below.), but I will point out here that the question asked by November 5 remains unanswered.
Oh, and where in the previous response from me did you find an "ad hominem attack." It's a million dollar phrase that you use quite freely (Latin is so classy, don't you agree?), but even these kinds of words have specific definitions. I see nothing in my previous discussion here that was directed "to the man," but were instead critical of the nonsense you offer in place of reasoned discussion or direct responses to simple questions.
But that's just me.
Come down off your cross and then we'll talk, ok? (Again ad hominem, but hopefully in an instructive sort of way.)
January 23, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, read below. November 5 agrees with me, so perhaps he felt I answered his question in a way that was good enough.
Apparently you can't even understand what you write as your define the very methods you aim to perfect. Ad hominem means attacking me rather than my ideas. It is your modus operandi (another Latin term that is fun to say) to never address my very specific points and instead attack me based on not what I wrote, but what you believe to be my political beliefs.
You use make believe confusion and outraged idiocy to try and make me out to be the one who is out of line. The method is as tired as it is transparent. It is the same crap we have dealt with from Rush Limbaugh and the neocons for the last thirty years. It would be a delicious irony if it wasn't so destructive to the long-term health of our political discourse.
I am actually not up on a cross (not even really sure what the hell that means in this context) but you are doing a fair imitation of the standard liberal caricature - a whole lot of words to say nothing.
January 23, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, of course, he's totally impervious to any logic or reason don't ya? He has exchanges not with you or what you've written but with what he wishes you were saying so he can use his canned right wing responses. You frustrate him a little but he delights in his silliness and each time he is laid bare beats his breast in pride for having bested you or anyone else who points out how really off point he is.
For him, not being an open proponent of fascism means he's a liberal/moderate Republican versus the neocons he apparently dilikes who are, naturally, open fascists like their chief benefactor and our former tyrant: Bush.
January 23, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love your fire, oleeb! I may get smacked down for that, but it's worth it just to hear your words!
January 23, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You understand nothing and the caricature you paint of me isn't recognized by anyone but yourself and your breathless entourage.
January 23, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You remind me of Colbert. When he doesn't want to face reality or what someone else is saying he either just keeps talking as though he didn't hear what was just said or covers his ears and makes noise like a kid so he ostensibly cannot hear and so needn't respond to what was said. Being unable to go through those histrionics you simply ignore what is said and have the conversation you so desperately want to have but can't because it isn't actually happening outside of your own participation with yourself.
You sir, are a rightwinger. Plain and simple. This is not an attack. Just plain and obvious fact. And frankly, you are not (intellectually speaking) a very well armed one. You are rather average in that regard. That you don't even know it is what is perhaps, most scary and hillarious.
As with your avoidance of the direct and clear question of SleepinJeezus above which you pointedly did not address in any way, in finest Colbert style, you just keep yammering on as though you don't hear. It's pathetic, but mostly it's just really tiresome. Your act is old and tired.
January 23, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And still you continue to make my point for me. I am not a "right winger" no matter how many times you choose to repeat the lie. I fall somewhere to the right of Marx and to the left of Kucinich politically.
What I reject and renounce is the methods by which the left have pursued their goals these past forty years. I reject the furious rhetoric and illogical conclusions reached via an inability to think for oneself rather than toe the party line.
If I have to speak to people as rudely as you do and have to be as dogmatic as you appear to be in order to be a democrat, I will count myself lucky to be a member of the party that brought us Lincoln and Teddy and Ike.
You are an ideologue and a demagogue, having become that which you profess to hate.
January 24, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
You shouldn't talk about things you don't know anything about. It only reveals your ignorance. You are an ignorant, right wing, buffoon. Joined the Republican Party in August. Give me a break. Nobody needs to know anything else wingnut.
January 24, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Namaste. You are too blinded by hatred to see what is right in front of your face.
January 24, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong again junior. I don't suffer fools gladly.
January 24, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
January 24, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are some radical names, some more radical than others:
1. Henry Waxman.
2. Al Sharpton.
3. Noam Chomsky.
4. Ralph Nader.
5. Dennis Kucinich.
6. Mike Gravel.
7. Lyndon LaRouche.
I could go on, but the pattern is already there. The problem is that the radical left wing types haven't have much to offer beyond moral outrage since Gorbachev gave way to Yeltsin.
January 23, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a pitiful, paltry little list! Also, since when was Larouche a lefty? Uh, can you say... never?
And besides a couple of members of Congress, how is it these "radicals" constitute an organized left wing in the United States? They don't. This is malarky.
January 23, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said it was examples only, certainly we could go on. Nor did I suggest they constituted an organized left wing (that might well be a contradiction in terms, like "Young Republican").
Just pointing out that these people -are- out there, and they, er, are -out there-, that is, are seriously nuts!
Still I'm sure there are people on these forums who think Kucinich et al., are perfectly reasonable people. Which just goes to show what I was trying to say in the first place...
It's all relative.
January 23, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. That's nonsense.
The point being addressed was not whether or not there are people who have leftist beliefs. Nov. 5 makes it quite clear that isn't the point. Yet, you make it the point anyway because it is easy albeit nongermane.
The point is that there is no organized left in America tha has any clout or power and that is unrefutably true. For you, or anyone else to point out inviduals you personally consider leftist and then point to that as proof of anything but leftist people is absurd. Everything Americans consider essential and necessary about our government today are the product of those you (and apparently some others) deem leftist such as public schools, social security, medicare, wage and hour laws, environmental protections, work safety regulations, stock market, banking and other commercial and industrial production regulations, food safety, progressive taxation, etc... Our country has suffered immeasurably as many of these "leftist" programs and protections have been dismantled by the Republicans and their pusilanimous allies in the Democratic Party known sometimes as Blue Dogs, other times as centrist, other times as Democrats in Name Only.
