At what point did members of the left begin to embrace totalitarian behaviors they once berated the right for? What happened to openness, understanding and dialog? Is it all an illusion, or is the left becoming so intolerant of others that it is willing to dispose of counter-opinion at any cost? These are just some of the questions that continue to emerge in American political circles.
Truth be told, the left has become so jaded that many of its members are working more feverishly than Big Brother to strike down any opinions or notions that deviate from the general realm of liberalism. First, it was done by the media (and please don’t rage on about how there is no liberal media bias; it’s a dead subject; the sooner you admit that there is an inherent bias – not a conspiracy by any means, but an innate liberal inclination in most national outlets – the sooner you’ll be on the path to rectifying it) and now it has permeated the most rudimentary political discussions and debates.
Take, for instance, a piece I wrote last week about John McCain. In sum, the entry was intended to present a brief and concise case for McCain, a candidate who leans left on some issues (and by “leans left” I mean simply that he is willing to work with liberal members of Congress on a number of bipartisan bills, which is apparently a crime punishable by political extrication). While some conservatives have understandable disdain (I am not one of them) for Senator McCain, I was taken aback by the horrific attacks that came from members of the left who had read my blog (instead of attacking the facts, they decided to attack my person):
“I take umbrage at being commanded to “get educated” by someone who writes like a college freshman.” –Vince Williams
“I’ve taught college freshmen, and Billy is no college freshman. His stuff smacks more of middle school.” –Steve Levine
Okay, so they think I write like a college freshman – or a middle schooler; who cares. Either way, they skipped over the main points of my piece and delved right into a person attack, which is the sort of drudgery that the left (and Ann Coulter) use to strike down counter-opinion. They have resorted to absurd quips in an effort to demean conservatives, which is horribly sad. At least Ann Coulter claims she’s joking when she makes grandiosely ludicrous statements.
“I didn’t think anyone could surpass George W. Bush in unsupported arrogance, but I think Billy’s done it.” – Vince Williams
I suppose I should take that as a complement.
Following this gem, the conversation took a bizarre turn and Joshua Rosenstock, who I actually do have respect for, pulled the “Bush has polarized the nation” bit. This was my reply:
“And not for anything, but were you guys around in 2000 or are you new here? Our nation was even more polarized, as we saw an election that was within thousands of votes in 2000 (our 2004 election, much to liberals’ dismay had a difference in the millions).” –Billy Hallowell
Rosenstock also brought up Bush’s warning to the world following 9/11 that each nation is either with America or against her:
Rosenstock:
“Why should we force the entire globe to become involved and actively take a stand in something that involves only a handful of nations? Conservatives used to admonish liberals for trying to police the world. Remember what Bush said when he ran in 2000? “I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation building.”
My answer:
For the same reason we tell our young people to stand up for inequality should they encounter it. Why should the world sit back while a ruthless dictator slaughters his own people? Is there no sense of responsibility anymore? I cannot accept the idea that we would knowingly allow nations to torture and kill their own without intervening.
And whether we asked the world to get involved or not, radical extremists have already attacked and are operating on nearly every continent. The idea that the world should not fight them is absurd. A handful of nations? From Darfur to the United States of America, radical extremists have posed major threats to stability. Radical Islamism must be stopped. I can think of at least nine nations (which is two handfuls) who are directly related to or affected by this horrific phenomenon; of course, the list is much longer than that when properly tabulated.
And Joshua, while I respect you, I cannot see the relevancy of an eight-year-old quote that was uttered by Bush before the towers fell. Our world has changed immeasurably since 2000, but since the “9/11 was an inside job” protestors seem to think Bush planned it all, maybe they would find some relevancy in the quote (which to me shows that “nation-building” was not in the cards prior to 9/11, thus debunking their notion that the event was preconceived).
More from Steve Levine:
“I pointed out that McCain, the patriot, advocated throwing MoveOn.org out of the country for disagreeing with his view of the Iraq war. How’s that for “radical extremism?”
Oh yes, the typical liberal response that seeks to equate two totally unrelated and unbelievably unbalanced issues or statements. Comparing John McCain’s disdain for MoveOn.org with my mention of radical Islamism is completely absurd. And not for anything, but MoveOn.org is a horrifically undiplomatic organization that seeks to place a monopoly on Democratic values in America. On top of that, their New York Times advertisement was not only disgraceful, but it worked to undermine journalistic standards, while promoting a despicable thought process (and since the surge is actually working, maybe MoveOn.org should apologize for their actions)? This is America; MoveOn.org deserves to exist, so I suppose McCain and I disagree (although I do agree with his perspectives regarding the organization itself).
I’m wondering if I should even touch the more insanely “extreme” statements liberals have made about FOX News and the like. Probably not. You don’t seem too receptive to opinions other than your own. Not too long ago, MoveOn.org was working toward boycotting FOX News – and let’s not forget about the lawsuit that was waged against FOX’s “Fair and Balanced” slogan.
