For a good long while there, some of the more genial and polite souls in the right blogosphere seemed all too eager to give people like Yglesias and Oliver Willis the benefit of the doubt as perfectly reasonable and worthy opponents in a polite, genteel debate that never really existed; it seemed plain enough to me all along what they were really all about. But sooner or later, even the most unreasonably optimistic among us realizes that the toad isn’t going to turn into a prince, no matter how arduously they keep kissing it.This comes after a discussion of Andrew Sullivan and Matthew Yglesias. As I note here on Sullivan (and those "Rovian Islamists"), the left's comparisons between American conservatives and the hardliner in Iran is simply breathtaking. But see also, "Yglesias Hits Bottom."
Glenn Reynolds has in interesting post on his battles with these idiots going back 5 years. It turns out Yglesias went so far to say, "Fuck you," Glenn, during a debate over President Bush and Iraq.
Maybe even Ann Althouse is finally coming around - the end of Althouse/Yglesias bloggingheads?
8 comments:
Wait Donald, you get your panties in a twist because Sullivan calls conservatives "Rovian Islamists" yet you have no problems calling people who are pro gay marriage "Iranian Mullahs."
Can you explain that glorious double standard please?
Ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that right and left discourse right now is too hot-tempered--and it's all the fault of the left.
But I'm still not sure why you said this:
"it's my personal belief that radical left-wing ideology is the greatest threat to the country today."
When I first read this early this morning, before anyone had commented, I was thinkin' the same basic thing Tim said, (only mine was about how it's alright for folks on the right, including Donald himself, to equate American Democrats with Stalinists & whatnot (Wasn't Stalin kind of a "hardliner" too, making that comparison just as "breathtaking"?), but then I realized that there was something else bothering me about it: The conservatives up in arms about what Sullivan (& others like him) said there fail to understand the concept of an analogy.
I made the same point to Donald almost 6 months ago, saying: "Most people understand the concept of an analogy, and that no comparison between two things is--or needs to be--a perfect match in order to express a given point. Apples and oranges are different, but even they are both still fruits, both still more or less round, both still contain vitamins, ... Comparing apples & apples, on the other hand, (the only comparison you seem to think valid, given your constant repetition of this worn shibboleth of the right) is really no comparison at all."
Still true, apparently...
One can argue whether Sullivan's analogy between Bush election strategies & "I'mADinnerJacket" election strategies (or Donald's analogy between American Democrats and Stalinists) holds water, but the comparisons themselves neither mean nor imply that American conservatives are like the Iranian hardliners IN EVERY WAY, or that the American left is JUST LIKE Stalin.
What Sullivan's saying (& what one hopes professor Douglas is saying, as well) is that the people they are comparing are similar (even here, not necessarily EXACTLY THE SAME) in at least one way relevant to their larger point.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, Reppy. I don't come here for intellectual subtlety and nuanced discussion.
Ignore him, Don. Just call me a "nihilist", say "leftists" or "lefttards" or "leftinistras" or some other tired shit, and then claim that everything I and Obama love or believe will destroy the United States, and then shortly thereafter, the world.
I know ya got it in ya, big guy. Don't let me down.
Ben JB,
At some point you might take time to read the vast store of articles and commentary that Donald has put forth for comment. It should not be his job to research and re-iterate for you.
Repsac3,
Hey guy not bad. I would only say that if one pays attention to the labels that Donald places at the end of each discussion and here he places this under "Radical Left."
I would think that at some point you would recognize that there are neo, paleo, social et al Conservatives then there is the radical Right. It amuses me to see people try to define neoconservative to the extreme right when the vast majority of neo's are former Liberals and are just to the right of moderates. This same can be said for the Left where one has Liberals, Progressives, et al and the radical Left.
Suffice it to say that there is too much of a propensity on many peoples part to condemn and denigrate those on the other side of the political spectrum by moving everyone either to the far Left or the far Right. This does a disservice to everyone who comprise 90 percent of the political spectrum in this country. At most the radicals on both side comprise about 10 percent, but we allow them to control 60 percent of the discussion or more. Something good people on each side should put an end.
Is there any wonder that we spend so much time saying bad things about each other? This comes from allowing the radicals from both side to control the discussion, a desire to feel superior to others and a sloppiness in maintaining a clear definition of what and who we are commenting on.
It is why I detest the ideas of groups as opposed to individuals. Group identity allows for bigotry, et al and an easy way to discount others, whereas the individual is much harder to classify. One maybe Conservative on some issues and Liberal on other issues, which I am. I would posit that others are the same way, the only difference being the general make up of where one stands on each issue.
