The title too good to ignore.
Here's a post from Crooked Timber called "Since the beginning of time, liberals have yearned to destroy the sun."
All else aside, what an awesome title.
All else not aside though, and I have to say I agree. The very far left is made up of Communists, true, and the not so far left is made up of all sorts of quasi-socialists (like me!) who believe in things like the New Deal and don't think that Capitalism is the be all and end all of political, economic, and moral authority. But to think that liberals, what with all of our gay-loving, secular state promoting, Femi-nazi ways, would be supporting Radical Islam is just preposterous.
I'm so sick of this argument. I was done with it the moment I saw it, which I think was sometime around 8 pm on September 11, 2001. Whenever they put a moratorium on anyone who "blamed the US" by suggesting that maybe we had done something wrong at some point to some people. It was certainly there in time for the religious right to start blaming gays, feminists and the ACLU for the tragic day. Yet somehow that doesn't count as "blaming the US." I guess gays and feminists and supporters of Civil Rights aren't American?
It's all just another pleasant little way to avoid debate entirely. It's cheap. It's bad for the country. It's bad everyone except the GOP. And sometimes I think that's all that matters to them.
ps- Bipartisan disclaimer. I am of course talking about the GOP establishment. I know plenty of goodhearted Republicans. They just keep electing complete fucking wackjobs.
All else aside, what an awesome title.
All else not aside though, and I have to say I agree. The very far left is made up of Communists, true, and the not so far left is made up of all sorts of quasi-socialists (like me!) who believe in things like the New Deal and don't think that Capitalism is the be all and end all of political, economic, and moral authority. But to think that liberals, what with all of our gay-loving, secular state promoting, Femi-nazi ways, would be supporting Radical Islam is just preposterous.
I'm so sick of this argument. I was done with it the moment I saw it, which I think was sometime around 8 pm on September 11, 2001. Whenever they put a moratorium on anyone who "blamed the US" by suggesting that maybe we had done something wrong at some point to some people. It was certainly there in time for the religious right to start blaming gays, feminists and the ACLU for the tragic day. Yet somehow that doesn't count as "blaming the US." I guess gays and feminists and supporters of Civil Rights aren't American?
It's all just another pleasant little way to avoid debate entirely. It's cheap. It's bad for the country. It's bad everyone except the GOP. And sometimes I think that's all that matters to them.
ps- Bipartisan disclaimer. I am of course talking about the GOP establishment. I know plenty of goodhearted Republicans. They just keep electing complete fucking wackjobs.
8 Comments:
Well, obviously, I disagree. I think the Left very much has a huge problem overcoming those in its ranks who find the U.S. to be the Great Satan, and the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany and all that good stuff.
Simply put, the anti-democratic thoughts and anti-American tone of the rhetoric on a site like DemocraticUnderground has far more mainstream representation in modern Leftism than the crap they sling on FreeRepublic.com has in conservatism.
I know, it's such a tired reference, but when the Democratic National Convention invites Michael "Those terrorists are Minute Men" Moore to sit alongside Jimmy Carter, well how does that tell America the Intellectual Left is in any way democratic, or cares truly for protecting American civilization?
I think to ignore the Left's dalliances with moral bankruptcy and radical Islam (especially the self-destruct course European leftists have set for themselves) -- or to simply brush off such charges as mere GOP propaganda -- is to do a grave disservice to the cause of Modern Progressivism.
I mean, how has the intellectual side of the Democratic Party reacted to the hate-speech of professor Ward Churchill other than to support his "right to say it"?
It's the Right that is asking all the hard questions; that maybe the guy is the symptom of a greater problem, that maybe his intolerance should not be tolerated (a recurring them on this blog in recent weeks); that maybe people like Churchill are casting a spell of sorts over a generation of young, intellectual minded leftists -- and that spell doesn't bode too well for combating fascism abroad when its creating it at home.
I do really enjoy this line, though, from the above article you linked to, Asa.
"If Ascher or Reynolds know of left-wingers who are actively helping terrorists attack the United States, they should be telling the FBI and Interpol, not their blog audiences."
Hmm, curious.
I mean, Michael Moore sat with jimmy Carter, sure. And Cheney has done regular appearances on the Rush Limbaush show. You know, the man who coined the term Femi-Nazi, and said the Abu Ghraib torture was nothing more than frat house pranks. And I don't recall the exact context of Moore's comment, but I've said before and will say again that Terrorism and Guerilla warfare as tactics are not inherently evil, and often the only recourse of, yes, Freedom Fighters. The victors write the history books and all that.
As for Ward Churchill, I had never even heard of him before this whole "scandal" and doubt I ever would have if the right wing media hadn't propped him us as somehow indicative of the left. That alone should indicate to you how pervasive his ideas might be.
Meanwhile Anne Coulter has said that all liberals are traitors, and that the military should start intentionally shooting journalists.
I'm not sure how you can say that the people who go to any length at all to shut out all criticism are "asking the hard questions."
We both have our extremists, I'm not denying that. What I'm denying is that equating finding fault with the US with supporting the terrorists is dangerously irrational. I can, and do, find a lot of morally atrocious things the US has done. the Liberal reaction is to acknowledge these things and try to deal with them and make sure they don't happen again. The Conservative response is to call the Liberal a traitor and say "my country right or wrong." Well, guess what? Sometimes your country is very wrong. This is what ol' TJ was talking about when he said "dissent is the highest form of Patriotism."
