Richard MichaelThe GOP vs. Dems: The Dangers of Extremism
August 9th 2008 21:54
Hitler a staunch conservative, Stalin a hardcore liberal...
Theres nothing I love more than heated political discourse (especially when its over the internet so you feel like you can say anything!) But its a little different when one side won't concede even a small portion of the argument. The argument between the VERY conservative blog The Political Brief (written by S.L.) and the liberal blog Political Certainty (written by Jim) has inspired me to put in my two cents.
Extremeism, be it Republican, Democratic, Muslim, or Christian is equally dangerous in any case. Period. I like to argue amiably, and I even subscribe to many conservative issues (abortion, oil drilling, and border security) but a person like S.L. is so set in her ways she never sees even a small portion of truth to the other side of the argument. Ironically, hardcore conservative christians can only bring to mind the Muslim terrorists they hate so much.
You may say, but Christians don't blow up buildings or oppress women! Extreme Christians do. How many abortion clinics have been blown up because of hardcore conservative Christians? And all you have to do is read up on the Polygamy sects in the south west to see how cruel extremist Christian men can be to women. Furthermore, lets not forget Neo Nazis and white supremacists who use Christianity to back up their views.
My point is that when you become so stuck in your ways, when you hate a group of people or a belief system so fully, you begin to beome what you hate. A perfect analogy is comparing Hitler to Stalin. Stalin was left wing extremist, and Hitler was right; but they were both so equally insane and dangerous that their beliefs went full circle and the line between the two became blurred.
The deep and beating heart of the American ideal is progressive ideas and the ability to reinvent itself. The line that divides us from the Middle Eastern countries is our willingness to accept new ideas; when we fail to do that we're no better than the terrorists were spending so much money to destroy.
| 118 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Randy Inman
Waxing Political
Football Dogz
Comment by Jim Stillman
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by The wonderful Peter Yang
The First Wonderful Peter Yang's Variety Blog
The New Wonderful Peter Yang's variety blog
Power Ranger Online
TV Online
Solar Energy Pannel
Stay healthy and loose weight
I would say they are both leaders of radical groups, that control a nation.
Comment by Edward 4
The Hospital Blues
Painting in a Cave
Comment by Cheryl J
Rhythmatism
Budget Centsability
Comment by Anonymous
Sure is news to me. I've read a lot of S.L.'s posts and while some of them are more conservatively written than mine, I'd hardly, and I mean -- hardly -- consider them representing the "far right" side of the spectrum. But of course, I come from an area where even moderates are suspect racists, sexists, speciesists, heterosexists, male chauvinist sexists, generationists, and every other kind of "ists" you want to stick your hand in the proverbial dung buckets to have something to throw at somebody with.
I'm not kidding because I've seen this childish and babyish act for decades in an area saturated with some of the most "intellectually gifted" people who've ever walked the planet. I've always believed in an evolutionary role in natural history, but when it comes to mankind, or to employ the femaleist perspective, humyndind, the Peter Principle seems to have a greater hold on my imagination than any "missing link" theory -- especially when politics is involved and moreso when the political argument settles on the playground level arguments over who's the toughest ideological kid in the lefty,liberal, moderate, conservative or righty corners of the playground.
If you read S.L.'s explanatory paragraph on her webpage you'll learn all you need before you open a single post or attached link. She tells you where she's coming from and if you don't like it, well, go elsewhere.
In this day and age when and where our clerics, schools, and media outlets and media consutants stumble all over each other in their efforts to teach "tolerance" to the point where it becomes meaningless mush n' slush -- at least S.L.'s articles provide a refreshing change.
You'll never learn by sticking in your comfort zones. You can't learn to ride a horse if you don't get back up after falling. You'll never improve your vocabulary by shunning a (textbook, i.e., real) dictionary, and you'll never learn about the realities of politics by sticking with your own crowd.
I don't agree with a lot of Obama's views, or the views of many social liberals or for that matter, fiscal conservatives -- but I either subscribe to them or look them up to learn something. But one of the first things you've got to learn is who's playing the game and on what side of the field. And you can't do that by offering observations made from your seats in the cushy superbox seats in the stadiums (Talk about socialism for the wealthy! at the expense of the poor!)
You learn about the players (and their views, their positions, etc.) by getting down on the playing field, and playing the game before becoming a political writer, even if it means risking the possibility that you might be benched, get a little bruised, tired, burned, or rained on.
Damn, I'd be a political consultant if I could. But I'm realistic to know that real success comes from having the right candidates (first qualifications -- working ears brains, and given the pathetic lesson of J. Edwards, safely/perpetually celibate) and lots of dough put up by some daddy warbucks who believes in my vainglorious notions. But back in the real world I have a much bigger thought in mind.
