I'm presenting two articles that drew my attention. The first is from Kyle-Anne Shiver. I really like this lady's articles and this one in particular echoes a sentiment that I've had since November. The feeling has only grown like snowball rolling down a hill getting larger as it goes.
The second is an article by Bruce Walker and speaks of the misconception the left has about the right. I agree with the ten points he lists, so I guess that means I'm of the far right, rather than just simply a right-winger.
The connection between these two articles is the poor understanding of the left regarding who they put in charge for the next four years and who they rejected. It's pretty clear they aren't thinking.
17 comments:
I read your second link. It's predicated on assumptions that I would reject.
Liberals aren't worried about the "far right". They, law enforcement, and the Department of Justice and DHS are worried about extremists. Extremists are people who would perpetrate violence for their cause, right or left. Do you intend to perpetrate violence? Advocate violence? Incite violence?
If not, nobody is worried about you.
"What then is "radical agenda" of the citizens who actually populate the right side of the conservative movement? The following ten points would form a truly "extreme" agenda:"
I don't know of anyone who would consider any of these ten points to be extreme in the least. We might disagree, but disagreeing is what Liberty is all about.
1. A flat tax is not radical or extreme. It could be instituted if done fairly and there were no shelters or write offs. I'd rather see a flat consumption tax myself.
2. This is a conservative "principle", but it is not radical or extreme. It's just not liberal. You're entitled to your opinion.
3. This is a legitimate argument. I disagree, the Court disagrees, but it is not an extreme position and nobody thinks it is.
4. This is not an extreme position. I believe it is wrong, not extreme.
5. I have no problem with this. It's a conservative position, but it's not extreme in the least.
6. This is a conservative position. It's not extreme, just conservative. I think "judicial activism" is a bogus claim. To me judicial activism is when a court rules against legislation that YOU support.
7. I know of nobody who disagrees with this.
8. A conservative position. I disagree, but we're both entitled.
9. Nothing radical here. Misguided, maybe. I disagree. That's OK.
10. Whatever floats your boat.
I think the point is, Jim, is that the whole idea of right-wing extremists is overblown and a ruse. Napolitano listed those she thought were worth watching and basically declared that normal people are easily persuade toward violence because their conservative. But aside from her, it's easy to see from lefty pundits that conservatives are too be feared as fascists or controlling or concerned about the private lives of other people.
In addition, some of what was listed might not seem radical to you, and I give you props for that level of sensibility, but many on the left feel otherwise due to listenting to those who frame our intentions in the worst possible light. This article was to point out just what constitutes the opinions and desires of the average conservative in a truthful manner that lefties, if they so desire, can examine and decide for themselves just what makes them radical at all and something to be feared. For the list:
1. I think a flat tax is harder to cheat and abuse. One could still earn under the table, but with consumption tax, black markets could pop up, plus, you'd need an Amendment to prevent an income tax added later.
2. The idea is to get back to "equal opportunity".
3. No one said it's radical. The whole list is to show that there's nothing radical in our basic principles.
4. What's wrong about a mature understanding of spending within one's means?
5. Cool, but I'm beginning to think the feds shouldn't have anything to do with funding anyone's education.
6. No. And as you'll see at AmericanThinker, activism means ruling based on what a justice thinks the law should mean, rather than what it actually means. Everyone should agree with this.
7. Some day I'll introduce you to Dan Trabue.
8. As there are no alternative sources even close to being usable or less costly, procuring our own resources is the fastest way to reduce dependency. No one's, however, required to agree with facts.
9. What's misguided about getting together to discuss which regulations are truly needed? Some regs are just overly burdensome on our economic development, such as many of the environmental regs to which the previous point aludes. Keep in mind, he said "for awhile".
10. Don't take this one lightly. Many on the left think they can recreate mankind into something it will never become. Human nature hasn't changed in all of human history. Conservative law making, apart from what libs like to say, attempts to consider reality in dealing with human nature and craft accordingly. Look at tax law. It doesn't preclude you from attaining the success that allows for the use of more tax breaks. These tax laws should compel people to better themselves. Lib laws more often than not, do just the opposite. Roe v Wade insured that more people would be less mature in their sex lives.