Had the left any clout or power, none of these programs, policies and regulations would have been weakened over the years and our current predicament would not be the catastrophe that it is.
January 23, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go again.
40 years of "failed" "radicalism"? And you're not a right wing nutcase? Puhlease! Stop it! You're killin me AGAIN!!!!!!!!!! LMAO!
Are you refering to Reagan here or Nixon or the first or second Bushes or just what?
Do you realize who has controlled the federal government either flat out or maintained de facto control in alliance with the "Blue Dog" alleged Democrats? Or have you been sealed in your bunker all that time and not been able to get a radio signal to keep you up to date?
Let's see, Since 1969 we've had Nixon and Ford for 8 years, Carter for 4 years, Reagan for 8 years, Bush the first for 4 years, Clinton for 8 and then Bush the open tyrant had 8 years. Maybe your calculator adds up differently (wouldn't surprise me at all) but mine tells me that makes 28 years of Republcan Presidents and 12 of Democratic Presidents. The Supreme Court nominees during those years have been nominated mostly by Republicans. Most Federal Judges nominated during that period were Republicans.
After looking at the long list of radical leaders who have been in power and their radical programs that have failed I guess I see your point now how the left in this country has had 40 years of failed radicalism. Very impressive work there sport! Very impressive indeed. Where'd ya get that line anyway? Hannity?
It really would be very funny if you didn't think you had a good point and you weren't serious.
January 23, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the accurate accounting of 40 years of failure. No matter how many caps you use, that doesn't hide the fact that what you just detailed was a history of failure to achieve anything of note.
Failure to convince the country to foloow your lead. Failure to deliver on your very important progressive agenda. It wasn't until Barack Obama came along that the Democratic Party broke 50% in a presidential election. You have lost seven of the last ten presidential elections. Two of them won because a "crazy" conservative self-financed a third-party run.
How can you possibly deny that in most respects the democratic party has FAILED to deliver anything I would consider worthwhile for the last forty years? Your comment reinforces my point while doing nothing to refute it.
January 23, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is an American failure. As long as we allow good men like Jimmy Carter to be humiliated every time his name is even mentioned, the country loses. I believe every right wing hack ought to be on their knees now begging Jimmy's forgiveness, which I have no doubt he would give, for fighting his progressive agenda. They guy was flat out perfect on what we needed to do about the environment. No one was more successful regarding Israel. Anyone even consider Egypt as a foe of Israel anymore? How about a big round of blame for Jimmy there? Iran? Well, how many hostages died? That place was going under long before he was ever elected thaks to our blind loyalty to an MONARCHY!
This is not the failure of progressives. This is an American failure.
January 23, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems are to blame for pissing all over Jimmy Carter. The Clintons couldn't wait to mothball him.
Who needs the GOP, when the Dems have never learned to act as a group?
January 23, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker has this one right. I didn't mention Jimmy Carter for a very specific reason as he is the only president in my lifetime until Barack Obama who I thought deserved the job.
Though he was unable to achieve success, he was a man of steady principles and common sense ideals. Had the democrats supported him in the same numbers as Obama, he would have been much more affective. I am sure with the right tone on the left, Carter could have gotten evangelicals and moderate republicans instead of Reagan. It could have been a landslide in the opposite direction in 1980.
That's why I think democrats would be smart to learn from those earlier missed opportunities and understand that hearts and minds remain to be won. Again. That they are ready to be won. Perhaps for the last time. The alternative is something we just experienced these last four decades.
If we continue down the path of division, it will lead to the destruction of the Republic.
January 24, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are really an intellectual chicken aren't ya buddy?
You don't even have the nerve to address your own point when it is flatly demonstrated how totally ignorant of any facts you are. Bwak! Bwaaak, bwaaaak, bwaaak!!!!!
Here's something for ya to study if you've gotten all your other homework done for the night. It's just one word:
sophistry [sof-uh-stree]
–noun, plural -ries. 1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.
Though you are not subtle or very effective at being tricky. Superficial plausibility is the coin of your realm mighty Ceasar! Your method of reasoning is often (if not always) generally fallacious and you certainly and repeatedly offer false argument.
Rigt wing sophistry. That's you! :)
January 23, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like the radical leftie ideas like voting rights? equal rights for women? The idea that women and minorities ought to be able to get into Columbia, Princeton and Harvard? Those the kind radical ideas you were thinking about?
January 23, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are talking the modern age, not the accomplishments of generations past. The country was founded by mostly radical lefties who nonetheless were very imperfect. I am not disputing the need for radical ideas. Only that implementation of those ideas takes more than fire and passion, it requires pragmatism and intelligence to really last.
January 23, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, think of all the radical stuff... family and parental leave and the Martin Luther King holiday, balancing the federal budget, student loans, the clean air act, the clean water act, and raising the awful minimum wage. Horribly radical stuff that! And this is only the beginning of the list! There's plenty more like protecting kids from lead paint and other commie notions!
And now, the radicals want even more power to make America healthy, clean, prosperous and strong. Muhahaha! Oh the horror!
January 23, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we should call ourselves Human Rights people. Or something. Of course maybe that's radical too. Or Gaia people.
January 23, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in a university town in northern California, and, believe me, they exist.
January 23, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no significant power base for radical lefties.
January 23, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ripper, I think you misread Mr. Fawkes.
Sure there are lots of people on the left, but there is no organized left in this country that has any real clout at all. Those few "new" organizations like Moveon that made noises like they were on the left surrendered any pretense of that last year.
