I’ve said many times that conservatives think liberals are wrong while liberals think conservatives are evil. The scatological trough linked to in the title, by Plaut's Complaint, proves me wrong. Conservatives also take the easy road, turning their political foes into either irrational dimwits or subhumans, a la Hitler, Stalin, and the very worst of the liberal left. Worse yet, having stifled my gag reflex, heroically and repeatedly, long enough to read the entire thing, I found myself wondering if liberals aren’t right to call some conservatives evil.
I expect such rude, raving diction from the crazier DUmmies (Democratic Undergound folks) and/or Daily Kos operatives. I wouldn’t be surprised to read such outrageous vitriol in a letter from one Al-Quaeda worm to another. One imagines Arafat’s pallbearers referenced Jews with similar language, as they whispered of assassination over the coffin of their dead hero. But I am surprised and disappointed that this hyperbolic spew originates from the American right.
David Horowitz was, I thought, a conservative’s conservative. But being conservative requires more than the right sort of political beliefs- it requires thoughtfulness, a certain amount of class/magnanimity, and respect for proportion and perspective. That article displayed none of that, and I fervently hope that Horowitz, as editor-in-chief of the blog that published it, will apologize and retract it entirely. Failing that, I hope he will never publish such garbage again. Failing that, I can only pray Horowitz will become as isolated as David Duke. The left has embraced the hatred, exaggeration, and lies of their Michael Moores and Ward Churchills.
I hope the right will not make the same mistake.
9 comments:
Hi Harky,
Thanks for an excellent article. I have maybe one minor quibble with the whole post.
If you had said partof the left embraces its lunatics I would have agreed with you. I persoanlly think Moore and Churchill should be ostracised. Moore managed to highlight some real questions, but none of that was his original work. His original work was awful - ad hominem attacks of the worst kind. Churchill is just a rodent and I hope the ghosts of native americans past haunt his sleep.
However, I have to point out that as much of the Right embraces it's ghastly ghouls as there are Lefties who support theirs. I can support this with links if you would like. It wouldn't take more than five minutes to find a dozen. Face it, neither end of the spectrum has a priveliged position when it comes to the moral high ground on rational polite punditry.
I truly detest kindergarten politics, no matter where it comes from.
Regards, C
Harky, have you ever heard of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly?
I'm not a Moore fan and I had never heard of Ward Churchill until the blogs went nuts.
You need to examine Horowitz's Discover the Network site a little further if you want to understand how the right works. For instance, did you know that Abu Musab al Zarqawi is part of the American left?
I was amazed to learn that a guy who believes in executing civilians by cutting their heads off, opposes womens' equality, would happily exterminate gays, and no doubt opposes abortion is, according to Horowitz, a liberal.
Horowitz is not alone in equating the left with fascist ideologies that are as illiberal as can be imagined.
You think we're crazy to say you guys do your work by constant smear campaigns, but take a look. I've got two Coulter books on my shelf, and by far my favorite is Treason, where she "exposes" the "fact" that 50% or so of America is out to... well, destroy America.
Thoughtfulness? Class? Perspective? I'm not seeing it.
Hey Cernig,
I'll change my post to reflect your comment about "all of the left. Regarding the right embracing the hate-mongers equally, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
This argument is ongoing, all over the net, so it is a judgement call. I'll make the following two points, though-
1.Michael Moore sat next to Carter at the dem convention- and for me that's just about a 'nuff said.
2. Most liberals would disagree with you about Moore and Churchill. Most conservatives would agree with me about Horowitz.
Cheers!
Hark
Good point, Sham, and if Coulter sits next to Bush at the next Republican convention I'll be proven wrong.
Neither the popular conservatives nor the left have defensible positions. This is because they have no absolute standard by which to distinguish "good" from "evil." Without a moral measuring stick, they emote but preferences, adding the moral label of choice.
But if no absolute moral yardstick exists, then there are no real inches, yards -- no felons or heroes. Without a universal law-code to define right and wrong, nothing is really "wrong," including genocide or Nazism. These maybe inconvenient, but not "wrong."
Moreover, the standard liberal claim "there are no moral absolutes" provides an example -- the most absolute and sweeping example, mind you -- of what it denies (a self-referential absurdity).
And although they love to think they are so different from each other, in the end they are all just "Republicratarians," a silly lot with no real answers.
thanx for commenting Ophir's Razor!
"Neither the popular conservatives nor the left have defensible positions. This is because they have no absolute standard by which to distinguish "good" from "evil." Without a moral measuring stick, they emote but preferences, adding the moral label of choice."
I disagree. And if you were willing to be specific and direct rather than general and ambiguous we could discuss whether or not certain conservatives held some defensible positions.
In general (hehehe) a lack of specificity and directness implies the speaker is intellectually lazy and/or incapable of implying real world analysis to their utopian and/or escapist and/or sophomoric and/or statist and/or sophist rationalisms escapading as rational conclusions.
thankyouverymuch and
Cheers!
Harkonnendog
Hark,
How can you be so rude to ophir's razor when you argue in the same way and you refuse to answer specific examples except to make absurd statements?
A long time ago I asked on simianbrain for anyone to name a lie that was in F-911. Nobody has told me one thing that was completely false and presented as truth. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know. Can you back your accusation up with specific examples?
How about this? Chalabi sat next to Barbara Bush during a state of the union address. Isn't he a convicted embezzlor? No? Isn't he an Iranian spy? No? Isn't he the guy who said our invading force would be welcomed with flowers?
You get the idea.
I am amazed that you say you are "surprised and disappointed that this hyperbolic spew originates from the American right". Don't you watch Fox News? Haven't you every heard or read anything Sean Hanity says? Shamanic covered Ann Coulter pretty well, but she is just the most photogenic tip of the iceberg. Go to World Net Daily and see what the right is writing.
Yes. You are correct. The radical left is crazy.
But so is the radical right and they are all over Fox News.
That is what I like about this site. People from the middle with different opinions discussing things, rationally. Another good site is the Moderate Republican. Not news oriented, but good discussions.
Kirkrrt
KKK,
I apologize to Ophir's Razor- My response was meant to be a tongue in cheek making fun kind of thing... I guess the tone was harsher than I intended.
Like I told Cernig, we could argue about who is more nuts, left or right, endlessly and to no avail. For the record I think Chalabi is apples to oranges... anyway... I detest this stuff from the right and I'm glad u detest it from the left.
If you spend 10 minutes reading this site
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
u'll find a plethera of Michael Moore lies.
Wow! Thanks.
I will have that with me when I finally watch the movie.
If every one of the 59 deceits is correct (or even half of them) my opinion of Michael Moore is much lower than before. And I already agreed that he is a nut case.
Thanks again.
Kirkrrt
Post a Comment