I mean, we're talking about fighting theocratic freedom hating people abroad, and the conservative response is to become more Theocratic and lessen our civil liberties. And you call the Left dangerous?
Oh yeah, and where does legalizing torture, declaring that the president is not bound by law during times of war, and doing anything possible to keep DeLay out of hot water fit in with your moral bankruptcy theory?
To his credit, Glenn Reynolds has addressed the criticism and clarified to say that he meant the European Left wanted America to lose, and that only those Americans who are actively rooting for us to lose are anti-US.
I guess my only complaint there is how I often I see criticism of the Administration being confused with wanting us to lose.
Well, confusion is the name of the game when it comes to dealing with pure political ideology. I mean, let's face it, the Left also has quite the history of mispresenting pretty much everything the conservative ideology stands for. It swings both ways. I guess it's just a matter of degrees. And addressing those gray areas is something no Leftist should have a problem doing, seeing as how the Left routinely champions seeing the world in shades of gray instead. (Except of course when they're talking about Bush and the GOP. Then it's time to paint with a broad brush!!!)
* * *
I find your criticisms of Bush and torture to be valid, as his actions on the matter are indeed morally bankrupt.
* * *
Reynolds' reaction is essentially mine. (And countless Begum posts can attest to my purity on the matter) Euro Left = Iffy, flirting with totalitarianism. I'm convinced that there are entire academic movements in Western Europe certain the wrong side won the Cold War. Not cool.
* * *
As for Limbaugh. I don't find him as radical relative to the Right as I believe Moore is radical to the Left. But then, I'm very, very biased. I think Moore's Rightist equivalent is, well...I don't know. Moore has greater reach and loyalty among his followers than most Righty demagogues do (seeing as how there are so many). I guess Michael Savage might be a Rightist Moore. O'Reilly has a lot of sway over his minions, but quite frankly, he can be pretty liberal/populist and anti-GOP on many issues. Maybe Limbaugh is the best analogue, after all.
To respond to something from your very first post...
Other than Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, I don't recall any member of the conservative, let alone *GOP* establishment blaming gays and feminists for 9/11. I think it's worth defining what the GOP Establishment is, before tagging it with the whole "they hate gays and feminists" label.
And to steal a rhetorical trick from the Left...
Just because your everyday, Nebraska-living social con is against gay marriage, doesn't mean he hates gay people. Insinuating such is not any better than the neo-cons calling all critics of Israel anti-Semites.
On a very loosely related note, perhaps for another time...
It's also worth looking at how feminists have dealt with conservatives in the past. Again, it's a two-way street, especially when you have NOW and the feminist far-left quick to pounce on any conservative woman as some kind of gender "Uncle Tom." How is that helping the debate?
Actually, sometimes I'm not even sure elements of feminism *want* to debate. Just look at all the hot water that Harvard professor got into a month back. He had the temerity to suggest things might not be what they seem, and they proceeded to metaphorically rip his balls off. Harvard balls, at that.
Just a few responses to your thoughts, Alex:
"Well, obviously, I disagree. I think the Left very much has a huge problem overcoming those in its ranks who find the U.S. to be the Great Satan, and the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany and all that good stuff."
I'd like to know exactly who in the left's ranks - and by ranks I mean those with sizeable presence - actually expresses this sentiment. Saying it's a huge problem essentially reflects your agreement with Ascher's statements - that the US left is overrun with people who see the U.S. the same way radical Muslims do. And that's nonsense.
"Well, obviously, I disagree. I think the Left very much has a huge problem overcoming those in its ranks who find the U.S. to be the Great Satan, and the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany and all that good stuff."
Give me a break. Is that why we're in Iraq right now? Because of all the anti-American tone in the mainstream? Is that why we're always hearing about Iraqi civilian casualties on the news? And all the flags everywhere?
A quick fact check: the DNC did not invite Michael Moore to the convention, precisely because they felt him too controversial to showcase. And Carter's family were actually the ones to invite him into the skybox. So take it up with them.
You talk about the left's "dalliances" with radical Islam. I can't think of an actual example of that, but, oh! Grover Norquist and CA congressman Dana Rohrbacher have actually sat down for friendly chats with the Taliban. Still, I guess it's the left, who sit on the complete opposite end of the ideological spectrum, that's in bed with them.
As for the Ward Churchill issue, I would be more than happy to hear serious discussion of it, if it appeared that anyone had actually read the essay! All I seem to be hearing is, "He compared 9/11 victims to Eichmann - should he be shot?" No one touches the greater issue of his arguments.
And yes, when something like this happens, I think the first thing that should be brought up amongst all the rage is that the guy has a right to say whatever he wants. It is the first amendment, after all.
"Other than Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, I don't recall any member of the conservative, let alone *GOP* establishment blaming gays and feminists for 9/11. I think it's worth defining what the GOP Establishment is, before tagging it with the whole 'they hate gays and feminists' label."
Yeah, but doesn't Bush have some sort of weekly picnic with Robertson? That would suggest he, and his messages, carry significant weight within the GOP. If you have a problem with that, the blame sits not with the left, I think, but with the GOP.
Other than all that, I agree with Asa completely.
Post a Comment
<< Home