Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Don't let your ideology be dominated by cranks, zealots, and bigots
Published on March 26, 2005 By Draginol In Politics

During the early 90s the American right came to be seen as dominated by its zealots, bigots and extremists.  It was the high-tide of people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and David Duke.  The Republicans (rightly) paid a political price for it. 

The blindly ideological right is always ready to take center stage. Those of us who consider themselves socially moderate but fiscally conservative (that also includes not just me but Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, Steven Den Beste, John Hawkins of Right Wing News, and most of the other popular "right wing" bloggers) are always having to battle the the demons of those further right of us.  That would include the evangelical Christians who want to inject religion as much into public life as a means to impose their social beliefs onto the rest of us.  For the past few years, our portion of the "vast right wing conspiracy" has held the high ground and the result has been unprecedented series of electoral victories.

Now the American left, wrongly labeled as "liberals" (there's nothing "liberal" these days about the American left IMO) seems to be held hostage by its most bigoted, ignorant, and ideologically rigid elements.  Their militant, hateful, and intolerant ideology is not much different than the so-called "fascist" right wing extremists they claim to be against.

I find it disappointing how difficult it is to find a reasonable avatar of left-wing thought on-line.  So few left of center advocates are educated enough on the issues they debate on and the result is pure frustration.

The issues they argue about without knowing much about are many. Whether that be the issue of "Global Warming", an article of faith on the left that they defend as strongly as the evangelicals on the right defend "Intelligent Design".  Or that we're "bankrupting" the country through "Tax cuts for the rich".  Or the every-changing opposition of US foreign policy -- no matter what the US action is, it's the wrong thing (especially if it's against non-European dictators).  And then there is also the pervasive and irrational "Bush hatred" that seems to permeate many of the writings of the left on-line.

The problem isn't that the left of center ideologically is non-credible.  There are real arguments for environmentalism, social justice, multilateralism, and many other principles that the left espouse.  The problem is that the avatars of the left, particularly on the blogsphere are frankly, ignorant beyond belief.  A lot of my friends in "real life" are quite left of center. However, they can debate these issues with intelligent and articulate arguments. But they don't post on-line usually. 

And so we're left with what seems to be the dregs of the left who seem completely unfamiliar with any of the background details of the issues they so passionately argue. As an agnostic, I don't find religious arguments compelling. And too often, the left-wingers frothing on-line sound very much the same as the indoctrinated religious zealots they so clearly detest. And being indoctrinated, they have no need to educate themselves on things such as history, economics, anthropology, engineering or science. 

As a result, hordes of astonishingly ignorant but militant left wingers storm onto the net like a swarm of religious missionaries filled with certainty that their faith is the correct faith and that those who disagree with them aren't just wrong but are evil. Their opponents are heathens and heretics to be smited.  And their debate style is just as self-referencing and circular as the most dogged religious fanatics I've ever seen.

What the left needs are people who can espouse its principles in a mature, calm, rational and most importantly educated manner.  They need to look carefully at the facts and push on issues that they have the factual high ground on and abandon positions in which the facts don't support them.  But most importantly, they need to know what they are talking about on the issues they debate.  They need to do their homework and present their case in a rational, non-hysterical way.

Because otherwise, the left-wing political philosophies are going to become increasingly marginalized as the undecided's of the world mix the message with the messenger. And if that were to happen, we will all be a lot poorer.


Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Mar 27, 2005

Dr Guy (or any adamant pro-lifer) arguing for them.

Actually, as a devil's advocate, I can do that very easily.  For my Opposition in that case is based upon faith.  And so no one can debate me on that as Faith is not debatable.  I do see both sides, I just cannot agree with one side due to my faith (faith born of long and deep thought, not accepted blindly).

on Mar 27, 2005
(before I start, I know you weren't targeting me with the "remaining silent" bit LW)

I often do tear down the lunatic lefties when they get involved in a thread I'm on as well. I don't go out of my way to find wherever Dabe or Myrrander or Reiki-house are posting is the thing. If they're ranting on a topic I don't care at all about, I leave it go. I also don't get involved in every right vs left fight on here, as they're not worth the time usually. I think in general on here those of us sitting left of middle are relatively few in number. It's just that those few are really really vocal and really really combative (which I can understand to some extent, I'm honestly tired of seeing a lot of Righties attack anyone who disagrees with Iraq or Pres Bush as being traitors or pot smoking hippies).

Another thing is, I love to play devils advocate on issues, and will flip sides for the fun of the argument sometimes. Being able to do that helps you build stronger personal beliefs and opinions. If I understand where the opposition is coming from, I can make more intelligent decisons as to what I myself believe. It also helps me argue such issues as I don't sit there mystified as to how anyone could believe something I disagree with. It also helps show me that things aren't cut-and-dried as many on both sides like to believe.