There are a handful of left Democrats in the Congress and millions of us---unorganized all over the country. We should be organized and we should have clout but the left has always had difficulties because there are so many prima donnas and smartypants type people involved they'd rather sit around arguing in their living rooms than do the heavy lifting of organizing or (God forbid) doing something publicly that might show their strength. They are also often so persnickety they won't "do" anything unless that anything is precisely what they think everybody should do which often involves totally unrealistic and unachievable goals instead of practical steps that can be taken to gain political power.
Do you remember Phil Ochs' great line from "Love me I'm a Liberal":
"I'll send all the money you ask for
Just don't ask me to come on along!
So love me, love me, love me...
I'm a liberal!"
That's a big part of the problem today just like it was 40 years ago and 60 years ago.
January 23, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anti-Constitutionalism would be a good thing to be polarized against.
I think the most dominant polarization today is a classical one: Appearance vs. reality. When we then add in a right/left dialectical tension and take things to their "logical extensions" we end up with
real left
apparent left
real right
apparent right
What happens then is that the left latches on to the rhetoric (appearance) of the right, and vice versa. Since modern rhetoric is often built around the sound bite, we end up with brief caricatures of caricatures. This of course doesn't make it easy to be friendly nor to engage substantive issues with all that chaff in the way.
Just a guess...
January 23, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious...why is pacifism (or peace for that matter) a bad thing?
January 23, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm for both!
January 23, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no radical left in this country?
It's all relative, dude. And DailyKos is every bit as terrible (and every bit as entertaining if you don't take it seriously) as Limbaugh. In 1998 the right wing was excited about impeachment, now the left is excited about torture prosecutions.
Beat goes on.
This is politics, not "Paradise Lost"; it doesn't reveal deep truths, just deep pockets.
January 23, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton got a BLOW JOB and lied about it. Bush lied his way into a war where at least 1 million people were killed (along with 4,000 of our own), 3 million became refugees AND THAT COUNTRY DIDN'T EVEN ATTACK US! Bush SPIED ON AMERICANS (a felony!), he fired US Attorneys for partisan reasons, and lied about it, BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T RAILROAD NO EVIDENCE VOTER FRAUD CASES INTO PRISON, AND THEY WOULDN'T DENY MINORITIES THEIR RIGHTS.
YOUR FALSE EQUIVALENCY IS SHIT!
January 23, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos brantlamb! Kudos!
January 23, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should also mention that we're only now old enough that the rising generation doesn't remember the gigantic world changing sucker punch to the radical left that was the collapse of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of international socialism as an economic and political alternative generally. So they can get excited about these things without cognitive dissonance.
The radical left should be entering, stage left, right about...
Oof! Just got run over by some torture protestors.
January 23, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing how much crap you can put in a couple of short sentences: "collapse of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of international socialism as an economic and political alternative generally." Socialism is an economy, numbnuts, not a political system. The Soviet Union was a communist (economy) authoritarian (political style) oligarchy (political system), it wasn't socialist it was communist. There are several socialistic countries currently in the developed world (Great Britain, France, Sweden, Finland, Norway), and their average standard of living and health is superior to here. You're clueless. Please go re-take a high school government or civics class.
As for your bitching about people being against what they say is Bush's torture policies and his possible indictment? There's an official in charge of torture at the UN, currently calling for the US to charge Bush and Rumsfeld, or give him over to the Hague. If you don't understand the immorality of torture (shallow values, anyone?) then perhaps you can understand it from a PR perspective: if we would like the rest of the world to be cooperative in things that we want, wouldn't it be helpful if they didn't think we are monsters?
Get your head out of your ass.
January 23, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
With the sole exception of the final sentence, I must say this pretty much puts the lie to the first comment in this thread.
January 23, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put!
January 23, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The divide that has become a chasm is between the powerful corporations and finance sector with their lackeys and the rest of us. The divide/chasm is between those who believe in democracy aka inclusion, honest dialogue, fairness and those who believe in rule by the few. The divide is between democracy aka wisdom of crowds and rule by a few good men who are our betters.
Ignatius is intentionally trying to keep "positive polarization" alive by trying to demonize the left and keep the unwashed masses at each others throats. It's all part of the myth makers spin. We will see many of these kinds of posts from the Fat Cat News. Only Krugman today in the main stream took issue with Obama's statement that the economic crisis was brought about by
Not so fast. It was the banksters of Wall Street that caused this mess and their congressional pals. To now put all the responsibility on ordinary citizens with their petty grievances and their greedy lust for plasma TVs, is corporatist spin.
January 23, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which doesn't excuse our collective failure from creating a society that resembles our better natures and not our basest instincts. With even a three percent increase in voter participation, we elected the first black president who ran on a fairly progressive platform. Imagine what could be achieved by a six percent increase.
January 23, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the comments. I disagree with El Presidente - I don't think it IS all relative. Objecting to torture and demanding that laws by which we have abided since World War 2 be enforced...I just don't see how that's radical. Insisting that our political leaders be investigated and, if necessary, punished for breaking our most fundamental laws is the heart of American democracy. The fact that it's SEEN as radical to my mind just makes my point that it's the rightward radicalization of the Republican Party that's at the root of this.
But I also don't think the Clinton impeachment was "radical." It was petty, but it was just politics.
Jason - I agree with you. The old left in this country is worn out and sapped. The socialists failed. Maybe they'll be revitalized someday. What I object to is the implication in our current discourse that the right wing of the Republican party and the left wing of the Democratic party are equidistant from the reasonable middle ground. Virtually no one at what is considered the left of the Democratic Party - say, Daily Kos - is advocating socialism or any other "radical" ideology. They're advocating abiding by the Constitution. Meanwhile, voices on the right of Republican party who are considered respectable are advocating nuking Iran, or dismantling the entire American social safety net, or giving the (Republican) President virtually monarchical power. There's just no comparison in my mind.
