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 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Mar 28, 2005
To return to the point of the article, the problem with the blindly-following irrational Left is their jingoism. Yes, I said it. Jingoism. They have their concept of "America", and blindly espouse it regardless of its irrationality or its uselessness.

"No blood for oil", "What about Halliburton!", "Terri Schiavo is a piece of meat!", yadda, yadda, yadda. People talk about the Right as if we have this list of catchphrases we quote from. If you look at those vehemently Leftist in the US, it is far, far worse. In their jingoistic "America", the pure nation of insects, none of these "awful" things would happen.

Go read the drek at DU and other such haunts, then come here and watch the knee-jerk faction. They carry in these catchphrases, not ever having looked into them, not knowing a damn thing about the circumstances, not knowing the history or theory behind the stance.

Sure, there are people on the right that do that, but pound for pound you'll find that those most vocal on the far-right can sit and discuss WHY they believe this or that, whereas their counterparts on the Left will simply recite the catchphrase again and call you a dumbass. *cough*dabe*cough*

We have some *great* non-Conservatives here. We have some great people that I consider Left-wing nuts, and I proudly link to them on my blog. They know what they are talking about, they can give you hell, and in the end you find yourself at a fundamental disagreement.

Most, though, drop an asinine bomb on your blog and refuse to answer any challenge about it. I think that it is pretty apparent just sitting and watching the forums here.
on Mar 28, 2005
Prior to 9-11 I used to be generally civil with those of the left in debates....never lost my temper, never taunted anyone, etc.

After 9-11, sadly, I no longer have the patience to calmly debate the issues anymore....most likely because those on the left did not take a left fork in the road approach, they took a hard left turn. When you are called a racist, fascist, nazi who is only looking to declare war on the whole planet....who are nothing but ignorant 'hicks', how is one to debate an issue without losing one's temper. Even better how are you able to not get disgusted with the left as a whole? I consider myself a hard line conservative in most areas, and a center leaning conservative in others...do I agree with every policy/law/etc the current administration is doing or enacting....no...not by a long shot and I generally say so calmly unless being shouted down by a member of the useful idiots club of the left. The only thing I'm capable of getting out of a debate with the left-wing moonbats nowadays is a headache...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, one of the problems with the left in this country...which seems to be gaining greater acceptance by them...is the simple fact that they generally believe that the level of one's education equates to the level of one's intelligence...which is the biggest bunch of horse fecal matter ever. If you didn't attend college for 6-8 years, don't have professional letters after your name, then your opinion is neither deserved nor wanted.

When you alienate a significant portion of the populace because they did not attend the 'pre-requisite' number of years in the education system and ignore any and all differing views from that of your own...you create a backlash of your own making...The election loses of the last 10 years should have been a sign for the left...but it only became something to cry about...well heres a tissue...cry all you want....bitch all you want....shout election fraud (when there was none) all you want....wont help....when you push out moderate views in your party for the hyper-extreme your only hurting youselves.
on Mar 28, 2005

Slanderer - I have no doubt that you probably know the issues pretty well.  But you are not putting your knowledge together in a coherent forum.  Bits and pieces of quotes and streams of consciousness do not bring a point.  This may have more to do with not usually writing very much but re-read what you post. It's bits and pieces without coherence.

For example, you not liking Gonzales legal position on what constitutes torture does not make for a "body of scrutiny" (traditional or not). Administration officials have played legal games since the start.  In 1803, a ticked off John Adams filled the federal judiciary with new judges including John Marshall (then his Secretary of State) to lead the new Supreme Court.  That Supreme Court in turn established the concept of "Judicial Review" which gave federal judges powers that have no body of scrutiny at all and has no basis in the constitution.  And on the other side of the bookend we have Clinton arguing what the word "is" is.

In other words, citing what really amounts to a bunch of piker trivialities of the current administration is pretty meaningless without historical context.

THAT, my friend, gets to the core of this article.  Too often those who argue passionately for the left-wing ideology lack the historical, economic, or scientific educational background to be able to fully understand, appreciate, or put into perspective things that are happening at the present.  That is why everything seems to be a "crisis" and why the word "unprecedented" gets used to describe routine things. 

Only a little over 60 years after we were rounding up American citizens and throwing them into concentration camps because their ancestors were Japanese, it's a little hard to take seriously the hysterics of people crying about how American freedoms are being eliminated because of the Patriot act.

For starters, I would be satisfied with a coherent argument from the on-line left wingers: <Assertion> <Evidence> <Analysis>.

Instead we get things like...

Assertion: Bush is pushing an extreme right wing agenda / Bush is trying to shove social conservatism down everyone's throats

Evidence: (crickets)

Analysis: Because he's a right wing religious nut.

What I want to see is something like this:

--

Assertion: Bush is using the machinations of the federal government to insert religion into public life.