My favorite political article I wrote on here was about how I was voting for Kerry, not because I liked him, but because I had solid reasons for not liking Bush and saw no better alternatives. I didn't try to sugar-coat Kerry, and I didn't rely on emotion for my decision. I listed out four or five points on which I was in major disagreement with Bush. I stated my reasons, backed them up with my own personal beliefs and didn't try and to say "This is the TRUTH of the matter..." and I got some great responses from people on the Right. None of them agreed with me on my points. But they respected those points because it was obvious I put some thought into them and had real reasons. Also because I admitted that I was specifically voting against Bush, but that I wished I had some better alternative. I didn't like voting against someone, but I wasn't given anyone I could vote for. I believe I earned some respect with that article because I was one of the few liberal bloggers here at the time that weren't blinded by pure hatred of Bush.

We're few in number here. We voice our opinions but they go largely unnoticed because they lack entertainment value. We also don't see the need to go running around the site policing the moron Lefties on here. I honestly have better things to do that point out that some loonie is a moron when it's painfully obvious already. It's like a Christian blogger going in and saying "Aeryck, you're a dipwad" Everyone knows it, no one (reasonable) thinks Aeryck is representative of his group. We see the nutjobs on the left, and we shake our heads and sigh, because we know there's no way to reign those people in. They're beyond reach of rational argument. The best we can do is ignore them and hope they go away.
on Mar 27, 2005

Everyone knows it, no one (reasonable) thinks Aeryck is representative of his group. We see the nutjobs on the left, and we shake our heads and sigh, because we know there's no way to reign those people in.

But that is the very problem Zoomba.  If you dont reign them in, then they come to represent the left, and of course, badly.  Just as the right disavowed David Duke and distanced itself from Jerry Falwell, so must the left do to their fringe.  But your silence is almost like a consent and that is why when your leaders start spouting idiocy, 2/3 of the American populace tunes you out.

It is tougher to argue with those who profess to be on your side yet spout stupidity.  It is easy to debate those who you disagree with totally.  But in the end, you are known by the company you keep.

on Mar 27, 2005
I think that both parties are being steered by the radical elements nowadays. It just goes to show the polarization in the country at the present time.

On one hand you have a far right adminstration pushing a far right agenda on the masses, and then you have the hyper liberal lefties who are fighting it tooth and nail.

It's a two way street Brad. The middle is basicaly ignored. Both repub and dem. I think that BOTH parties need to do some housecleaing in order to get any legislation passed that we can all live with.

Remember, American democracy has always been about compromise. No matter who is running the show. When you have the extreme elements on both teams not offering any compromise Nothing gets done!

And we all get screwed, Dem and Repub alike.
on Mar 27, 2005

On one hand you have a far right adminstration pushing a far right agenda on the masses

NCLB?  Prescription Drug coverage?  Right wing?  me thinks you are one of the ones blinded by hatred.

You can grab the radicals of the left and steer them back to the center, but if you think the above is right wing, then you are one of the radical left.

on Mar 27, 2005
I don't hate dubya. I just don't like the agenda he's pushing Guy. As far as me being part of the "Radical left"....You obviously havent been reading any of my posts over the last few months. Typical. And sad too.

Take the blinders off man.
on Mar 27, 2005

As far as me being part of the "Radical left"....You obviously havent been reading any of my posts over the last few months. Typical. And sad too.

Take the blinders off man.

I have been, but your hate of Dubya is allowing the fringe to take control of your party.  My Post was more rhetorical than an indication of your politics.  I have read you and do respect your views. They are left of mine, but not radical.  It is time for you to bury the hate (Dubya cannot be re-elected) and take back what is yours.  Dont let the hate control your vision when it comes to the fringe.  it is over.

on Mar 27, 2005
Not a bad article but I think you should have provided examples. It would be easier to comment if I knew exactly where 'x' blamed 'y' and for what reasons. Be aware that the general procedures for implementing policiy are rapidly changing. More change has happened in the last 5 years than in the last 50.

The system of checks and balances that engage all parties are being dropped like a hot potato. The unilateralism being adopted in the foreign policy is spreading into domestic issues and is cirmcumventing the traditional bodies of scrutiny. These changes are just happening without any discourse. That is where the anger comes from. The real issues are inserted between the larger patriot acts and are completely hidden away. Nine times out of ten they have no relevance to the main title of the article. Highly contensious, invasive ideas contradict much of the existing constitutional framework of the past two centuries. So for hardliners - there is alot to complain about.

Without getting bogged down into a he said - she said arguement, my personal opinion is there is very little difference between the left and right parties. I'd say about - 3/8" of an inch if asked. I vote for individuals more than parties.

The pressing issue isn't the perceived ranting and raving where someone questions the president. It is where left plays good cop and right plays bad cop and the issues are not addressed. This is why the last election was a unique still-born phenomenon in the voting world. The environment was artificially controlled and the people were kept from participating. They sold qualities instead of political stances and represent a complete victory of PR marketting. The POINT of politics is to have some arrogant asshole drop an unrehearsed off-the cuff bombshell issue into there lap and see how well they can articulate back. Unrehearsed responses are the only way to evoke a little bit of honesty out of a politician. Pre-rehearsed speeches are best left to the professors, not the politicians.