January 23, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nor mine. Well said.
January 23, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same here! Thank you Nov 5 :)
January 23, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
To clarify. I'm assenting that "there's just no comparison." And I believe the commenter above me made that clear as well.
January 23, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As does the one below you. There is no comparison. What is deplorable is that torture has become a political issue.
YO! Can the Right make this the next addition to gays, gods and guns? It's right up there with guns, isn't it?
January 23, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's horrifying to me. Horrifying.
January 23, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed! 100%!
There is no comparison whatsoever.
Additionally, condemning the "old" left of two generations ago as though it were around today and in any way powerful is a joke and a straw man if ever there was one. The "left" today remains a vast collection of individuals but they aren't in any way effectively organized. They don't advocate anything like socialism, but they do advocate things like the rule of law, obeying the Constitution and not just saying you believe in it and then trampling it at will, coping with the viscissitudes of the modern world with modern governmental methods and doing what works vs doing what some the twisted ideology of a shrinking minority of undereducated and over monied, greedy old white guys dictates. Those who say the left or liberals today are radical do, as was indicated above, have their heads up their asses and they really need to take them out and look around them so they can see the way the world is and how to deal with it.
January 23, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the shout out, November 5. I am not trying to portray the Raging Right and Raging Left as having equally crazy ideas far from a rational middle.
What the Raging Left does share with the Rapture Right is a tonal quality that tends to turn most of us in the middle into critics when we should be fans. I think the "far left" leadership failed to do what the "far right" leaders did quite well, which is convince the country that their solutions were the right solutions.
Progressive ideals are common sense, logically motivated and extremely self evident, yet somehow that never really turned into a governing majority until Obama came along and used a different method. I suspect what we will see happen is the "center" will become the new norm, independent of the left/right pendulum swing. I think the "radical left" will continue to inform the solutions from a progressive policy stand-point but will be bit players when it comes to implementation.
Radicals are not that good at playing with others, no matter which side of the spectrum they come from.
January 23, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you up to a point. There are certainly lots of tonal issues in political debate these days - on cable TV, talk radio, and blogs, everybody's shouting so much it can turn people off to the content (I feel like such an old fuddy-duddy saying that).
But there has to be a place for genuine outrage. As can be heard from Congressional Republicans, mainstream media, and even from some of the comments here, "anti-torture" has become synonymous with "hard left." And the reason I write in defense of polarization is that I want us to resist letting the issue of torture, or of abiding by the Constitution, becoming just "policy differences" that we can all meet in the middle to discuss rationally. I don't WANT us to change our tone on these fundamentals. I think everyone needs to be reminded that it is horrifying that we're even having a serious discussion in this country about whether torture is ok.
Obviously, this discussion is getting a bit muddled, because what do we mean by "radical left"? Is it my definition - something that no longer has any voice in this country? Or is it the mainstream definition - whatver the most leftward voice is that can be distantly heard by the White House? Going by mine, obviously I disagree that it will have any influence on policy whatsoever.
January 23, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it is the most strident voice, independent of their message, that I find radical - left or right. Again, I am in complete agreement with most of the most extreme positions found in the furthest reaches of the left. I just find their methods to have been singularly ineffective at accomplishing their stated goals.
The problem with having "a time for outrage" is that it immediately shuts down rational thought and discussion. Outrage always needs a target. This brings me back to Obama's admonition that we put away childish things. Most adults I know who are effective and reasonable don't "rage" as a normal course of business.
Otherwise, Dennis Kucinich would be president instead of Barack Obama.
January 23, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I just don't know who these strident voices on the left are (putting aside those of us blogging away in obscurity). I mean, probably the most outspoken voice, to which people are listening, in favor of looking into torture prosecutions right now is Glenn Greenwald. And in his pieces on Salon, and in interviews on TV and radio, he's the portrait of rationality and calm. Yet he gets called a "civil liberties EXTREMIST" by Joe Klein.
And by the way, recall that Dennis Kucinich hardly ever "raged." I'd argue he's not President (among a million reasons) because he comes off as too sweet, soft, and naive.
But I think perhaps where we disagree here is on whether there ought to be "rational thought and discussion" on every issue. I think it trivializes the torture issue if we open it up for debate the same way we do, say, tax policy. I mean, just to make a poor analogy, because civil rights are on everyone's mind these days, MLK never sat down on a chat show to discuss, rationally, whether the Negro was in fact inferior to the white man. He managed to draw a line at things that are non-negotiably wrong, advocate his cause vociferously, yet not be seen as "raging" (at least, in history's eyes). But he was, a the time, considered quite radical - not because of his tone, but because of his views.
January 23, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on. I supported Dennis in the primaries but knew he would never get anywhere because he rages about everything, in addition to being sweet and naive. He constantly raised his voice and jumped up and down on the campaign trail, not always in the interest of seeing over the podium.
Also, "raging" isn't necessarily all about tone and tenor, though it usually is. It is also shown by way of missing historical context to these debates. It can be shown by a complete inability to see anything resembling nuance or gray areas.
Glenn Greenwald is a perfect example. Despite his many good points, he refuses to see any other view of reality other than his own and expects everyone to agree else they are idiots or appeasers or both. Many bloggers on this site follow the same MO.
True progress is a game of gaining inches over long periods of time. As MLK proved, despite being tagged a radical in his day by some of his opponents, I wouldn't characterize him as one within the framework of this conversation. I would say MLK was a true pragmatist with a longer view of history and a longer view of change.