In any case, Jim, I think you can now see that by this list, which is a pretty good representation of the average conservative, there's nothing radical or extreme in what we're supporting. But articulating these distinctions is what has been lacking for far too long. As each of these points are fleshed out, I'd wager your opinion of at least a few of them would change, or, you'd realize that you have agreed all along.
"but many on the left feel otherwise due to listenting to those who frame our intentions in the worst possible light."
I read Daily Kos, Media Matters, Think Progress, and Talking Points Memo every day. I believe I have a good sense of what liberals are writing and saying.
So...I would say that your assertion above is not typical liberal thinking. Not one of the 10 points would be considered radical or extreme, just conservative, and in their opinion wrong.
What's overblown is the right punditocracy's description of the DHS report. The report did not say that conservatives were to be feared. It did not even say that the extreme right should be feared. It said that there was evidence that EXTREMISTS were trying to recruit people who were skilled with weaponry not designed for hunting who might be recruited to do acts of violence. There was a similar report done about extremists on the left doing the same thing. These reports were done for the most part during the Bush administration.
So this meme about the DHS coming after conservatives is just another absurdity along with the Hitler Youth Groups Obama is creating and the FEMA death camps. It's made up stuff to rile the base.
I'm familiar with Dan. I think pretty highly of his comments. I know you disagree. I don't recall his position on military and intelligence, but I know that everyone that I know of on the left, with a very few possible ineffective exceptions, supports a strong military, an effective intelligence community, and that protecting Americans is government's number one job. But they also know that foreign enemies are not the only things that Americans need to be defended against. They need to be defended against crime, pollution, negligent or criminal chemical companies, and corrupt corporations. This is not intended to describe all or most companies. But many thousands of Americans die each year from the above, many more in total than have ever died at the hands of foreign enemies.
There's a lot more to defending Americans than extreme interrogation techniques.
"I read Daily Kos, Media Matters, Think Progress, and Talking Points Memo every day."
Wow. I'm not sure I know how to respond to such an admission. Do you read them for laughs?
As to the ten points, THE point of listing them was to put forth why there's nothing to fear from conservatism. I'm not going to comment on your level of comprehension, but you might be avoiding, ignoring or simply misreading the reality of what is commonly said of conservatism and conservatives. The list shows there's nothing extreme there, and the worries of right-wing extremism are nonsensical.
And despite what the DHS report says (I haven't read it myself thus far), worrying that pro-lifers or veterans or whatever are easily recruited into extremist groups simply because of their perspectives is far fetched. If such isn't in the report, how is this crap getting out there? Where does the idea of conservatives being fascist come from? The list shows it ain't from us. But the tripe we hear from left-wing talking heads gives us an indication. Just look at the crap that is being said about those who attended the tea party demonstrations. And frankly, though I don't read your liberal sources with any regularity whatever, I've seen enough exerpts to know that there is some of this stuff coming from that direction. I think you're a bit jaded and don't even notice it.
But again, the point is that the overall opinion of conservatism by the left isn't reflective of reality.
Art, this is about the 4th or 5th thing that I have read on what "real" conservatives think this weekend. All of them are different. I even put one on my blog. On all of them in someplaces I could agree, in some I could comprimise and some I disagree. The reason that we aren't finding that common ground is the radicals that control your framing and talking points. They have turned others into not just people they disagree with but an enemy that must be destroyed. I don't think you are going to get far with people when you are on that agenda. The rest of it never gets through.
I'm talking about the rights penchant for jerry springer politics. The people that spend all their time at the circus thinking up new names for people they don't like, twisting semantics to (what they think is) their advantage, talking about bows, handshakes,teleprompters and choice of mustard as a political issue. The great patriotic spirit that hates the government except to wage war.
Fox news,limbaugh etc are the radicals and far right that are mentioned. People that are so rigid that there is no way to live with them.
