Left 2 Right
Dean
I was moved to excitement when I heard about a site called "Left 2 Right." The subtitle is "How Can The Left Get Through To The Right?" While there's something a bit condescending about that title, I see great promise in it. When people are being liberal-minded enough to say, "gee, maybe we actually need to have some dialogue with our opponents," that's a good thing.
My heart sank a bit when I read this thread on supporting the troops, though. I immediately thought, "wow, this guy really, really doesn't get it does he?" Because there it all was again: war for oil, "support the troops" a secret code-phrase for "support the war," and all the rest. Some of the lefty commenters were even worse: pointing to pictures of combat casualties and claiming that those of us who support the war effort just don't want to see them (I've seen many such photos and worse, so has everyone else I know on my side of this debate) or, even more obnoxiously, comments to the effect that those of us who support the war effort just refuse to see our casualties in a broader context.
How utterly depressing.
But then I read some of the comments from war supporters and I thought they were a little too harsh. Hey, at least some of them are open-minded enough to ask the question, right? They've obviously got some prejudices, but are trying to overcome them. That's the definition of a real liberal (an open-minded person) isn't it?
I'm hoping for good things from the "Left 2 Right" crowd. Know why? Because they're trying. Maybe those of us on the other side can try a little harder ourselves, eh?
By the way, Prestopundit has some suggestions for the Left 2 Right crowd. I think he goes mildly off the rails in spending so much time on mentioning free market philosophers, but, I think the overarching point is corret: the important thing is to actually study and understand what the other side's arguments really are. Stereotyping and casual assumptions get you nowhere. I voted for Bush this year not because I consider myself a conservative--I really don't--but I do understand and respect many conservative ideas, and share a few of them. But more to the point: I really do understand them and I really do respect where they're coming from (most of the time, anyway). I don't think they're evil people, and I don't think they have a nefarious hidden agenda. I think they're people with whom I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree.
* Update * Well after spending more time reading their articles and interacting with some of them in their comments, I conclude that they are fundamentally unserious in their purpose. Either that or their purpose is merely to lecture to the unwashed, brainwashed, stupid, deluded, or dishonest people who disagree with them. So, never mind....
Why? They lost. Their ideas were put up for a vote and The People voted against them.
Why should we now attempt to revise the election to be about what they want, when what they want isn't what the majority of The People want?
Do you honestly think that if Kerry had won the election that they'd be considering conservative judicial appointments, extending and increasing the tax cuts, or revisiting faith based organization funding?
The Democrats keep whining that even though they lost they should really win, because it'd be more fair that way. I think most of us recognize this as a two year old temper tantrum response.
There's only one way to deal with a two year old who acts like this: Reinforce the "NO!" and ignore them. Which is exactly what I plan to do. They lost. What they want is irrelevant.
Or, as John Lennon put it - "You may say I'm a dreamer / but I'm not the only one / I hope someday you'll join us / and the world will live as one"
We've been told for as long as I can remember (I'm 31) that there are three kinds of adults in the US: Republicans who vote, Democrats who vote, and Democrats who do not vote. That's the message implicit in the belief that "more turnout helps Democrats."
This election proved that to be wrong. More turnout meant more Republicans. This time, anyhow.
But it's tough to adjust to a reality that's so different from what you thought to be true. I hope that enough people are willing to put forth the effort, and can be a bit more civil in the future.
Other than by owning the major broadcast networks, the major newspapers, and nearly all college faculties, you mean? They're getting through just fine and dandy. And, as several prominent bloggers have pointed out, the Right knows exactly where the Left stands and what the Left wants. How could they avoid it?
The real question is whether the Left can stop screaming long enough to hear anything but the sounds of their own voices.
But your're right, Dean. They are trying. Or at least they think they're trying. And we can at least hope that it's a step in the right direction.
My own conjecture is that we're seeing the beginning of the long-overdue Left/Liberal divorce with real Liberals unable to put up with the superannuated toddlers on the Left any more.