Radicals want it all yesterday and are willing to burn down the village to save it. That holds true no matter which set of ideology one follows.
January 23, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm sure MLK thought 300 years or so was about right to approach equality. No need to rush. Wouldn't want to give any centrists a headache.
January 23, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, he planned for a generation shift and was just about on target. He was calm, cool and collected every step of the way. His ideals may have seemed radical at the times, but his methods were anything but.
January 24, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I don't believe every issue should be open for debate from a purely logical standpoint, but in reality that is much trickier to accomplish.
Without debate, no matter how absurd, what you have is half the people feeling railroaded while the other half feel vindication. I am more than happy to explain to anyone who cares to listen exactly why I feel the way I do and how I arrived at those conclusions.
We shouldn't be afraid to offer reason and logic in response to fear and misunderstanding. No matter how many times we need to repeat ourselves, achieving our goals with a governing majority will last much longer than shoving them down the throats of our political opponents.
January 23, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely spot on, November 5!
When there are no inviolate principles, you end up with "news" shows that present commentators on both sides of the torture issue, for example. The only response to "How much torture is too much torture?" is pretty easily provided in few words, with no need to dissect nuance or "grey areas." There are some things that simply aren't open for debate, and it has been shocking for me to see how far these "rational, nuanced discussions" can go in creating cover for morally corrupt leaders to do abominable things in our name.
January 23, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, imagine the news doing that with child sexual abuse or child pornography. How about pro and con for bank robbery? For plagiarism?
This list goes on!
January 23, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between being open for debate as if they are equal points to be made and patient, calm explanations of what many would consider self-evident truths. If our goal is to change the way things are done, then changing the way we do them is a pretty good start. That includes explaining things that wouldn't require an explanation in a perfect world. As we all would agree, this is far from a perfect world. Yet.
January 23, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice demo of the apparent necessity of the strawman.
The problem isn't outrage (unless it's ironically but not sarcastically your own), and outrage doesn't entail a total failure of rationality, btw.
January 23, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't even mention outrage. Are you taken to trolling comments now? How does anything you wrote relate to what I said?
January 23, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see. You didn't write, in this thread:
You use make believe confusion and outraged idiocy to try and make me out to be the one who is out of line.
The problem with having "a time for outrage" is that it immediately shuts down rational thought and discussion.
Outrage always needs a target.
??
I replied:
Nice demo of the apparent necessity of the strawman.
The problem isn't outrage (unless it's ironically but not sarcastically your own), and outrage doesn't entail a total failure of rationality, btw.
!!
Which in the original gave you a further link to a pertinent part of the thread.
January 23, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your tenacity amazes me, eds!
January 23, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what that means, but I hope that it's good that you are amazed here!
January 24, 2009 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, my amazement is a good thing. Your dogged determination (tenacity/holding fast).
January 24, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you have a rational (articulatable) basis for thinking me not tenacious that you should then be amazed by what you recognize as tenacity? I'd be interested...
Jason strikes me as a sophisticated troll, based on his fencing style. I hope he's learned something good as I myself have practiced my somewhat different methods against his foils here.
January 24, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now I get the meaning of your former comment.
Not everyone has such stamina - it's my way of giving you a compliment.
I'm simply astounded by your tenacity. I'm impressed. And it isn't at all that I expected less of you or anything. Your verbal fencing is fascinating to watch!
Kudos!
Carry on! With my blessing.
January 24, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't actually respond to the comment you quoted, so you might forgive my confusion.
In response your use of the technique you accuse me of employing, what about that was a strawman? Rage needs a target and targets beget witch hunts, all byproducts of polarization.
You guys are really splitting hairs to find fault with my opinions and then use invective to belittle me. Not sure what got in the water around this place, but I am half-tempted to take on an alias and unleash with both barrels.
Thanks for making what was once a pleasant experience into something akin to heartburn.
January 23, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
In that case: You must really enjoy or get pleasure from heartburn! Are you a professional masochist or a wannabe sadist, Jason? I can see elements of both here.
"You didn't actually respond to the comment you quoted, so you might forgive my confusion. "
Actually, my reply there was neither a mispost nor a non-sequitur. But if it helps your heartburn, consider it my fault that my point went over your head, and let's leave it at that.
January 24, 2009 5:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You point didn't go over my head. The rage many bloggers around here face from other members of the community is evidence enough that the tendency exists on a larger scale. America has been a tinderbox from day one. We must be very careful when we decide to light a match.
January 24, 2009 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rage and outrage are of course quite different, as I already hinted twice now. Your sophism needs work, dude.
My mother used to say "Don't borrow trouble." Maybe she still does! You epitomize the opposite here when you talk about lighting matches and the like, Jason. You borrow or invent trouble in order to complain about trouble!
Keep up the good work.
January 24, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your fencing ability is a wonder to behold! :)
January 24, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
1 minute!? Yikes, you remind me of the NSA, TheraP!
;-)
Thanks again, I think.
January 24, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I invented history. I invented political partisanship and division.
I am making false arguments and "borrowing trouble" for pointing out that many around here have been super aggressive and the very picture of crazed ideologues these last few days.
Thankfully accusations don't equal fact in America, though I am happy to leave myself up to be judged by the TPM community. Your repeated lies remain unsupported by what I have written.
Namaste.
January 24, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No lies from me in this regard, so your libel is noted for the trash talking exit your ego needed, assuming you have one.
Chill out, or warm up friendly, dude!
January 24, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
January 24, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool.
January 24, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're in complete agreement with them (left radicals) except for "tone" so you don't support there aims and therefore you joined the Republican Party las August. Uh huh.