If you keep on pointing the WTF finger at one another you will only achieve at driving a wedge between red and blue states. Hell you might even arrive at another "north-south" war.
on Mar 27, 2005
Perhaps you can make a post where we can highlight the changes/evolution of congress after a national tradgedy and beyond?
on Mar 27, 2005

Reply By: Slanderer

Instead of putting the burden on Drag, perhaps you should peruse the archives of the articles.  Start with the Political forum.  As he has donated this site to us, maybe you can do some work and research the rest?

on Mar 27, 2005
Good points Slanderer. I really don't think that the center of both parties are that far from each other as well.

Guy,

You just don't get it man.

You see anyone who criticizes dubya as a "LLL". Pretty narrow view of the political landscape if ya ask me. It's not that i don't see others on the left as you do. But you apply that same template to anyone who "bashes" dubya. Very predjudicial method. That's like me saying that every repub is from the "Rovian" school of political philosophy. That's not true either. There are varying shades of dem and repub philosophy. I happen to reside somewhere in the middle, but you see me as "LLL" because i just do not like the job that dubya is doing. If his agenda were any closer to the center, I MIGHT support some of his policies.

I remember when dubya called himself a "uniter, not a divider" and pledged to work with the other team. What happened? As soon as he moved in he did the exact opposite. He started on the wrong foot. Which upset a lot of people. If his predecessors (bubba and ronnie in particular) had pursued the same path, where would we be now? They were smart enough to realize that there were better ways to get things done in Washington that ramming radical changes down the throats of those who werent receptive to it. They COMPROMISED! dubya doesn't know the definition of that word, Karl either. They saw this as an opportunity to push a radical right agenda on the whole country. And then acted shocked when the dems (and some from their own party) disagreed with some of the things they wanted to do.

Shows how naive they were to how things get done in DC.
on Mar 27, 2005
NJ, two things. When is #9 coming out?


Considering #9 was Harrison, which you commented on, I'll assume you mean #10, which is also out.

And #2, unless people like you start to speak out and take back the democrat party from the loony fringe, Brad's prognosis will come to pass. Conservatives did not lose control of the republican party to their fringe and that is why they have had success.


Hm...well, my natural timidity since I dropped hatred is kind of hard to get over, but I can try. Also, I have no real inspiration for an article. But I can also try to work on that too, I suppose.
on Mar 27, 2005
You see anyone who criticizes dubya as a "LLL".


No, you dont get it. I criticize Dubya. Does that make me LLL, Hardly. You are not LLL, but as long as you are silent, the LLL will continue to define you. Not in my mind, but in the mindless minds of millions of Anericans.

This was not a condemnation, it was a warning and a way. yet you do exhibit the classic symptoms of a liberal. You refuse advise from those not left of you.

re-read the whole thread. You will see you are projecting and not responding. I cant help you there. Only you can.
on Mar 27, 2005
You just don't get it man.

You see anyone who criticizes dubya as a "LLL". Pretty narrow view of the political landscape if ya ask me. It's not that i don't see others on the left as you do. But you apply that same template to anyone who "bashes" dubya. Very predjudicial method. That's like me saying that every repub is from the "Rovian" school of political philosophy. That's not true either. There are varying shades of dem and repub philosophy. I happen to reside somewhere in the middle, but you see me as "LLL" because i just do not like the job that dubya is doing. If his agenda were any closer to the center, I MIGHT support some of his policies.

I remember when dubya called himself a "uniter, not a divider" and pledged to work with the other team. What happened? As soon as he moved in he did the exact opposite. He started on the wrong foot. Which upset a lot of people. If his predecessors (bubba and ronnie in particular) had pursued the same path, where would we be now? They were smart enough to realize that there were better ways to get things done in Washington that ramming radical changes down the throats of those who werent receptive to it. They COMPROMISED! dubya doesn't know the definition of that word, Karl either. They saw this as an opportunity to push a radical right agenda on the whole country. And then acted shocked when the dems (and some from their own party) disagreed with some of the things they wanted to do.

Shows how naive they were to how things get done in DC.


No *you* just don't seem to get it! For all your whining and complaining GW is in office and will remain there for 4 years. He will do anything that congress will allow him to do. And there isn't one damn thing "either" of us can say or do to change that. He doesn't care what you or I think, he's in and does not have to worry about re-election.
on Mar 27, 2005
I remember when dubya called himself a "uniter, not a divider" and pledged to work with the other team. What happened? As soon as he moved in he did the exact opposite.


Again you are wrong. YOu cannot site chapter or verse of that. Truth is I can site chapter and verse of the exact opposite, and the traits you accuse Bush of, I can cite chapter and verse of the opposition of doing exactly that.

But beyond your mis conception, you provide insight into the exact disease that Brad was talking about. Your hatred of him has clouded your objectivity and so anyone that hates him is ok with you. I gave you more credit than that. As you just demonstrated, I gave too much credit.

Sorry.
4 Pages1 2 3 4