These people aren't trying to communicate, they're lecturing. Did you see that latest asinine post about looting?
"Failure to plan, arrogant, blah blah blah..." I have trouble taking anyone seriously when they're so painfully and obviously clueless.
Worse than that is they're not trying to learn. Instead of lecturing the other side, if they're "really trying" they should invest in some listening time; maybe become educated on how the military really works.
Frankly, the sort of "attempts" over there remind me of a 60s liberal who tries who show how hip she was by showing off her "colored" friends to her real friends.
It's obvious that they just don't get it.
Do you really believe that the election of George W. Bush was an outright rejection of everything the left believes? He only won by a couple percentage points, and believe it or not, there is a lot of common ground between the left and the right. For example, the election wasn't about faith-based initiatives. If it had been, I suspect GWB would have lost handily. If it was just about social security, (and I agree with GWB on SocSec), he may have lost as well. He also may have lost if the election had only been about, say, government control of what free people can watch on television during a football game. Don't ever get the idea that the election of GWB wasa rejection of everything the left believes. That would be a serious mistake.
As an extreme right thinker, you may believe otherwise, but the election of a Republican president does not mean that the other half of the country gets pushed to the curb. Unfortunately, you're exhibiting what many on the right detest about extremes on the left, and that's a believe that only you can be right and damned anyone else who disagrees with you.
Sad, you are.
The United States, due to our unmatched preponderance of power, is effectively operating as minority rule. I think it is a benevolent minority rule, but the problems of benevolent minority rule are still similar to the problems of a benevolent dictator. The U.S. unavoidably gets things wrong, because it is a human institution, and there is no vote to be cast, no legislator to write, no lawsuit to be pursued, no court of appeal. Of course people aren't happy about that.
I'm thankful for Mrs. du Toit, for her evangelical work, her synthesizing and her preaching to the choir.
I think you, Mr. Demmons, have a better argument in your quiver. Why reach to the center? To win the next election. Not all trends are in the Republican's favor. How to reach to the center? I favor new/forgotten ideas which embody Republican ideals, while encouraging centrists and Democrats to join the current majority. Like the old idea of federalism, where Bush does not exercize all the powers which the federal government has usurped, but instead works to return power to the states and to the people. Including Democratic states and Democratic individuals. Next he should to cement that return into place, so that the powers are not grabbed by some futre Republican or Democratic administration. I even favor restorative amendments to the Constitution for this purpose.
Yours,
Wince
On the one hand, I find it a little weird that many pro-Bush bloggers who spent a lot of time detailing the ways in which John Kerry was unfit for duty as POTUS and criticizing him for being unable to articulate a clear and positive agenda now seem sure that the Bush win was a triumph of worldview over worldview as opposed to a majority of the electorate looking at Kerry and saying, "Ewww." I'm sure there was lots of both to go around, but really, I have days when I think the left should feel pretty good about having done as well as it did with such a poor candidate.
On the other hand, I think a lot of left-wingers are having a great deal of trouble wrapping their heads around the concept that it's not just a question of communication or insufficient enlightenment, there are people out there who actually disagree.
Of course we should engage in respectful dialogue with them.
I divide people up pretty simply: Those who respect individuality, life, choice and free inquiry, and those who don't. I don't argue with those who don't. The Left, so far as they respect these things, are worth talking things out with.
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao ...
Even people who carry pictures of Chairman Mao can respect individuality, life, choice and free inquiry. They are simply too worried about the threat to individuality, life, choice and free inquiry represented by concentration of power in the form of capital. What they need is a good dose of history and realistic economics, and unless they are self-deluding or too arrogant to change their minds, the luster of Mao will rapidly fade. Hey, it happened to Horowitz, it can happen again, and maybe we can make it happen.