January 23, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't expect you to understand how a person could reach back into the early days of a party to find inspiration as he embarks on an effort to change it from within.
What you are missing are the trends to be found in that fractured mess that is the GOP that point toward a fundamental shift in what being a republican means in the 21st Century, the last eight years notwithstanding. Obama snagged a significant number of republican votes and the party has been shedding members like the mangy dog that it is.
But that doesn't mean the dog deserves to die.
January 24, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you dislodge your head from the darkness within you might recover from your delusional, half-witted sophistry. What you just wrote is just absurdly stupid.
January 24, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your lack of understanding doesn't make my opinion absurd. I feel sorry for your well-nurtured pain from being powerless as well as your evident glee at now being in a position of power. You have become that which you hate. Namaste.
January 24, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish to God I didn't understand you Simple Simon. The problem, you see, is that I do understand you.
January 24, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
January 24, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Left only had a lot of big box churches they would have done better!
What's wrong with this picture?
January 23, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Lack of leadership or measurable forward progress equates to calling for Big Box Churches for liberalism?
Not sure how you got from what I said to there, but I clearly didn't take whatever it is you guys have taken this week, so little wonder I don't get the allusion as a response to my comment.
The far right sold crazy better than the far left sold common sense. Seems a pretty straight forward argument and ironic to boot.
January 24, 2009 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
sophistry Pronunciation [sof-uh-stree] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.
January 23, 2009 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your disagreement with my opinions doesn't make them sophistry. Nice to see the "winning" side is so open to discussing the issues, though.
January 24, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
But your argument is sophistry dumbo. Are you really that slow on the uptake?
January 24, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't even understand my argument as you have made perfectly clear, over and over again. Enjoy whatever last word you choose to leave on this particular thread.
January 24, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't agreem more, Nov. 5. And thanks for keeping a cool head.
January 23, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't generally reply to people throwing expletives and invective. Monkey poo throwing in comments sections is common, but not worth responding to.
Since I think torture prosecutions ARE "just politics", or would be if we ever got that far, which I trust we won't, I'm not sure what the point is.
My assertion was the (I thought) uncontroversial notion that a political spectrum makes its own center.
"Radicals are not that good at playing with others, no matter which side of the spectrum they come from."
-JEM
Truer words rarely spoken.
January 23, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
How would you or JEM or anyone else know this? You don't. It's a foolish assertion based upon no evidence whatsoever either first or second or even third hand. There is almost no, and for practical purposes, there is no radical left participation in mainstream US politics. None! So the radicals you speak of can ony be right wing radicals who have infested our government at every level, wrecked it, corrupted the courts and the federal prosecutors, run the economy into the ground, made our nation the biggest rogue nation on earth with vast war crimes and that's just the big stuff!
January 23, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the evidence we need is your string of comments on this very blog. Radicals also don't do well with analogies or irony in addition to not playing well with others.
January 24, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, and as expected, you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Pitiful. If only you had the brains to be ashamed and embarassed.
January 24, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The presence of radicals on the right doesn't preclude the existence of radicals on the left. Your confrontational style of debate that respects no differences and brooks no disagreement is all the proof an objective observer needs to make that determination.
January 24, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love listening to yourself don't ya?
January 24, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
January 24, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even more troubling is what Ignatius liked best about the Obama inaugural speech.
I especially liked Obama's message to terrorist adversaries of the United States -- people who believe that his election was a sign that the United States has gone soft; people who remain convinced that the decadent West is losing, and that they are winning. "For those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."
That was the most militaristic part of the speech and what Ignatius liked best. Get it folks. The hawkish press that helped lead the way to war with Iraq is very much alive and very much ready for the next war.
And so they are starting the drumbeat by marginalizing legitimate voices for sanity. The real center doesn't want anymore wars and they want Washington corruption cleaned up and they want their jobs back. But we are the unwashed masses. So Ignatius and the self proclaimed Sanity Squad seek to clean up the messy parts of democracy. But by doing so, they sanitize and neutralize. And that is very very dangerous.
January 23, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm one of those radicals. I was a member of the Socialist Party for several years, and registered as a Democrat in 2003 to more effectively support Dennis Kucinich for president. Dennis is my idea of a centrist.
First, I'd like to verify for everyone that there is no organized power base for the radical left in this country, because I would know about it, and that we're more or less irrelevant to the Democratic party leadership.
I suppose there are some radicals who believe that our system is such a sham that no good can come of it; I think that quite a bit of good can be done under the current circumstances. So while I'd like the military budget to be cut by 50%, I would still appreciate it if we just got out of Iraq. I'd like all health care to be nationalized, but I would be quite happy if we got universal coverage through a single-payer or social insurance model.
Second, it's true that tonally, leftist radicals can sound like right-wingnuts sometimes. Not in the content of what they say, but in their style and especially in their attitudes towards their opponents. I often say that I have a conservative's personality grafted onto a leftist ideology. I think of conservatism as a form of mental illness born of self-loathing and fear, and in some cases of psychopathy. I consider Republicans not rivals but enemies. No one close to power in the Democratic party shares this way of thinking.
Third, it's true that you can hear Republicans refer to Democrats in this way -- cowards, traitors, pathological liars -- all the time. But this is "well-respected" and influential conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney, not some fringe weirdo. You never hear equivalently elite Democrats or liberals talk like that.
Lastly, I think that my extreme views are a lot closer to those of average Americans than are the extreme views of conservatives. Most people want to clean up the environment, do more to help the poor, have fairer taxes, end torture, end the war, and so on. I also want to do these things, but faster, farther, and more forcefully than most people do. Whereas extreme right-wingers are opposed to all of these things.
So what I'm saying is, there are radicals on both sides, but our radicals aren't the same as their radicals, even if we sound the same sometimes.