Unless the price was too prohibitively high for me to turn down (a very unlikely circumstance), my wife would let me have a go at it but she wants nothing to do with politics. And , since I have always respected the wisdom of a long-time politician from the eastern part of my state, former House Speaker Tip O'Neill who said, "All politics is local," you have a good idea how far my dreams of political consultancy are faring.
But I wouldn't give up my wife's single vote for anything without asking for it first.
Where does that put me? Liberal (because I admire O'Neill), Conservative (because I put my sacramental obligations as a husband before ambitions) -- take your pick. Read S.L.'s book "Political Journey" and see where you think she's really coming from before judging her completely.
I see a conservative, but a practical conservative, writer whose views have been shaped and continue to be honed by a grounded set of values but never so inflexible as to ignore the realities faced by others.
This is rare. Believe me. I've seldom seen it in other conservative writers as well, and I've interened at the National Journalism Center in Washington, DC 25 years ago. A lot of conservative wri ters want to settle in the DC area (as I did back then) but that's not always possible so we make do with what we have. She lives what she writes about and she's shared it quite openly. Hopefully people can say the same about me someday when it's time for me to push my keyboard aside.
Besides, the NJC would like to see more conservative writers spread throughout the country more evenly, especially in New England, and I'm not just referring to outfits like the Dartmouth Review, Manchester Union Leader or Boston Herald. Thank God for blogging given the ideological stranglehold liberalism has on many papers and other outlets up here.
As a practical suggestion, however, stay away from the old and very innacurate use of Hitler and Stalin as examples of right/left, conservative/liberal extremist thinking. This isn't even apples and oranges stuff. This is fruits and planes, etc.
Besides, if you ever looked at Hitler's track record and read Mein Kampf you'd be wondering how in the world he ever became a symbolism for "archconservatism."
He was an arch nationalist. So was Ho Chi Minh. So was Mao. So was Stalin. So was Kaiser Wilhelm II. So was Franco. So was Mussolini. So was De Gaulle. You can even say that about Churchill, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Reagan and all our presidents to one degree or another. (When one puts his hand on that Bible and takes that oath, he damned well better be an arch nationalist.)
Being an arch nationalist isn't the problem: it's what the arch nationalist does to give this term a good or bad name that counts in the long run.
Call me an "arch nationalist" if you want, too. But you'd better ask S.L. for her permission, first.
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Edward 4
The Hospital Blues
Painting in a Cave
Anonymous -
Let me say I'm impressed by the length of your comment and I'm grateful for the time you took in critiquing my views.
First, I want to say that I don't know who S.L. Bradish is except for the posts I began reading since I joined Orble (in July). But from what I've read (And I don't think I'm alone here)I don't think that it’s a stretch to say that she's far right. The reason I even brought up her name in my post is that she's unrelenting. At times she's very hostile to other blogger's disagreements with her sometimes radical opinions. When you can’t see a situation through someone else’s eyes you begin to lose something. (Its called humanity…)
Second, I realize that the Hitler and Stalin thing is a bit of a stretch. However, is a very useful analogy that gets my point across succinctly and informs somebody who’s not an expert on the subject what I mean. This is a blog. Not a text book. If you make it longer than a few paragraphs people lose interest. After all, as Shakespeare said, "Brevity is the soul of wit." You might learn something from this yourself judging by the length of your comment : )
Third, I think it’s funny that you're a friend and supporter of S.L. and yet you comment anonymously. Anyone familiar with S.L.’s blog knows that she tears into those who disagree with her anonymously. I won’t do that, since I feel I’m above it, but I still think its funny.
Jeff –
Thanks for the comment and for backing the merit of the Stalin and Hitler argument. Like I said above, at its heart it’s really only an analogy to get my point across.
Comment by Hnadsome Dan
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
By the way, the only person on Orble I have ever known to boast that they do not read opposing views is SL herself.
As to the claims of SL being rational, I think "no comment" is perhaps apt.
Comment by Edward 4
The Hospital Blues
Painting in a Cave
Comment by Edward 4
The Hospital Blues
Painting in a Cave
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
Steven Barrett/ www.politicsramble.com/
Now that you know ...
As for being "delusional" about S.L.'s views, I strongly suggest that you do a lot more reading up on the history of American conservatism. A good place to start is George H. Nash, Jr.'s History of the Conservative Movement. On that I rest my case.
Now if I can figure out how to get rid of my "anonymous" status and those cherubic faces next to my responses.
Comment by Edward 4
The Hospital Blues
Painting in a Cave
Although I haven't read that book I do think I have at least a moderate grasp of what defines a conservative. However, I do like to read so I'll check it out.
Good luck with the admin stuff, I had trouble with it too for awhile. : )