If, for example, some company buys the land next to your house, builds a skyscraper and deprives your grass of enough sunlight that your grass dies, you have truly lost something of value. The question of how you regain that which you have lost is a legitimate one that even good Constitutional capitalists may wish to address.
Yours,
Wince
I must say that the two comments you posted over at "Left 2 Right" were excellently written, and certainly spot on in what you said in both. I felt no need to leave any comments, since what you had to say pretty much covered anything I would have said. Good job!
Here is a clue as to why the Democrats lost the election in this thread here. According to one of the commenters there, such a person as "Dean Esmay" does not really exist. Don your hazmat suit and read, if you wish, what this refugee from Democratic Underground has to say:
"I have now seen posts on various blogs along the lines of that by "Dean Esmay". He claims to be a disillusioned liberal - in fact claims to hold several rather extreme positions associated with the left (extreme in the sense of minority, not unreasonable - I happen to concur on most). He claims to want a candidate who is an "honest and decent man" and to be put off by "horrible dishonesty" vis-a-vis the Iraq war.
"And he claims to have voted for rule of the country by an effectively unchecked radical, reactionary party - an unsurprising consequence of a vote for Bush that seems to escape those who "simply didn't trust Kerry".
"My reaction to such posts is that they must be fraudulent, although to what end I can't imagine. For despite appearing to be sincere, concerned, reflective people, those to whom both of the above paragraphs apply simply can't be real (reality-based?) sentient beings.
Posted by: CW | December 7, 2004 01:01 PM"
I found that to be a very convincing argument. It convinced me all the more that I'm glad I voted for who I voted for and that I'm reading the kind of blogs I like to read, blogs like the non-existent "Dean's World". The Queen of All Evil -- is she a dream, too? If so, please don't wake me up.
If Dean doesn't answer that one "Yes", he's going to be in big trouble with The Queen.
Yes, I firmly believe that many voted for President Bush and the other Republicans on the ballot as an outright rejection of what the Left has been preaching. Obviously, there is overlap on other issues, but you side with the winner--the way they've interpreted them, not the loser.
The election wasn't just for President. A few percentage points? What, this is horseshoes?
The President won HUGE. Look at the country map. The Republicans also gained seats.
It was a mandate.
You seem to think that since no one actually printed a banner that said "This election is ONLY about faith based iniatives" it seems that everyone just forgot what was on the Republican platform.
Sad, you are.
Quite happy, actually.
As an extreme right thinker
Not at all. Actually, I'm a moderate. If you THINK I'm a "right thinker" you need to recalibrate. That will help explain the disconnect the Left has about who voted for Bush. It wasn't "The Right."
But I really am.
:)
Wouldn't those lefties who doubt Dean's conversion from pure liberalism be even more dismayed if they had been at work with me today. I recently found out that my boss and I had attended college at the same institution at the same time, even though we didn't know each other at the time. I pulled out the old yearbooks and brought them in for everybody's amusement at to how the boss and I looked back in the 70's.
Many were shocked to see my photo under campus organizations as president of the Young Democrats Club. Even more so when I told them that I had been a volunteer campaign worker for several Democrat candidates back then. They asked what had caused me to leave the Democrat party and become such a vocal Republican backer.
I answered "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, it left me". I suspect that Dean experienced much the same thing when the party moved to the far left of common sense.
http://www.atlanticblog.com/archives/001775.html#001775
Winner takes all. No compromise!!!! Never!!!
Until the Democrats win, of course...Ms. du Toit. I've seen your writing. You are not a moderate, actually. You might THINK you are. But you're not.
And I am DEFINITELY not siding with the left. I'm just pointing out that the left is right on some issues - issues that were really not voted on in this election by most.
Please don't misunderstand me. I actually AGREE with MOST of what you believe. Trust me!! :-)
I just don't think you are a moderate. And I don't agree with the "screw anyone who didn't vote for Bush" philosophy.