And, I am really not good at playing with others.
January 23, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't confuse neoconservatives with old school conservatives.
Otherwise, I agree with much of what you said and even resemble some of those descriptions, though I am cultivating the ability to play well with others in the interests of actually accomplishing all those great progressive things we both believe in.
As far as rhetoric on the left not being the same caliber as that on the right, give the left a few years to catch up as the majority party. Power will most certainly free up their tongues. We have already seen that on this site. Plenty of invective on liberal talk radio as well. Listen to Bill Press or Stephanie Miller for five minutes.
We are all responsible for both the environment we have as well as the change we seek.
January 23, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can I listen to Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes instead? I'm pretty sure that Stephanie Miller is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions.
January 23, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ed Schultz used to be a republican and Randi Rhodes can be pretty crazy with her diatribes, but I would agree that they are two of the better jocks on "liberal" radio. I always wondered if Ed Schultz was really Rush Limbaugh in liberal drag until I saw him on TV. Their voices are very similar.
January 23, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: That being said, ALL the liberal radio hosts are much more reasonable and rational than anyone on conservative talk radio, no matter how strident they may get at times.
January 23, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice essay, Skybolt.
The problem I see is that radicals tend to defend tiny pieces of political turf, and do so with a vengeance which borders on insanity. Their radical idealism tends to make them anti-pragmatic, and that makes it hard for them to play nice with others, unless shouting past other idealists is "play nice".
The status quo is an easy target for the radical, generally. But what seems to be almost impossible for the radical is to also be constructive, to move the status quo other than the way a wolf pack moves a herd of caribou while seeking the weakest for dinner.
January 23, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some left radicals are fixated on a single issue, but a lot of us are multi-issue. I usually say that I'm interested in many issues, and none of them are negotiable. That does allow alliances on some issues, though, even if you can't make one on everything.
I believe that all weaknesses are also strengths. Radicals do tend to be anti-pragmatic, because they're very concerned with principles; but the pragmatic or moderate can compromise so much that they go completely off track.
You have to admit, that wolf gets that herd moving! It is easy to be critical, and it was a lot easier when I was a Socialist instead of a Democrat, because there was no chance of winning anything and I could just bash liberals all day. And the status quo is an easy target -- after all, it's big and it's right in front of you all the time. But I don't agree that radicals aren't constructive. I think we just have a different view of what would constitute constructive change.
If you're moderate to liberal on an issue, and a moderate to conservative bill regarding that issue becomes law, maybe you're ok with that. You got some of what you wanted, and it beats the really right-wing bill that the Republicans wanted. But if you're really far to the left on that issue, you didn't get anything you wanted. The distance between the bill you wanted and the one that passed is way larger than it is for the moderate liberal guy.
If you look at these sorts of things from the left radical perspective, a lot of our behavior will seem logical even if you don't like it. Some people voted for Nader last year. This seems crazy and irresponsible, unless you realize that some people see more difference between Nader and Obama than between Obama and McCain. That isn't how I saw it, but it is how I saw it in 2000 when I voted for Nader instead of Gore. If you thought that Obama was a useless weak-willed sellout and that McCain was a useless fascist warmonger, and that Nader was a national hero, maybe you would have voted for Nader last year, too.
January 23, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"but the pragmatic or moderate can compromise so much that they go completely off track."
This is quite so and has been pathological in the Democratic Party in DC since 1981 and the Gramm/Rudmann debate. After that point in the spring of 81 the Democrats became a collection of cowardly centrists whose rush to "compromise" has on numerous occasions turned what should have been victory into defeat because of their pusilanimity.
Quite often the "centrist" politician is more like the "self-centerist" politician. They are far more interested in staying in office than in doing anything in office. Their excuse is that if they don't "compromise" then they might lose re-election. But when you do this for years and decades on end on every issue that matters then you're just a whore to the same interests that run the table in the Republican Party and that is the fundamental problem Democrats have faced since 1981 and still have not come to terms with even to this day. So the essential difference between the typical Democratic "centrist" today in Congress and those of the New Deal/Fair Deal/New Frontier/Great Society predecessors is, in a word: balls.
January 23, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're not discussing the pragmatist here, but the radical idealist, so it doesn't matter at all that some politicians use pragmatism as an excuse for their awful compromises.
"But I don't agree that radicals aren't constructive. I think we just have a different view of what would constitute constructive change."
You're arguing something I didn't say or imply. I said it tends to be hard for radicals to constructively move the status quo. Radicals can construct plenty of critical remarks, in fact it's like shooting fish in a barrel. If your idea of constructive change is taking potshots at the status quo from one or more incoherent radical positions, I don't believe we have enough commonality for dialog (even tho' we have enough for meta-discussion).
I have a friend who is a radical anti-pragmatic idealist. She believes in "sound money" and considers the Fed (and Keynsian statism) to be tantamount to evil. She likes the idea of a gold standard for the dollar. The problem is that she cannot suggest how to get us on the gold standard, and she cannot refute simple challenges to the feasibility of gold as a standard today. So while she, and Ron Paul, do have a radical idealism as a basis here, it's just anti-pragmatic.
I hope that clarifies my usage.
January 24, 2009 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Did someone mention . . .
. . . tonal issues in political debate?
I'm sure that many have heard about Rush's latest interview on Hannity's spewage show, but how many actually witnessed it?
If you really wish to see the bullet-points of Rush's diatribe, please do so at your own risk of sanity here at my TPM blog.
Yeah yeah yeah ... I know ... Sure ... It's only entertainment.
Just make sure your anti-bullshit hip-waders and goggles are firmly in place.
