Why I'm Leaving the Left/Right

I have no idea if this is representative, or a trend worth noting, but there's a strange symmetry at work here. First we have a semi-popular blogger explaining why she's leaving the left:

I think the straw that broke this camel's back was an horrendously ugly and smearing essay Christian Parenti wrote last week, which was published on the Huffington Post after Obama's Afghanistan speech. In what follows, I have compressed into a single, loathsome paragraph his most outrageous statements:

"Like Lyndon Johnson who escalated in Vietnam, Obama lives in mortal fear of being called a wimp by Republicans. To look strong in front of swing voters he will sacrifice the lives of hundreds of US soldiers; allow many more to be horribly maimed; waste a minimum of $30 billion in public money; and in the process kill many thousands of Afghan civilians. It is political theater nothing else. The real purpose of these 300,000 [sic] soldiers is to make Obama look tough as he heads toward the next US presidential election. In short, he used Afghanistan to show that we [sic] was not the soft, meek, scared, pussified, little Democrat portrayed in GOP spin. There is nothing else to Obama's Afghan strategy. Victory in Afghanistan is reelection in 2012. Whatever the outcome, Obama has made it clear: he is willing to kill to get reelected."

Just get me out of here, folks, fast, or I may do something none of us will like--and it won't be standing tiptoe on a misty mountaintop. More likely, I will need to wash my mouth out with soap when I am done.

Then we have Little Green Footballs explaining how he's done with the American right:

1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, Pat Buchanan, etc.)

2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.)

3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.)

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)

5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.)

6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.)

7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)

8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.)

9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)

10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)

In both cases, the bloggers are reacting to what they consider unreasonable attacks on the current administration. I'm not sure what to make of this. Thoughts?

Strangely enough, I found myself agreeing with that left position, I could see how Obama would need to keep the war alive, which results in more deaths and money thrown at it in order to keep an image of a "Strong America" domestically. It wasn't really outrageous, it is only outrageous if some one is in denial of the unfortunate truth. (Like people who can't stand butchers, because it reeks of "death" but are happy enough in eating their burgers and steaks)

I also found myself agreeing with the criticisms of the right position, which is pretty factual representations.

Both essentially say: "He's a Politician, afterall." The ex- lefty is surprised, the ex-righty decries the unnecessary hate.

If its a trend, then "good" say I. Obama is a man, neither the Christ nor the antiChrist. We'll live through his time in office, and if we're lucky and smart, maybe we'll even thrive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

If its a trend, then "good" say I. Obama is a man, neither the Christ nor the antiChrist. We'll live through his time in office, and if we're lucky and smart, maybe we'll even thrive.

---

:2thumbsup: Well said. There are voices of reason out there, but they are lost in the cackle of the loonies of the extreme.

Over time I imagine many people become tired of the more extremist positions. Huffington post is pretty trashy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

:2thumbsup: Well said. There are voices of reason out there, but they are lost in the cackle of the loonies of the extreme.

---

Where's the pun? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Then we have Little Green Footballs explaining how he's done with the American right:

In both cases, the bloggers are reacting to what they consider unreasonable attacks on the current administration. I'm not sure what to make of this. Thoughts?

---

Bah, Johnson is an egotistical ass and was always basically a democrat who supported the war on terror. And now he doesn't even post about radical Islam or the war on terror.

Example; he calls the Tea Parties, protests against high government spending, "anti-government lunacy".

He calls skeptics of climate change "deniers" and supporters of "anti-science bad craziness".

And this: "Right wingers screaming for investigations into “Climategate” are on the same side as the apartheid theocracy of Saudi Arabia."

He celebrates the EPA saying CO2 is a pollutant, he defends ACORN.

Or this:
"Switzerland, the country that let everyone else in Europe do their fighting for them in World War II and turned Jews over to the Nazis to save their own skins, has now banned minarets."

Heck, he's said he was never right wing.

CR

He has a point though.

I love my guns and my liberity but I don't care about many of the social items the GOP pushes.

I really could care less if someone gets married or has an abortion yet these are the two issues the resonate the most with the party I'm registered with.

What's a boy to do?

i think the right position (first post) was good if a little blunt and general

but the left position was a little overdone and was very extreme.

through rose tinted glasses however, but i still think the leftie looks far more extreme and "loonish" than the righty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

He has a point though.

I love my guns and my liberity but I don't care about many of the social items the GOP pushes.

I really could care less if someone gets married or has an abortion yet these are the two issues the resonate the most with the party I'm registered with.

What's a boy to do?

---

The thing is - he doesn't love guns or small government or anything on the conservative side.

He's a pathetic blogger who bans everyone who disagrees with him from posting as well.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Strangely enough, I found myself agreeing with that left position, I could see how Obama would need to keep the war alive, which results in more deaths and money thrown at it in order to keep an image of a "Strong America" domestically. It wasn't really outrageous, it is only outrageous if some one is in denial of the unfortunate truth. (Like people who can't stand butchers, because it reeks of "death" but are happy enough in eating their burgers and steaks)

I also found myself agreeing with the criticisms of the right position, which is pretty factual representations.

---

So you agree with the american Radical Left.

I suppose these two demonstrate that not everyone in either party is insane, but also that "normal" people are starting to jump ship in the face of extremism. This is bad for American politics, and therefore for everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So you agree with the american Radical Left.

---

It was argubly very tactless writing and very blunt, but it wasn't incorrect. Obama would have to keep the war going in many ways in order not to appear weak and appease to the American Gunho Right and Swing-voters.