I think Mrs. du Toit is to the right of the American public on gun control and limiting the size of the federal government. I suspect she and I have very similar views.
On the WOT, the environment, and restoring the Constitution to its original luster, I think Mrs. du Toit is firmly in the center. Again I suspect she and I have very similar views. I say the second bit because I think the American people really love their Consitiution, and they would be appalled at the violence done to it. I could be wrong.
On gay rights, I think Mrs. du Toit is to the left of the American public. I am to her right and the American public on this.
This leaves a lot of issues, and I think Mrs. du Toit is moderate on them. Why? Because she says so.
Mrs. du Toit sounds moderately but not wildly right of center to me.
On the subject of pornography, since I wish to return to enforced community standards, I am to the right of the American public. I don't know Mrs. du Toit's stance on this.
All of the foregoing sounds somewhat mind-readerish, arrogant, stupid and definitely imprecise to me, and I am unhappy with it, but I don't know how to fix it, and I am unwilling to delete it. I suspect the problem is that we really do exaggerate our differences in this country, and left of center is closer to right of center than we imagine. Suggestions are welcome.
I want small communities to be able to use their right of contract to waive their rights, so that a community can, for example, make pornography illegal or, conversely, politically correct speech manditory, as long as all the members of the community agree and sign the contract. And enforcement should at least include fines and expulsion from the community, if not jail time, since those are things contracts can do. This is federalism on a small scale, and I hope that it is implemented and that the courts respect it.
I'm not sure that last bit can be placed on the left/right spectrum, but if properly implemented, I hope it would make both sides happier.
Yours,
Wince
What, exactly, are they trying? It doesn't seem to me that they're trying to engage in any kind of open dialog. It seems to me that they're trying to get through to the ignorant nazis.
I'm a political mutt, myself. I'm fiercely liberal on matters of personal rights, but terribly conservative and protective of the free market. I'm an agnostic, forgiving of abortion and truly believe if the country had a problem with what showed up on the Superbowl they'd fix it with dollars without the FCC's help.
So, I'm not a republican, not a democrat, would be a libertarian if they'd let go of the crazy gun-control thing and deeply concerned that both parties could give a damn what the country wants as long as they remain in power and can get large portions of the country to buy their agenda. What's a boy to do?
The point...I think the majority of the country is pretty "mongrelish" and wishes there was a moderate third choice on the menu.
They work under the axiomatic, a priori assumption that they are correct and their opponents are merely terribly deluded, brainwashed, reactionary, or stupid.
So it goes. I guess I won't be going back. The rest of you have fun I guess.
Left2Right: "Thomas White, who served as secretary of the Army until Rumsfeld pushed him out after the war over differences about force size and other matters, traces the force-size decision to the belief by Cheney, Rumsfeld and others that U.S. troops would be hailed as liberators.
"The implication was that 'liberated people don't misbehave,' White said in an interview. [USA Today]
"White's remark sheds some light on Secretary Rumsfeld's notorious reaction to the looting:
"Rumsfeld: 'It's untidy. And freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here,' [UPI]
"Rumsfeld's thought was that people need only to be set free and they will naturally 'live their lives and do wonderful things,' albeit with some 'untidiness" at the margins....'
But Rumsfeld did not say "that people need only to be set free and they will naturally live their lives and do wonderful things". He said they are free to do bad things, but have the choice and chance to see that being free is better, and that "that's what's going to happen here". "...[W]hat's going to happen here," means the future, going forward from the time when the looting took place, which Rumsfeld also put into perspective quite unnotoriously. "What's going to happen" in Iraq means that we are going to work toward the end of maximizing the chances for freedom to occur, under the basic belief that people, at base, want to be free, not that they automatically know what freedom is, or that liberation automatically produces a replica of the U.S. working system. Or that we know beforehand the future and what obstacles will arise. No one knows this!
Or do Liberals think that only certain kinds of people are capable of handling freedom, or being free?