One radical concept. (this will save me mentioning this in your other posts)....Your position on torture(or whatever you call it today) o great christian spirit is totally unacceptable in the country that is exceptional, the best, the greatest, the most moral. On this I am radical too. There is no room for compromise and absolutely nothing you say will convince me differently.
We have a fundamentally different vision on what a great US is. Which, as I have explained in the past, is why I rarely debate rightists anymore. We don't inhabit the same reality. Your limited government(some to near anarchy-see no regulation) and my government that works to organize society to work for all..well the two rarely meet. I still think if we met we would be friends.
Here's a comment from one of the "what the conservatives should stand for" articles. that I can agree with:
May I say that we also need, in addition to a "healthy, intelligent conservative party", a healthy, intelligent left-wing party too? I have watched the whole circus for the past 35 years and I think both parties have gone badly astray, though in different ways and for different reasons.
As the Right Wing moved its tents and elephants far to the right, it also abandoned much of its sense, honour and compassion. It went from being the Grand Old Party, to being a manipulative crazed Weasel Party. The Dems, in the face of this irrational opposition, tried various approaches to work with or effectively oppose the weasels, thus making themselves as pliable and formless as toffee.
Both parties must return to sense and honour, or else whatever policies they espouse will be beside the point.
Marshall said, "THE point of listing them was to put forth why there's nothing to fear from conservatism."
And the point I'm making is that nobody does fear conservatism. They fear extremism. None of these 10 points is considered extreme by the left. Wrong? Maybe. Extreme? No.
"I'm not sure I know how to respond to such an admission." Know what? I watch O'Reilly every night, too. Now THAT's for laughs.
It doesn't matter why I read those blogs or if you disagree with them. The point is, I'm pretty informed about what the left fears, and it isn't conservatism or conservatives.
Well, Jim, I can't argue what you think is true about the entirety of the left, but it doesn't match what I see on a regular basis. The teabaggers are racists, the teabaggers are angry old white people, Dick Cheney is an extremist, Rush Limbaugh is an extremist, "neo-cons" are extremists, pro-lifers are extremists, fundamentalist Christians are extremists...all this is old news, Jim. Anyone who had anything to do with the PNAC was considered an extremist. Yet in each of the above cases are people that believe in those things on the list and are not seeking to "force" anything on anyone anymore than the next guy trying to get legislation to go his way. The left throws around words like "extremist" to inflame passions like the scaremongers they are. And the point is that the warnings about extremists from the left is very low on merit.
"it doesn't match what I see on a regular basis."
I don't know what to tell you Marshall. I'm betting you don't read these blogs, the most read, most popular "liberal" blogs. I do. Everyday. I read them. I know them. I watch Chris, Keith, and Rachel. I know what liberals are saying.
Tell me where you see "what [you] see on a regular basis". Really. What do you read or watch?
I say to you again. None of these groups are regarded by the vast majority of liberals or anybody in the government as "extreme." They aren't. You can say it over and over again, but it's simply not true.
Teabaggers? By the signs I saw, some are certainly racist, but not all. A lot of them seem pretty nutty to me. Few seem extreme.
Cheney was dangerous. Thankfully he isn't anymore. Just a blowhard. Out there? Yeah. Extremist? I wouldn't call him that. Don't think DHS would. Their report was written when he was VP.
Limbaugh is the blowhard of all blowhards. He's simply nutty. He'll say anything for ratings. $400M contracts will make you say a lot of crap. He's not a conservative. He's a blowhard.
Pro-lifers are not extremists except the ones who want to shoot doctors.
Fundamentalist Christians are not extremists except maybe Phelps and his gang.
PNAC bunch is not extreme. They just have a political philosophy that most people think is wrong.
"The left throws around words like "extremist" to inflame passions like the scaremongers they are."
Actually, I deny that. It is the Hannities and the Becks, the Malkins and the Coulters and the like who throw around these terms to inflame the passions of the Republican base.
Again, I read the blogs. I know what's on them. What do you read?
Dick Cheney is a fearmonger.
Marshall reads American Thinker.
Marty,
The only fearmongers are on the left. People like Cheney don't play games. I have no idea what makes you think he's a fearmonger.