~OGD~
January 23, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need radicals to get people thinking outside the box. If they don't you never get significant change. Somebody had to actually say out loud that all men are created equal. All those centrists were perfectly happy bowing to the King.
January 23, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love that comment, bluebell!
January 23, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you!
January 23, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
:-)
January 23, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hit the nail on the head once again bluebell! Bravo!
January 23, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
People tend to forget that
a) radical doesn't imply left nor right, only fringe
and
b) when radical solutions are proposed on TPM (e.g. people here have to end the idea making babies or having grandchildren) the very same people who applaud "radicalism" have a fit.
Many are politically dishonest with themselves. Most people are conservative by nature - change scares them, which, of course, includes changing their views in light of facts.
January 24, 2009 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
November Five,
The debate you instigated about the existence or non-existence of the radical left doesn't alter the point you were making that the radical right hasn't had an equal partner at the dance.
That may be the undoing of the radical right. They have spent the years since the Gingrich revolution assuming that the agenda of the Left was something that could be dispensed with once it revealed that it was an attempt to rob you of your Freedom.
The shoe is now on the other foot.
January 23, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
A short survey of history reveals the following:
Most of the period that inside the beltway types love to pine away for is essentially most of the 20th Century period from the start of the New Deal until 1968. Watergate was the first gigantic rift. Examing the period we can see that it was unquestionably characterized by overwhelming dominance of the Democratic Party and that party was dominated by liberals.
The moderate Democrats of that period like Harry S. Truman would be smeared today as far left radicals, but the party was dominated by people and elected officials to his left. Many of these populist, left wing Democrats were also southerners who sadly clung to the racist, segregationist policies of their section of the country. Despite the enormous gulf between the populist Democratic liberals of the south and those of the rest of the country they managed to keep the progressive ball rolling for nearly 50 years.
Only with Nixon's "southern strategy" of 1968 and the regrettable rise of the Republican Party through their use of sometimes subtle but often open racist appeals did the era of bipartisanship that pundits miss so much go away. None of those geniuses seem to be able to figure out that the birpartisanship arose because the Republicans were so weak they had to go along or be totally isolated and irrelevant. The Democrats set the tone and despite the fact they could do what was necessary without Republican votes, they often compromised a little in order to have bipartisan and national unity.
Once the Republican rise began and their right wing, racist wing took hold of the party the "division" and "partisan bickering" began and has yet to cease. As long as they have any ability to continue the partisan warfare it will continue unabated. What the pundits recall is missing the truth which is the Democratic dominance allowed bipartisanship and the Republicans rarely, if ever, had enough power to much things up as they have had now these past 40 years. It wasn't because people just magically got along.
Therefore, the best and easist way to get back to having our government being a rational, responsible, progressive and bipartisan operation is to crush the Republican right into dust as FDR did in the 1930's and to keep our boot on their neck as he did and as Harry Truman did for as long as possible. Then and only then will we see a return to reponsible, reasonable, and effective government that works for all the people and is as our President said on Tuesday, a prosperous nation but not only for those who are prosperous.
The above isn't simple opinion. Take a look at who was in charge of the government. What the margins in the Congress were and you can see quite clearly that the nastiness is part and parcel of the Republican state of being. They are a pox on our government and our nation when allowed anywhere near power and if Herbert Hoover and George Bush aren't enough proof for ya, well I think ya need to see a doctor.
Liberte! Equalite! Fraternite!
January 23, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That should be "egalite" instead of Equalite. My bad.
January 24, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glenn Greenwald is a perfect example. Despite his many good points, he refuses to see any other view of reality other than his own and expects everyone to agree else they are idiots or appeasers or both. Many bloggers on this site follow the same MO.
JEM January 23, 2009 3:34 PM
We shouldn't be afraid to offer reason and logic in response to fear and misunderstanding. No matter how many times we need to repeat ourselves, achieving our goals with a governing majority will last much longer than shoving them down the throats of our political opponents.
JEM January 23, 2009 3:41 PM
JEM reminds me of someone who has nothing to say and does so at great lengths.
January 24, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those appear to be two fairly straight forward points that I have seen others make in various ways. Perhaps you could explain to me what you didn't understand or offer a counterpoint opinion rather than attacking my writing style.
January 24, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo November on an excellent piece; Rec'd, bookmarked, emailed, etc.
You lay out the case for what I have felt in my gut for some time now: the country is polarized not because of radical elements at both ends of the spectrum but rather because the Right has moved SO FAR to the Right that just remaining centrist makes the Left seem "radical".
It's truly a sign of the times that Obama the center-rightist is being hailed by many as a "progressive" for merely adhering to the Constitution and rule of law. Oh my, what a Lefty!~
January 24, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is that inconsistent with buying a Republican a beer? Surely like me you have Republican acquaintances who are active in charities or in other ways do good, in fact do more good than many of your left wing friends.
Even on the gut issues like use of torture in a ticking bomb sitution, or preventive War I can think of at least one good friend who subscribes to those-to me incorrect positions- but is an admirable person.
A friend from the past advised W before his 2001 decision on stem cell research. I disagree with W's decision. I regret my friend's having facilitated it but I'd certainly buy him a beer if our paths crossed.
And apart from those gut issues, we should always keep open to the possibility that
just maybe ,like those 1930 leftists who thought that Stalin was Uncle Joe, wrong.
(I knew a few. Perfectly nice people BTW but they got that one wrong)
That doesn't mean being immobilized , it does mean at least noticing if a policy we deplore e.g. welfare reform, or charter schools has had better effects than we had confidently forecast.
And always looking at the person in front of us as a person, not just the collection of views she holds.
January 24, 2009 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Left out a word:
we're wrong.