Thursday, August 18, 2005

Left/Right Dialogue?

As I've said I've been doing a bit of commenting over at some left-leaning blogs. Sometimes it seems as if it's a hopeless endevour- despite the sometimes heated rhetoric it appears that the best that can be hoped for it polite discussion. Actually swaying the opinions of those on either side of the debate is nigh on impossible.

Recently at Democracy Arsenal the old "chickenhawk" argument has been trotted out. As David Adnesik there notes, it's a useless line of attack. The same logic can be applied to doezens of activities- you can't talk about law enforcement unless you're going to put on a badge or my own favourite, you can't comment on space exploration unless you're going to face the dangers of being an astronaut yourself. The chickenhawk argument can also be used against those who fling it around without regard- how can you be anti-war when those who do put their lives on the line are in favour of it? In an odd coincidence, The Jawa Report has carried out a poll on left and right blogs enquiring as to their military service or lack of it, inpsired by the same chickenhawk "defense". His conclusion thus far is- "There is no basis in reality, then, to the widespread accusation that the Right bloggers are members of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists."

I had actually begun to write a much longer piece on the possibilities of a rational discussion of the war and opposition to it, but when I read it over I thought- what's the point? Are those on the Left ever going to ditch the wild theories that Cindy Sheehans's currently spouting and actually begin to discuss the real facts of the fight we're engaged in? Then I read this piece over at TPMCafe.

First off, he declares that the Left was right over Vietnam. The correct approach to that war was to pull the troops out and leave the South Vietnamese to the Communists. Sorry, but I don't quite see how leaving an ally defenceless against a bloodthirsty aggressor is the right approach. But that's an argument for another day.

He goes on to mention the pick-up truck that ran over the crosses at Sheehan's protest. This is a mistake of the pro-war right he claims - ignoring completely the condemnations coming from the right over this act. I haven't yet come across a right-wing blogger who thinks that this guy was right to do what he did. The author of this piece, Begala, indentifies a suspect in this case and promptly labels him a "gun nut". Nice stereotype there.

Begala goes on to state- "Today it is the left invoking faith, flag and family, while the right destroys crosses. Today it is the left that honors the war dead, raises up a Gold Star Mother and publicly prays for our troops, while the right viciously attacks a woman who gave her country everything. Today it is the left that patiently and peacefully respects the Office of the Presidency, while the right diminishes the office by claiming it's more important for the President to go bike-riding with a sports hero than comfort the mother of a war hero. "

The left is invoking faith, family and flag, it honours the war dead? Really? I must have missed that memo. Does she respect the Office of the Presidency? Let's actually look at what she's saying shall we?

"We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It’s OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It’s not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!" ...

"America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for..."

"The other thing I want him to tell me is 'just what was the noble cause Casey died for?' Was it freedom and democracy? Bull---t! He died for oil. He died to make your friends richer. He died to expand American imperialism in the Middle East. We're not freer here, thanks to your PATRIOT Act. Iraq is not free. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," she says."There, I used the 'I' word -- imperialism," the 48 year-old mother quipped. "And now I'm going to use another 'I' word impeachment because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny . . . you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me for back taxes and we'll put this war on trial."

Who exactly is respecting the troops, the flag, and the presidency? It certainly isn't Cindy Sheehan. And for someone to write that it's the Left that invokes faith, family and flag in light of this very obvious, easily accessible evidence is staggering. Can't he see that Sheehan's words are the exact opposite of what he claims? Is this another example of the warped thinking that lead Howard Dean to proclaim that the Kelo decision was down to conservative judges?

It's for this reason that I deleted my former post. When your view of the world is so obviously skewed like this, is there any reason for anyone actually attempting to engage in a rational discussion with you? It seems futile. And TPMCafe was actually recommended to me as a left-wing/liberal site which had a reasonable tone. If this is the state of reason within the left wing today, all is lost for them.

No comments: