To put the matter crudely, conservatives view people on the left as effete, effeminate and ineffective.
But times have changed.
People on the left have redoubled our identification with the heritage of constitutional liberty, learned to make the harshest kind of moral judgments, and started to use the language of good vs evil.
And we have our conservative friends to thank for that.
Certainly that's been the case with American legal rights. The Bush administration has raised awareness of American rights in a lot of ways. By kidnapping and torturing those accused of terrorism, denying them legal rights, and flushing them into Guantanamo, Bush has reminded liberals of the preciousness of legal rights and the vigilance needed to maintain them. In this context, liberal bloggers like Glenn Greenwald identify the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights as the essence of the United States as a nation and readily label Bush and his supporters as "un-American," "corrupt," "morally bankrupt," and "cynical."
Contrary to Praeger, neither Greenwald nor any of the other major liberal bloggers care the least about being loved by the Bush administration, the media, or the "establishment" they view as aiding and abetting the abuses of the Bush years. In relation to the moral failings of the Bush administration, liberals are as judgmental as any Puritan, abolitionist, or sixties feminist.
But I doubt Praeger would be comforted by that thought.
But the moral judgmentalism of liberals extends farther than that. Liberals condemn the swaggering arrogance, personal intolerance, and sense of entitlement on the right and everyday liberals refer to people on the right as "arrogant assholes" to such an extent that I've encountered conservatives who have internalized the insult. Liberals also condemn conservatives like Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, David Vitter, and Larry Craig as fantastic moral hypocrites but also believe that conservatives in general share in the outsized hypocrisy of these men. Finally, liberals view the right as racist, misogynist, homophobic, and animated by religious bigotry because of conservative resistance to the Civil Rights movement, feminism, gay rights, and freedom of religion.
That's an enormous amount of moral condemnation. In some ways, I wonder what Praeger had in mind when he accused liberals of not being judgmental enough.
In the final analysis though, I don't think liberals engage in quite enough moral condemnation of the right. There's a growing body of evidence that there is a body of opinion in the American right that favors the overthrow of American democracy and the establishment of a dictatorship. Yesterday a group called "Family Security Matters" published an article by Phillip Atkinson calling for George Bush to kill the Arab population of Iraq and then overthrow democracy in the United States.
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
It would be easy to condemn Philip Atkinson and "Family Security Matters" as a bunch of crackpots. But it doesn't work out that way. Even though "Family Security Matters" disavowed the Atkinson article, leaders and opinion-makers on the right have been calling for the end of democracy as we know it ever since the Democrats won control of Congress. For Newt Gingrich, the road to overturning democracy changing the first amendment to restrict political dissent and create military commissions to prosecute war dissenters. Frank Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy that created "Family Security Matters," favors military tribunals for leading war opponents as well. Thomas Sowell is more in favor of a military coup while Harvey Mansfield likes one-man rule in general.
Perhaps more significantly, everyday right-wingers are starting to get the idea that shooting a few prominent liberals would be a good idea. According to Johann Hari, a fellow traveler on the National Review cruise offered up this tidbit.
When I hear her say, " Of course, we need to execute some of these people," I wake up. Who do we need to execute? She runs her fingers through the sand lazily. "A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralise the country," she says. "Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get." She squints at the sun and smiles. " Then things'll change."The Bush administration correctly characterizes Osama bin Laden as "evil" because he advocates the establishment of a harsh dictatorship and is willing to kill enormous numbers of human beings to accomplish his goal. It's becoming more and more evident that the American right shares that brand of evil. It goes without saying that right-wingers in the United States have had no problem with the deaths of more than one hundred thousand Iraqis over the last four years. Now that right-wing opinions in the United States is beginning to coalesce around the idea of overthrowing American democracy, it may be time to consider the right-wing as a real threat to the American way of life. Certainly, the American right is a much more powerful and scarcely less aggressive force than al-Qaeda. If a right-wing American government made a push to overthrow democratic institutions in the United States, it would certainly be more of a threat than al-Qaeda will ever be able to generate.
In that sense, the right-wing is becoming the most prominent source of evil now facing American society.
12 comments:
People on the left have redoubled our identification with the heritage of constitutional liberty, learned to make the harshest kind of moral judgments, and started to use the language of good vs evil.
Great, but traditionally one would examine the definition of the those ideas and condemn those that opposed them. Examining the ideas of the opposition, then defining them to suit your needs isn't showing quite the same level of moral backbone.
It would be easy to condemn Philip Atkinson and "Family Security Matters" as a bunch of crackpots. But it doesn't work out that way.
That's exactly how it works. Like those "god hates fags" protesters, pretty much everyone agrees they are indeed nutjobs. It's inconvenient I suppose, because you couldn't sling moral outrage at the entire right for your perception that they are all in cahoots, but that is how it works.
According to Johann Hari, a fellow traveler on the National Review cruise offered up this tidbit.
Sourced from that hard hitting conservative site "surfermag.com". Is that the sort of scholarly source you let your students referrence?
If a right-wing American government made a push to overthrow democratic institutions in the United States, it would certainly be more of a threat than al-Qaeda will ever be able to generate.
A ridiculous way to sum up a ridiculous post. Great bit of moral equivalency there though. CNN may be knocking on your door with a job offer real soon. Never mind that it's left wing governemnts worldwide that actually do overthrow liberty. Again, keep redefining the idea until it fits your purpose rather than accept that the purpose derives from the idea.
Professor Caric(ature) - For a presumably educated man, you sure do have a comic book type view of those that do not share your political opinions.
I do not believe that hypocrisy means what you think it means.
