A conservative view of the left

I do not support, as a rhetorical device, the shouting down of one's opponents and describing what they think without asking them. I am all about reasoned discourse. When I hear people on the left whining of the perfidy of American aims and actions; ascribing almost every conceivable ill in the world to American behavior (global warming, poverty, species extinction, you name it); and attacking American institutions as racist, bigoted, and generally inherently oppressive; these things make me consider the possibility that they really don't like America, and what it stands for. I can provide examples of all of these things. Noam Chomsky embodies all of them, and is apparently well respected on the left. 

Saying that the left "hates America" is certainly a broad brush. But there is a large element of truth to it, and it is for some conservatives a convenient shorthand to describe behavior that they see in the left. I do not have to take polls to notice these things in the media, in the words of actual leftists. When I fail to see other leftists castigating them, I presume that these beliefs are commonly held. While the left is no more unitary than the right, there is a core of beliefs that are generally held by most people on the left. And just as with conservatives, leftists are self-identified. When I hear some one describing himself as a liberal, or leftist, I take them at their word. Mike, don't pretend that this isn't the case. "What left?" We both know what it is. 

I do not believe that saying there are significant injustices in America means that the speaker is un-American, or hates America. I have said this myself. But where does that statement lead? Do you condemn the institutions of our nation, and advocate their replacement entire through revolution? Or do you think that reform of our oppressive society is impossible? Do you think that things are as bad as they have ever been? These seem to be typical attitudes on the left. What solutions do you propose for these problems - do you propose more liberty, or less? More state control, or less? More personal responsibility or less? Do you ascribe blame to groups or individuals? Do you believe more in equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? What follows the first question indicates what the speaker thinks of America. 

When I see the left, embodied in the Stalinist group International ANSWER, (but certainly represented elsewhere) protesting the war - making the most outrageous claims about America, and openly supporting a murderous thug over our liberal, tolerant nation, I am outraged. When leftists openly wish for a thousand Mogadishus, and for the death of American soldiers, I begin to think that the speakers hate America. We have found mass graves with thousands of victims in Iraq, but we were evil to remove Saddam's regime? Supporting the enemies of America must mean that you don't care too much for America. 

So, why don't we take a poll? Mike, you're a low-income grad student/adjunct professor in a major urban area. Do you hate America? I know that you hold socialist beliefs that are completely at odds with the ideals of the founding fathers. No problem. Part of my belief structure insists that I accept that. I oppose it, but I do not deny your right to hold those beliefs. But do you think that revolution is necessary here, as Marxist orthodoxy would insist it is? I never got the sense that you hated America, even if you have rather more issues with things as they are than I do. 

For many of your fellow leftists, it goes further. I see contempt for everything that America stands for, for patriotism, and for the choices of actual individual Americans, when they disagree with leftists. Calling Michael Moore a liar is not name calling, because he is. Saying that Noam Chomsky hates America is not name calling, because it's true. Saying that I think someone's entire political belief structure is inimical to the ideals and history of our nation is not necessarily hateful. Sometimes it's just fact. When I see many, many leftists offering the same viewpoints, it is not so unreasonable to say, in general, that the left hates America. It is ridiculous to complain endlessly of "negative campaigning" when what you're complaining about is your opponent pointing out your voting record, or saying he disagrees with you. Negative campaigning is saying your opponent's wife is a whore. 

But as I have said before, on this site and elsewhere, America is unlike every other nation on earth. We were founded on the most perfect set of ideals ever conceived, and we come closer to the realization of those ideals every day. Slavery is gone. Institutional racism is gone. Racism in public discourse is gone. Racism in general is in rapid retreat. This is the progress we have made on one issue. The office I sit in right now has four white men, two black men and a Hispanic woman. Out of seven random people in the tech industry, this sample shows no evidence of the racism that the left insists is still dominant in our culture. 

As a conservative, I am conserving the ideals of the founding fathers. I feel confident enough in my arguments about any issue - taxes, the war, welfare reform, affirmative action, anything - to win debates. And if you convince me, I'll change my mind. I am not dogmatic. But it is the left seems to go out of its way to avoid debate - on college campuses, by invoking racism whenever a conservative questions affirmative action, by calling conservatives "mean-spirited" when they advocate change in welfare or social security, by calling conservatives Hitler, etc. When you have been called a racist, a bigot, a fascist, and worse as much as I have, because I am a conservative, the temptation to rochambeaux my political opponents is strong. Conservatives, with the exception of Anne Coulter, almost universally stipulate the good intentions of their left leaning opponents - while disagreeing with their policy solutions. But the reverse is not the case. 

PS. Reagan (and Thatcher) did win the cold war. And, I don't fear the French, I hate them - very, very different. And was the Civil War a rich man's war and a poor man's fight? 

PPS. The Democratic Party will discredit itself. Over the last decade, it has proved that it is a tired dinosaur. The ideas come from the conservative side, and the Democrats define themselves in opposition. The democrats are not as conservative as I am. They do not approve of tax cuts. (by the by, the poor don't pay income taxes, so by definition any tax cut is for the middle and wealthy classes.) Lieberman was the only significant Democrat who supported the war. There are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. (Johno is both of those categories.) But the parties are different, and have a different outlook on what is best for our nation. Compromise means that the actual policies implemented by either party will be closer to the mean than people like me (or you) would like.

Posted by Buckethead Buckethead on   |   § 1

§ One Comment

1

buckethead,
as an active member of a democratic society, i like to read both conservative and liberal media. although i don't agree with alot of what i read, i think it's important one is informed of both sides' opinions. however, when i read an essay full of logical flaws, i think it's necessary to put in my 2 cents. while i disagree with your opinion of leftists, i thouroughly enjoyed reading it. firstly, it is possible to love one's country and not support the administration's choices. obviously leftists don't hate america the country, you don't see them killing each other. disagreement among people is common and healthy in any society. it is possible to support the troops and hate the war. you contradict yourself several times in the essay, saying that the left "hating" america is a broad brush, but then supporting that claim. calling anyone a liar is name-calling, even if they are lying. however, you give no evidence to support your claim that michael moore is indeed lying to the american public. if i call george bush an idiot, it's my opinion, not a fact. names are subjective, not universal. besides, calling someone a liar would implicate that they tell all lies. i know michael moore isn't lying, because i've read most of what is in his documentaries, if you want to call them that, in more places than one, and from well-respected journalists and other writers, not just chomsky. if we were in iraq for altruistic motives, so be it. but america is a a country motivated by self-gain, not altruism. altruism is not profitable or economical. where is the proof that chomsy hates america? i love my country, but i don't always agree with the administrative procedures. no government is perfect, that's why people rebel and call for change. sitting on one's box and abiding by all they do is foolish. finallly, name calling your opposition devalues your argument tremendously. don't ask the reader rhetorical questions and give them sheer opinions, give them hard facts to back them up. that's the only way to sway and intelligent majority. moore and chomsky are not saints, they just like to play devil's advocates, which again, is healthy for society. the fear of huxley's brave new world or orwell's 1984 is what perhaps motivates them, but who can blame them? prove to me they're lying, that they hate america. i don't see them burning flags or beating millitary officers or organizing terrorists. prove your point and i'll agree with you. death to ignorance!

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]