I am reminded of the Left's creative reading of "Mission Accomplished" as though it referred to the whole war, when it didn't, and couldn't have, unless spoken by a moron - which is what the Left wants to tar Bush and Rumsfled as, when it rather appears that it is actually their own willful a priori premise which is the basis for the these Leftists' claim regarding what the respective statements mean, not their actual meaning as used. "Mission Accomplished" refered to the Aircraft Carrier's mission. Duh.
Leftists are probably the only ones who did believe in the liklihood of the respective statements as they misinterpreted them to mean, and were thus doubly offended and outraged when their misinterpretations did not come true. Whaah whaah, the war was not over, people did not throw flowers. Bush, snif, is a moron. Whaaaah.
"Why is Bush a moron?", they ask, answering incisively that "It is because we are morons. Everyone shares our thought chaos."
Nor did Rumsfeld say "liberated people will not misbehave." This statement is manifestly absurd or at least false, and it is rather the deposed White's surmize of what Rumsfeld et al believed. He probably did not "trace" anything. He presupposed it, or made the claim to try to tar Rumsfeld, enc.. Is he seriously arguing that the rift between himself and Rumsfeld involved an argument over whether liberated people will or will not misbehave? Rather, I again hypothesize that it is the Left which is predisposed to believe such nonsense as "liberated people will not misbehave". [They certainly claim they want to "liberate" everyone and their mother, and that a glory of Ideal Equality and Justice will magically materialize, without even any unintended consequences.]
Leftists are certainly apoplectic that this is not the case in Iraq, projecting doomsday for us all, or at least backing off to tarring and lower level fearmongering of the "mismanagement" argument, when they won't accept any management in Iraq to begin with! What is the f****** point? As though I don't know.
Many of the posts on this 12/7 topic at Left2Right were rightfully critical of the blogger's analysis. The comments were "closed" after only 44 were posted. This site is not trying to get to the Right. It doesn't even read what it writes. [I'm trying to be conciliatory.] However, I will revisit them, and probably get banned, the next move after closing the comments.
"Well I went back to the site but I saw little reason for hope in either the comments or in the latest articles."
Dean sums up what I think, though I laboriously tried to slightly "fisk" a section of the blog. The thought is so convoluted, miopic, and imprecise that the task would be infinite. This is because these Leftists are rank relativists, so anything goes -- concepts and words morph at will to "nuanced" forms and connections, backed up utimately only by what Dean and I have claimed to be some a priori belief, or even an unstated mechanism, such as "I will hate rational thought". Or "We must sacrifice the Witch."
I do not speak the language of Progress or Equality. I do not believe in Progress. History does not move forward in a straight line, but rather in cycles of rises and falls, up and down. At this point, we (the West) are moving downward. Whether this decline is irreversible is open to debate.
I do not believe in Equality, I hate the very idea, and it is the main thing responsible for our decline. I oppose it. I believe in Individual Freedom, with corresponding Responsiblity. I believe in Inequality, Hierarchy, Differences, as central to the Divine Order.
I believe in a Divine Order of Eternal, Absolute Values. I am a Conservative, a Reactionary, a Counter-Revolutionary. I am Extremely Right.
Even on that aircraft carrier speech where Bush supposedly said "Mission Accomplished" (he didn't, although it would have been okay--the current mission at the time, taking out Saddam's regime, wasaccomplished), Bush made it quite clear that there was still a lot of work to do in Iraq, rooting out remnants of the old regime and saying our coalition forces would be there for a long time to help the Iraqis.
But never mind. Let's just stick with the party line, eh? Yeah he said it was all over and everybody was shocked, shocked that there would be terrorists and remnants of the old regime still to mop up.
Whatever. [shrug]
Here are some of the questions that when answered show the disconnect in basic beliefs:
Is war a valid solution for an international problem?
Under what circumstances would war be a valid option?
Does the USA have vital national interests overseas?
What are the USA's vital national interests?