Evidence: His and his party's interference in Terry S's case, the Faith Based Initiatize programs, his aggressiveness in trying to get particular types of judges put on the bench

Analsysis: Even though historically the United States had religion in public life, the supreme court since the 1940s has held that there is a wall between church and state that must be respected. The establishment clause of the constitution states that the federal government won't establish a religion.  The supreme court has held for the last 60 years that public monies -- tax money -- cannot go directly or even indirectly to religious based institutions. You may not agree with that interpretation of the constitution but that is the supreme court's ruling that has been upheld on constant occasions.  We also live in a country that is increasingly secular.  It is not realistic to compare the United States of 2005 with the United States of 1795.  It's a different culture now. And even if polls show that most people believe in God, those polls don't show that the zeal of religion has subsided greatly over time.  We don't want the government to be trying to tell us how to live, particularly in the area of religion. I don't want to pay taxes to have my friends and family being indoctrinated to a particular religious view point.

--

Now, I would argue against the above position. I'm not religious but I don't agree with the above argument. But at least it IS an argument. At least it has coherence behind it. 

Is it too much to ask that left-wingers know a little bit on history, economics, or science (and make use of such understanding as part of their argument?)? 

I know plenty of liberals in the real world who do have a firm grasp on these things.  But in the on-line world, it's rare to see the left put together coherent arguments. 

on Mar 28, 2005

I don't care if they think they're intellectually superior or not. That's just attitude.  What I am interested in seeing is SUBSTANTITIVE discussion.

I wrot ethis article what? 2 days ago? And the left-wing responses here on JU have been what? Largely personal attacks.  Here's what Myrrander wrote:

But I'd rather be irrational than arrogant. Which is what the authors of the "irrational liberals" articles often come off as. Arrogant, self-centered, and blind to other people outside their limited scope of vision.

So just a bunch of empty name calling.  Nothing substantial.  My article isn't just an empty assertion that liberals are ignorant or "irrational". I am simply looking for them to substantiate their impassioned beliefs with some facts and evidence. 

To the on-line liberal, it seems, ridicule, insults, and nastiness substitute themselves for reasoned discourse.

When someone makes an article about how the deficit is bad or that global warming is destroying the earth or that tax cuts are starving children, or whatever. Is it really that much to ask that the article author include some basis for their opinions?

Everyone is entitled to rant. I rant plenty. But once in a great while, it would be nice to see liberal ideology expressed in something more concrete than an emotional tirade.

on Mar 28, 2005
"But once in a great while, it would be nice to see liberal ideology expressed in something more concrete than an emotional tirade."


Or at least something that wasn't plagerized from an Al Franken speech or copy/pasted from a DU style site...
on Mar 28, 2005
You're right I lost cohesiveness. Still a little new at this.

If I am not familiar with the person I am talking to - I usually refrain from the 3 part arguement.

Why you may ask?

I have been embroiled many times with in "best reference" game where every reference is discredited improperly and without cause. Essentially we can throw the same discussion back at each other (Take the David Kay to Charles Duelfer reports for example). Some of the right wing sites take the same quotes but more consensed/chopped/abbreviated to alter the meaning of the original report. Take the full unedited document on the CIA website and the meaning suddenly changes from the snippet out of CNN or Fox.

So whatever topic I try to provide you with - I try to stay away from pure editorials or overly condensed snippets. My own snippets are for my own use. There is a lot of sloppy journalism out by the Washington Post which gets picked by the smaller outlets.

on Mar 28, 2005

I totally understand. No one wants to get into a reference battle.

All I'm looking for is references at all.  Let me pick on a right winger for a moment - there is someone on here arguing against evolution. Saying it's a fraud and what not.  After discussing it with him for awhile, it became clear that he had no knowledge whatsoever of biology. He wasn't even aware of human selective breeding of fruits and vegetables (let alone what we've done with animals).

If someone arguing that tax cuts, for example, are responsible for the current deficit can at least explain why they think that rather than just STATE IT VERY VERY LOUDLY OVER AND OVER it makes for a better discussion.

on Mar 28, 2005
If someone arguing that tax cuts, for example, are responsible for the current deficit can at least explain why they think that rather than just STATE IT VERY VERY LOUDLY OVER AND OVER it makes for a better discussion.


What and not have them bitch in loud tones? To think all one asks is for a straightforward debate which each side explaining their position? I shutter to think the world we would create if we sink to a defense on our positions based upon calm and cool debate explaining our own positions....wow...that might actually be what our forefathers had intended. Go figure.
on Mar 29, 2005
I agree there is a shortage of Left people who are as you describe, but I think there is an equal shortage of right wing blog authors who can express themselves as you describe. In fact you are the only right wing blogger at JoeUser I have come across who expresses hinmself calmly. But even you occasionally get into these silly "blame the left" games, which is disappointing, because when you aren't writing them, you are very insightful.