How is that incorrect in anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

It was argubly very tactless writing and very blunt, but it wasn't incorrect. Obama would have to keep the war going in many ways in order not to appear weak and appease to the American Gunho Right and Swing-voters.

How is that incorrect in anyway?

---

so he is representing the interests of his electorate, how appealing that is given the failure of our own politicians to do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

so he is representing the interests of his electorate, how appealing that is given the failure of our own politicians to do the same.

---

I think Gordon Brown doesn't even know what a interest of his electorate is to represent. However, as you put it, he is representing the interests of his electorate, however, how is the view given across still wrong? Since the person is against the war, it isn't representing their interest so they are voicing the consequences of representing them (in the not well handled manner). So they are not incorrect in their statements (still).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

It was argubly very tactless writing and very blunt, but it wasn't incorrect. Obama would have to keep the war going in many ways in order not to appear weak and appease to the American Gunho Right and Swing-voters.

How is that incorrect in anyway?

---

It was blunt, but not tactless because you had already indicated an opinion that Obama would spend lives to get re-elected. It might by true, but Obama has said from the start the Afgan War was important, and it is. Why you ask? Well, because if we don't leave the country in a half-decent state our children or someone else's will be going back there in 10-20 years.

A belief in failure in Afganistan is more than anything a belief that the Afganis are incapable of being civilised and peacable. It's classic left-ist Racism and you should support it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

A belief in failure in Afganistan is more than anything a belief that the Afganis are incapable of being civilised and peacable. It's classic left-ist Racism and you should support it.

---

I don't believe Afghan's can't be civilised or peaceable. On the contrary, I believe they can be.

However, if believing they can be involves setting up permament military bases over the country, I think some one is not actually "thinking" because doing that action would imply that they can't be and need us to babysit them. (The Opinion of the Right)

So I am sure that assisting the Afghans then leaving it in their hands does not equal "leftist racism" which is what I advocate. It could be argued that life under the taleban was far more stable than life there now, which would mean it was a bad idea to go in there in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I don't believe Afghan's can't be civilised or peaceable. On the contrary, I believe they can be.

However, if believing they can be involves setting up permament military bases over the country, I think some one is not actually "thinking" because doing that action would imply that they can't be and need us to babysit them. (The Opinion of the Right)

So I am sure that assisting the Afghans then leaving it in their hands does not equal "leftist racism" which is what I advocate. It could be argued that life under the taleban was far more stable than life there now, which would mean it was a bad idea to go in there in the first place.

---

Thn you agree with President Obama? He has advocated an Iraq-style surge in order to stabalise the country, then leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

A belief in failure in Afganistan is more than anything a belief that the Afganis are incapable of being civilised and peacable. It's classic left-ist Racism and you should support it.

---

I always thought it was more of a type of defensive apathy which closely mimics isolationist policies and serving only immediate interests related to a specifically outline desired outcome without trying to enlighten every individual you come across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

A belief in failure in Afganistan is more than anything a belief that the Afganis are incapable of being civilised and peacable. It's classic left-ist Racism and you should support it.

---

Not necessarily. Democracy requires the population's support to maintain, if the population does not stand up to purge their own government of blatant corruption or stand up to fight and protect against Taliban attacks, then obviously the country is incapable of building and maintaining itself and it would be pointless to keep troops there for that purpose. Not saying that is the case, but granted we have been there 8 years already and what progress have we seen from Afghan citizens?

Since when did it become racism to make rational connections? Democracy is seen as a "western" notion simply because it is. Centuries in a conflicted and cramped continent creates the most potential for more advanced ideas in society. Europe has gone through so much crap that almost nothing can faze it, and it's grown mature enough to deal with it's problems without creating too much political chaos (Maybe not Italy). Meanwhile, you can look at Africa, or Afghanistan, and see a population that hasn't seen much besides authoritarianism, suppression, and anarchy. Not the enviroment that would foster the educated base of democracy, or anything besides semi-tribal behaviour. I'm not making any statements regarding the intelligence of these people, as that is a trait constant throughout the species, but simply their level of education. As the US cannot suddenly comprehensively westernise and school every Afghan adult, the only real long-term solution for a democracy there would be an extended occupation, coupled with significant government investment in the well-being of the country. Which would no doubt bring calls of Imperialism, a path I have no desire in arguing. I simply believe that the US will not succeed in putting a democracy in place in such a place without tremendous measures.

Of course, if the Amis only wish to stabilise the area, that is a much more feasible idea. What they're doing now is well enough for that purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

A belief in failure in Afganistan is more than anything a belief that the Afganis are incapable of being civilised and peacable. It's classic left-ist Racism and you should support it.

---

Nonsense.

It's a belief that a society can never be civilized when corrupt rulers are kept in position by foreign powers. If one actually wants Afghanistan to be a working country, step one should be to put Karzai and his corrupt cronies on the first ship to the melting North Pole....

Practical problem, though - where are you going to find someone meaningfully better to replace him ? Nevermind now that Afghanistan is basically entirely devoid of what might be called the "basic foundations" of what is considered effective, reasonably impartial and honest governance by "Western" standards...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Nonsense.

It's a belief that a society can never be civilized when corrupt rulers are kept in position by foreign powers. If one actually wants Afghanistan to be a working country, step one should be to put Karzai and his corrupt cronies on the first ship to the melting North Pole....

---

Mo, step one should be to find Afgan investigators capable of impeaching him and keep them alive long enough to pull it off. At the same time, spreading television and radio coverage, as well as supporting independant stations.