Our differences could and should make us strong if we do not allow the fringes to control the discussion.
Dennis,
Donald is a professor--if he's not used to repeating himself (either in the same class or across the years as he teaches the same courses) then he should get used to it.
If he's already got it written up as a post, great--he could provide the link.
If his thought about why "radical left-wing ideology is the greatest threat to the country today" is scattered over several posts, less great, but not a disaster--he could still provide the links to the relevant posts.
Or maybe now is the time to revisit the issue at some length--after all, he stated his belief twice in two separate posts, so clearly this is something that is on his mind.
Now, let me preempt your next argument: you might say that Donald has no responsibility to tell people why he feels the way he does, which is true--unless of course Donald sees himself as a political agent who wants to make political change. In that case, it is in his best interest to make his arguments known and clear.
"But, wait," you might say, "obviously you're a left-wing moonbat who refuses to listen to the truth." It's no secret that I'm liberal, but Donald has never bothered to explain his comment in the first place--and I'm specifically saying that I'm willing to listen.
All in all, Donald has twice made the statement "it's my personal belief that radical left-wing ideology is the greatest threat to the country today"--he has never explained his belief or tried to support it in any way. Now, you would think that since he called it "the greatest threat" he might make some time for it, but you'd be wrong.
Instead, he has posted several times about a variety of other issues. The most generous interpretation I can think of to explain his silence is that he realizes this is a big issue, wants to give it its due, and is working on it in his spare time, while other issues have come up.
The least generous interpretation I can think of is that he actually doesn't have an argument here, but is too intellectually cowardly to admit that he's wrong. As I said, that's the least generous interpretation I can think of, but it fits about as well as the most generous interpretation.
Here's hoping I'm wrong and he's working on a well-thought out argument to back up his belief.
Ben JB, Don has indeed given reasons for why he believes what he said but for the most part they are as intellectually dishonest as the statement itself, and if you disagree you're a nihilist and a troll and whatever other apparent insult he can muster.
Saying something like that is as foolish as saying that President Obama really wants to destroy America. It's the extremists controlling the discussion, as Dennis stated.
That said, this may be the most lucid, even handed comment you've posted on this site Dennis. I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything you said. I give Reppy some of the credit, of course. His ability to consistently present reasoned arguments and respectful rebuttals personifies the patience of Job, and makes him a better man than I in this respect.
Regardless, well said.
@ Dennis:
Funny you mention all that... I wrote and submitted this as a comment yesterday, after reading BREITBART: Left cries "racist" in crowded country - Washington Times
(It's posted in there somewhere, but the Washington Times offers no comment permalinks... ...or paragraph breaks either, apparently...):
---
It'll be a far better day when we treat people as individuals, rather than bleating on about "the left" & "the right." (Of course, it''l put both the FoxNews & MSNBC prime time lineup, as well as the majority of political opinion blogs, including this one, out of business.)
There is such a thing as right wing (& left wing) extremism, quite separate & apart from either political party, or the vast majority of liberals and conservatives.
People who spike trees, set fire to construction equipment, or bomb research labs, in the name of saving the planet or God's little creatures? Left wing extremists.
People who shoot doctors or bomb clinics, in the name of saving God's unborn worshipers? Right wing extremists.
Neither represent the more mainstream folks--the vast majority of us all--in the left or right wing.
It's not extreme to be in favor of saving the unborn from abortion, or to want to maintain as much untouched wilderness as possible. It's also not extreme to oppose the opinions of the people who want to do either or both of those things. But it is extreme to commit acts of violence or terrorism in pursuit of any of those goals.
That's all the DHS reports were saying, folks... People on the fringes may do evil, unlawful things in support of reasonable (conservative, in one report, or & liberal, in the other) political goals.
For those on the right who're having so much trouble accepting it, look at it this way; it isn't RIGHT WING extremism, it's right wing EXTREMISM. It's ok to admit that you have a lunatic fringe and to condemn them. In fact, it's the only way to purge yourselves of them. (I see no similar fear to see and denounce the fringe on the left, by the left. But if you do, please offer them the same advice. My little capital letter explanation isn't copyrighted, or nothin'.)
---
JSF & I have been discussing this, too [HERE] and [HERE]
There are folks in the comments section at the Washington Times (& posting here at AmPow, too) who see no extremists or far _____ folks on their own side, and nothing but extremists and far ______ people on the other side.
(If one really pays attention, I think they'll find that the majority of my commentary on the net is in opposition to that exact kinda myopia / farsightedness.)
Post a Comment