Most bloggers don't give a whole lot of references for their articles. This is not University Draginol. It is a blog. That's what you'll get. From both sides. That doesn't make them uninformed. It just so happens that you are probably more aware of the facts that back up the right wingers already because of your own biases.
on Mar 30, 2005
Brad,

Nice to see that you haven't lost your ability to look down your thin little beak at others and are still able to impugn a whole class of people based on stereotyping. I think that is the definition of bigot.

JW
on Mar 31, 2005
Being in the UK I can't comment on American politics, not directly anyway. I'll stand up and be counted as a right winger though. But I'm not a racist, homophobic, xenophobe (not unless you're French) either. We all are prejudiced in some way, we all want what we think is fair and right. We all think that we are right, we all have our opinions (not always are own though). I'm also an atheist and evolutionist, if that makes me an 'enemy' then I'm an enemy, I can't change the fact that I don't believe in supreme omnipotent things.
I didn't attend the dreaming spires of Oxford or Cambridge, I learnt enough, I read a lot, and I'm always prepared to learn more.
on Apr 02, 2005

Nice to see that you haven't lost your ability to look down your thin little beak at others and are still able to impugn a whole class of people based on stereotyping. I think that is the definition of bigot.

Nice touch adding the "thin little beak" as you then accuse me of being a bigot. Very classy.

Getting back to the main issue, I would settle for advocates of left-wing ideology who are passionately, even militant in their views if they can at least demonstrate they know what the heck they're talking about. 

When someone regurgitates something like "Bush's preemptive doctrine is unprecedented in US history" anyone who knows US history, even at a high school level, knows that's an absurd statement. 

I don't mind someone going out and demonizing Bush or conservatives or whatever as long as they know what they're talking about. 

on Apr 02, 2005
Nice to see that you haven't lost your ability to look down your thin little beak at others and are still able to impugn a whole class of people based on stereotyping. I think that is the definition of bigot.

Nice touch adding the "thin little beak" as you then accuse me of being a bigot. Very classy.
Getting back to the main issue, I would settle for advocates of left-wing ideology who are passionately, even militant in their views if they can at least demonstrate they know what the heck they're talking about.
When someone regurgitates something like "Bush's preemptive doctrine is unprecedented in US history" anyone who knows US history, even at a high school level, knows that's an absurd statement.
I don't mind someone going out and demonizing Bush or conservatives or whatever as long as they know what they're talking about


You know draginol's correct. You want to talk bad, fine. But by Jesus get your facts straight. There are way to many that don't bother to do one bit of research before they start running their mouth. I have been guilty of this a time or 2, but at least I try. What irratates me even more is when they run off at the mouth without knowledge, so you provide backup to show them they are incorrect and what do they do? They either totally ignore your info, or say that your info is just plain BS!
on Apr 02, 2005

Ineed. One far left wing person was arguing that the deficit was caused by the tax cuts. He insisted that the CBO had shown that tax cut was the cause of the deficit. So I looked it up, found a table using the CBO data:

http://www.budget.house.gov/lgcauzdefbar030905.pdf

Result: 13% of the deficit is caused by the tax cut. Whoop. And let's remember, that the left was complainign about the "Tax cuts for the rich" all the way back until 2001.  In 2002, the tax cut was 8% of the deficit. 

There are right wingers who are just as bad out there.  I get email from right wing friends insisting we need to cut the "100s of billions of dollars we spend on foreign aid".  Most conservatives think the US dishes out foreign aid cash like it's candy and that we wouldn't have deficits if it weren't for that. 

So not knowing what one is talking about isn't striclty a left-wing phenomenon.  The difference is the dearth of left-wing advocates who post on-line who DO know what they're talking about.  And I'm not talking just here on JU but the entire blogssphere.

on Apr 02, 2005
ed. One far left wing person was arguing that the deficit was caused by the tax cuts. He insisted that the CBO had shown that tax cut was the cause of the deficit. So I looked it up, found a table using the CBO data:
Link
Result: 13% of the deficit is caused by the tax cut. Whoop. And let's remember, that the left was complainign about the "Tax cuts for the rich" all the way back until 2001. In 2002, the tax cut was 8% of the deficit.
There are right wingers who are just as bad out there. I get email from right wing friends insisting we need to cut the "100s of billions of dollars we spend on foreign aid". Most conservatives think the US dishes out foreign aid cash like it's candy and that we wouldn't have deficits if it weren't for that.
So not knowing what one is talking about isn't striclty a left-wing phenomenon. The difference is the dearth of left-wing advocates who post on-line who DO know what they're talking about. And I'm not talking just here on JU but the entire blogssphere.


Yes and if you remember I had the privilage of being a part of that conversation. And what did that poster do? First tried to say *your* info was incorrect and then when that didn't work, they changed the subject.
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4