Of course, Professor, the actual Protein Wisdom response to that article is "Julius Caesar never invaded Iraq, so f*** off. --Pablo"
Nonetheless, morons have always existed on both sides of the political spectrum in this nation. Although the Right clearly has a more authoritarian bent than the Left (for now, the Left's authoritarian impulses seem to be subdued), but the people we are citing here (except for the Hari cruise) are not mainstream. What they are is the flotsam that was always present and, as the water of support has drained from the Right wing sink, then these people are becoming more prominent.
Secondly, JD, don't quote Princess Bride unless you're gonna be funny.
Thirdly, ef, the article written by Mr. Hari is awesome and was written by him (as a freelance) and first published in The New Republic. I sent it to the "open-minded" Denver "intellectual" (you know, JD's Svengali) and he declined the opportunity to post on it. It would have been great blog fodder if one weren't so invested in, well, let's face it, the real war Goldstein and Malkin are fighting, the War Against Liberals. It highlights the recent disconnect between a strain of reserved conservatism, led by Buckley, and the newer neo-conservatives, led by Jonah Goldberg and the Podhoretz's.
Here's the link http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?
i=20070702&s=hari070207
It is an entertaining view from the outside of the far Right (not as far as that Atkinson dude, but certainly beyond the mainstream) and the difficulty the Right is having staying together in this time and it's all self-inflicted!
In fact, I maintain one of the "successes" of the Rove era was the shattering of the Republican governing coalition. While Rove was so intent on splitting Dem voter and getting Hispanics, he chased all the rich, check writing businessmen away from the "anti-illegal" immigration folks that made up the troops. Weird for such a student of history to ignore that every major immigration wave to America results in certain Americans loathing immigrants.
Oh, well....he's BRILLIANT
Professor Caric - You seem to be conflating living up to moral standards with hypocrisy. One would think that a Professor would know the difference.
Oh, I get it.
Professor, this is the latest PW spin. They are arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, err, they are playing semantic definitions of the word hypocrisy. In Jeff's mind (and this divergence from reality allows him to be against affirmative action and call himself pro-civil rights AND against gay marriage yet state he favors gay rights), hypocrisy is defined as arguing against something when you yourself are doing it. In other words, Craig would have to argue that homosexuality/bi-sexuality should be illegal to make his solicitation hypocritical. Of course, the well-understood connotation of hypocrisy is that it involves publicly working against an act which one is doing in private.
So, whereas it is common knowledge that Sen. Craig has opposed every gay rights bill ever presented, that is not hypocrisy because Craig has never advocating outlawing homosexuality or bathroom sex (link to Sen. Craig's views http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/
Larry_Craig.htm).
It's bunk, of course, and runs exactly to the opposite of Mr. Goldstein's stated view of "intentionalism" (the intent of the authors using that charge is clearly the more common definition), but making those sorts of arguments is bread and butter for his sort of Right Wing fans. It's Jeff's own version of hypocrisy. But, for the folks there, any and all intellectual beliefs can be tossed out the window, when one is fighting the war against liberals.
In the PW world, unless and until Craig votes to outlaw sodomy between males, he ain't a hypocrite. Merely opposing every bill that would help gay and bi-sexual people means he's self-loathing and opportunistic, but honest.
Fortunately for JD and Jeff and the intellectual pretzel of a definition on which they base their decision, I cannot find any quote where the hypocritical Senator discusses how he opposes Lawrence v Texas.
Thus, the moving of goal posts, the victimhood, and the outrage of PW folks can be leashed upon the world.
JD, would you present this case to a jury? Would you argue that point to 12 men and women? Hell, you wouldn't make that argument to the most Republican judge in town (how is Justice Bradford anyway?). Of course, you wouldn't, because the plain meaning of the term is self-evident, no matter how many ten dollar words your mentor throws at it.
Right, tim. As is, there should be unanimity of thought amongst teh ghey. If you choose to have the buttseks, you must be in favor of same sex marriage. As though there is any correlation between the issues.
Yes, I would argue that position. No doubt. It would be difficult to argue the proposition that voting against gay "rights" and one's personal sexual preferences are inextricably linked.
Here's the Right's position on these issues from Hamilton County and a Republican fund raiser.
http://www.indystar.com/
apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20070806/LOCAL18/708060398
Conservatives regularly whine that liberals for not understanding them, and they are right. We don't understand how anti-abortion "right-to-life" activists can favor the death penalty and oppose reducing infant morality through prenatal care programs. We don't understand why budget-cutting conservatives should spare no public expense to build prison after prison to house even non-violent offenders, or why they are willing to spend extra money to take children away from their mothers and put them in orphanages in the name of family values. We do not to understand the logic of conservatism; we don't understand what form of morality makes conservative positions moral. We do not understand how an American can casually speak of executing other Americans for expressing dissent. We do not understand the logic of defending liberty by destroying it. There is nothing conservative about pre-emptive war or condoning torture. Certainly, there is nothing conservative about overwhelming budget deficits...unless conservatism is not the point anymore. When one sees that concentrated power is the real goal one realizes that the people who make up the leadership of the Republican party and the conservative movement are neither conservative nor Republican in the traditional sense. They are statists. They want infinite total control. They do not care about debating the finer points of Liberal V. Conservative. Because they are neither. Conservative is a convienient way for them to wrap themselves in the flag. Liberal is an easy way to discredit anyone who does not agree with their backward untutored thinking. Why? Because they have made it so. From Lee Atwater to Karl Rove, they have managed to demonize anything remotely people-oriented in favor of a rhetorical radical individualistic nationalism that is nothing more than a public relations construct. They pose the greatest threat to liberty, and democracy here at home than any other group, nation, or entity at any time in our nation's history.
todd - take your medicine.
In that sense, the right-wing is becoming the most prominent source of evil now facing American society.
This is one of the more brain poundingly stupid assertios the good Professor has made, which is quite a challenge.
Post a Comment