“Vince pointed out McCain’s denunciation of Falwell and Robertson, and then his unctuous embrace of Reverend Jerry when it suited his political purposes. Likewise, his embrace of Bush in 2004 after being savaged by W in 2000. So much for McCain’s “integrity” and principles and straight talk.” – Steve Levine
First of all, welcome to politics. Did you know Hillary has an evangelical advisor? Sad, isn’t it? She claims to be a Methodist. While I would never doubt one’s faith, I find it ironic that she suddenly cares about the right, considering that she has had plenty of negative things to say about both its leaders and its followers. I suppose securing some evangelical votes and toting one’s religion makes is excusable, though.
McCain has every right to change his opinions and affiliations (if you recall, your candidate in 2004 had a penchant for waffling). After all, Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it. But let me guess, that was totally permissible?
Let’s be realistic: McCain is the most qualified candidate running on either side. These bizarre and pointless meanderings that have been posed against him from members of both the left and the right are weightless when compared to the very real and hearty implications that exist among the Democratic candidates.
I hope you’re not lumping me in with “the left” because I disagree with Bush’s fatally flawed foreign policies.
We can’t force dozens of countries to care about radical extremists as much as we do for many complicated reasons, mostly because the threat level isn’t as high and financial conflicts of interest prohibit it.
Bush tries to simplify it and reduce his foreign policy to a sound bite/campaign commercial. Ironically, he campaigned as a political uniter (magically, he was able to briefly work with the more conservative Democrats in the Texas state legislature) yet has succeeded mostly in uniting the world against us.
Now Billy has taken to writing comedy.
This piece might make sense if it were intended as satire, but sadly, it’s not.
I say that I take umbrage at being commanded to “get educatedâ€?, and Billy deems it a “horrific attack”.
That’s funny.
I say that “I didn’t think anyone could surpass George W. Bush in unsupported arrogance,” and Billy is stunned by my meanness.
That’s amusing.
We have a President who can barely manage to put two coherent sentences together without a script (even then they’re in danger of being mangled), doesn’t know history or geography, and uses signing statements to rule by decree in an arrogant display of contempt for the rule of law.
That’s not funny.
We’re treated to the spectacle of a man who tacitly endorses torture smugly lecturing the world about “spreading democracy”.
That’s not amusing.
Where is the Bush/Cheney regime’s tender regard for democratic ideals in its support of repressive dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt?
There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before Bush/Cheney/Halliburton invaded.
Billy spews insults to the left and liberalism, and asks questions like “…when did members of the left begin to embrace totalitarian behaviors”, and pretends to be shocked when we take offense.
He has trouble finding the word he wants, (what the hell is “the general realm of liberalism?’) so we’re treated to such awkward and meaningless constructions as: “political extrication”, “delved right into a person attack”, “properly tabulated”.
His maundering writing style is clear evidence of a disorderly mind.
His comedy isn’t funny, but it is entertaining if only accidentally.
Isn’t torture a totalitarian behavior? How about invading my privacy, reading my emails and keeping logs of my phone calls (thanks a lot PATRIOT Act)? The right embraced these acts.
I meant to say his comedy isn’t really funny.
No Josh, I’m not clumping you with the left. I do, however, disagree with your take on the Patriot Act and the right in general.
Vince: LOL.
Thanks for proving my point, Billy.
The PATRIOT Act is a violation of the Fourth Amendment on its face and should be struck down by the Supreme Court if challenged.
Apparently, writing a coherent sentence is only one of Billy’s problems; reading comprehension isn’t his strong suit, either.
We hardly “skipped over” the main points of your McCain argument. Read the posts again: we rebutted every one of them.
And when I cited McCain’s comment about “throwing MoveOn.org out of the country,” I WASN’T comparing that to your mention of radical Islamism; that certainly would have been unrelated and absurd.
Instead, I was pointing out that for the super-patriot McCain to advocate the suppression of a dissenting opinion IS a form of radical extremism, and hardly the position of a “true Conservative” who values the freedom of speech clause in our Constitution.
You need to read more carefully. And it wouldn’t hurt to develop a sense of irony, too.
Or you could expose yourself to individuals who deviate from your own perspective. Might be fulfilling, no?
You’d think from reading Billy that we’ve never made any rebuttals to his points.
I don’t think he reads them.
I get the impression that he scans the comments looking for references to himself, and ignores everything else.
It’s boring talking only to people who share my views, so I welcome a conversation with those whose opinions differ from mine.
But for those opinions to be credible, they have to be grounded in some reality…and based on verifiable information. I’d have more respect for your opinions if they weren’t bathed in the blinding glare of your own certainty.
While I believe that you’re entitled to your own opinion (oh, how I hate that cliche!), you are NOT entitled to your own FACTS!
Billy is offended that we liberals aren’t fans of his sub-literate writing.
When I read “…toting one’s religion makes is excusable”, I don’t feel that I’m being challenged intellectually by William F. Buckley, Jr.
I feel instead that I’m being condescended to by someone who doesn’t respect his readership enough to check his words for clarity and simple errors.