And yes I do read American Thinker. Considering how no one seems to be able to debunk the articles to which I link, and Jim really hasn't here, you should be so smart as to read American Thinker.
Jim,
I can't quote chapter and verse. But look at your own opinion of Cheney. You called him "dangerous". Do you mean to tell me that because you used a different word than "extreme" that you've proved your point? "Dangerous" seems pretty freakin' extreme to me. If the word "extreme" isn't exactly used, other words of the same tone get bandied about with regularity. Remember "Liar-in-chief", "Bush-Hitler", and such baseless ad-hominems? Many of the pundits of the right, such as Limbaugh, are often spoken of inciting hatred and should be held accountable should anyone commit violence as a result of listening. There's been numerous accusations from left-wing sources, the real fearmongering of insisting all sorts of nastiness will happen if the right gets too much control. And now of course, people in the Bush admin, and interrogators under his command are evil torturers. Don't tell me there's no belief in the left of exremism on the part of conservatives.
More importantly, when one considers the list Walker presented, how often does anyone on the left speak of conservatives trying to further any of them in the manner they are presented in the list?
For example, let's take two:
Taxes. The left always frames the debate in the following terms---"The right only cares about the rich! They want to cut taxes for the rich and place the burden on the poor and middle class!"
Of course that's total crap, especially since with Bush's tax cuts, more people were added to the list of those who don't pay, that is, more people on the bottom end. The rich always pay the most. If the above typical liberal quote was true, that would be an extreme position.
Or abortion. To overturn Roe and put the ball back in the states' courts is how it should have been all along, but how does the left frame it? "The right wants to control women!" Pretty extreme, even for those or us who know the righteous thing to do would be to outlaw it except in the case of the mother's life being threatened by the pregnancy. Even then it's about saving innocent life, not controlling the mother's.
Call it radical agendas, extremism, "way out there", whatever, the left is always in constant distortion mode when speaking of the right and ramps up the emotion every time.
And what of the right? We spend far more time talking about why lefty proposals are bad for the nation. And we have history for backup. No "mongering" necessary, just a truthful presentation of the facts. If it produces fear, it's because it ought to.
People like Cheney don't play games. I have no idea what makes you think he's a fearmonger.
This very recently for starters.
Then there's the last 6 years of mushroom clouds, sarin gas, weapons of mass destruction, AQ in every nook and cranny...etc etc. Color coded terror alerts, etc. etc.
Terror. Terror. Terror.
Everywhere.
"you should be so smart as to read American Thinker."
I do. I read every link you provide.
You see, that's what I'm talking about. It isn't fearmongering to point out realities to those that choose to ignore them or pretend they don't exist. It is naive and dangerous to pretend that there isn't a serious desire by Islamists to cause carnage as soon as the opportunity presents itself. And their leaders use "diplomacy" as a time to ramp up their programs to a better state of readiness. While an Obama might think he's making progress because Islamist leaders are sweet talking, the Islamist minions are taking advantage of the distraction to prepare an attack. It's how they work. It's how they've always worked. Cheney knows this and feels justified, and he is most definitely that, in keeping up awareness of such real dangers. Fearmongering is "the piano might fall on your head". What Cheney is doing is "the piano IS falling". Big difference.
Cheney is far more intelligent and capable than most, if not all, of Obama's admin, including most of all, Obama himself. As I said, he doesn't play games.
"What Cheney is doing is "the piano IS falling"."
And how does he know this? Does he have some "insider" information that even Obama isn't privy to?
"And how does he know this?"
Well, Marty, he's a smart man. An authentic public servant who, as I said before, doesn't play games. That is, he sees what's happening in the world and deals with it as it is. He's not new at this. Unlike Obama, he's well versed in world affairs having been involved in gov't service for a long time. In short, he's no idiot. You can't say that about a lot of Democrats, and that's for sure. The one Dem who wasn't an idiot regarding the dangers we face was sent packing. That would be Lieberman. In addition, as I have said before, this crap has been going on for 1400 years. One needn't be the Amazing Kreskin to know what's coming.
Post a Comment