Should the USA use its military, economic and diplomatic power to protect its national interests?
How far should the USA be allowed to go to protect its vital national interests?
If I can think up any other questions, I'll post them. Unless we start from the same place, we'll never have a conversation.
Witness the witlessness of Lakoff advising them to change the terms used to describe the very same crap they've always spewed. Its a shell game, not a dialog.
Left2Right is just a lecture circuit for boring academics. An echo chamber in the truest sense.
What I find interesting is my reaction to both lists: there are some very badly-phrased questions on both lists. Your #1, for example:
That syntax implies a binary answer, because it implies a yes/no answer. The answer to the question, as asked, is "no, war is not always a valid solution, etc." The problem is that most folks will just answer "no," without modification. This carries the unspoken implication (since the syntax has locked us into a binary solution mindset) that war is never an answer, etc.
The two answer are clearly different, with tremendously different implications for foreign policy. "Never war," or "war as a last resort" gives us the British and French administrations in the 1930s. These men were not, for the most part, cowards or true appeasers. Their WW1 experiences had convinced them that there was literally nothing worth starting another war over.
The proper phrasing should be "Can war provide a valid solution for an international problem?" My answer to that is "yes."
Question #2 is so broad as to be meaningless. By analogy, one could ask "under which conditions would killing a man (or a woman) be a valid option?"
My objection to #4 is that we need to define "vital," first.
Actually, Mike, they aren't bad questions. I apologize if I seem a bit harsh; my main point is that we need to to take pains that we phrase our statements precisely and accurately.
As an example, let us suppose that two people agree that they should build a three bedroom, two bath house. They can have a conversation about the house form this point onward, discussing whether it should be a ranch or acolonial or a bungalow; whether the garage should be attached or detached; should it have a basement, etc. They may end up disagreeing, but at least there is a possibility for consensus.
The problem that I was trying to articulate is that on the one hand we have a person who wants to build a three bedroom house, and on the other we have a person who wants to build a Kwik-E-Mart. They can't even begin to talk - on a fundamental level they aren't in agreement and never will agree.
We appear to have one section of the citizenry who believe using military power to promote a national interest of the USA (whatever that gizmo is) is perfectly acceptable, and on the other hand we appear to have one section of the citizenry that believes that it is wrong for the USA to use military power to promote its national interests. There is no room for a conversation as there could be if the topic was "is this national interest sufficient to justify the use of force?" because the two sections can't even get to that point. They can't start.
I'm obviously over-generalizing here, but that's where I think we're at.
PS. I don't necessarily think that these sections are large, but boy! Are they ever loud!
Most Americans have this thing called a "life" and don't pay that much attention to these ol' yellers.
"Witness the witlessness of Lakoff advising them to change the terms used to describe the very same crap they've always spewed. Its a shell game, not a dialog."
I have George Lakoff's book "Moral Politics". Extremely interesting spectrumology. Many tie-ins. He argues that liberals operate within a "Nurturing Parent" paradigm while conservatives operate within a "Strict Father" paradigm". Reminds me of Femocrats vs. Transcendental Scientists once again.... The way he describes both of these makes me all the more prefer the "Strict Father". The _style_! That book convinced me all the more that I prefer Rightists both as allies and as adversaries.
Lakoff appears to be one of those postmodernist thinkers who believes there are no strong underlying ideas to be grasped from words, and therefore words themselves are paramount. Thus if you say, "make the rich pay their fair share," people won't grasp that what you mean is "make the rich pay more taxes." Or if you say "fair trade," people won't grasp that you mean "use tariffs and other trade barriers to equalize wages." Or if you say "Social Security" people will support it but "give income stipends to old people" they won't.
But even more absurd is the notion that the left never actually uses language like this. As if "Social Security" and "Living Wage" and "Fair Trade" and "Protecting Workers from Big Corporations" and so on and so forth are not perfect examples of using language that way.