. . . I've more or less lost hope in the Republicans to stop being reactionary blowhards. I'd like to think the left is capable of taking the high road, but this site is a prime example that they are not.
It's very hard to stay on the 'high road' when the opposition is taking pot shots at you from the bushes. It's very hard to stay on the high road when the opposition will employ any means necessary - no matter how devious, dispicable or dishonest - to gain political or rhetorical advantage and 'win'. It's very hard to stay on the high road when the opposition incorrectly views your attempts at reasonable debate as a weakness to be exploited. It's very hard to stay on the high road when the opposition is determined to scream insane rhetoric and propaganda at the top of their lungs, when their primary mission is to shut down any reasonable thoughtful debate and push their exclusive agenda.
Prime example of this would be the so-called Healthcare 'debates' of last summer, when legions of right-wing reactionaries where dispatched to show up at Congressional town hall meetings with the stated purpose to disrupt the proceedings, shout down the opposition, and push their ridiculous and baseless propaganda, e.g. death panels, the elimination of Medicare, etc.
It was this phenomenon more than anything else, coupled with Obama's determination to detach from the debate, stay out of the trenches and 'on the high road' - naively trusting that the public would see insanity for what it was - that has resulted in the mess of Healthcare reform we have at present. The only reason he has been able to recast the debate at all is due to his intelligence, his political savvy, and the power of his office. That vs. the empty and morally bankrupt postition of the opposition.
The media thrives on this kind of drama, and they are equally to blame, along with a lazy-minded electorate, for all the confusion. Just because there are two sides of the 'debate' does not mean they are equally valid - not by a long shot.
It's more the fact that he shows how the left is no better than the right when it terms to lapping up vitriol and negative arguments.
The difference generally speaking with Markos and the left leaning media vs. the right leaning media is this: The left tends to draw reasonable conclusions from relevant facts, whereas the right is much more prone to cherry pick and twist the information to support a predetermined agenda, pointedly ignoring any 'inconvenient truths' that get in the way. Again, there is a most notable difference.
Their members who are liberal...not their members who are left wing. Left wingers are ideologues just the same as the right.
I would submit that they are not 'just the same'. Again, it is a matter of degrees, as well as a pattern of behavior.
Do not confuse the two. There are liberals in both parties, and in near equal numbers, I would say. Eisenhower and Clinton are good examples, methinks.
This is a very subective and relative assessment. Eisenhower and Clinton would be considered solidly right of center in most European countries, even in America in the not so distant past. In fact Ike, who I have no small amount of respect and affection for, was considered very much right of center in his own time.
They have not...they are not...no. They will never be destroyed because then there will be no opposition to feed the political machine. It thrives on opposition and negativity. Perhaps I'm being too idealistic, but I only see a system that survives because it preys on fear, distrust and disdain. And these attitudes seem to exist equally on the left and right.
Again, they do not exist 'equally' on both sides of the divide, not by a long shot. It is a matter of degrees, and there is huge distinction between the two. "Fear, distrust, and disdain" are the bread and butter of the right, and any objective view of American political history in the past 50 years plainly reveals this. In the past 10 years they have perfected this to an art, however crude and ugly it may be. The rise of movements like the 'Tea Party' are the end result when "fear, distrust and disdain" reign supreme, when all sides are assumed to be equally valid and worthy of respect. Same with the rise of the Nazis. And the 'machine', the media and the lazy-minded public are all equal partners here.
Whether inflamed by the parties, the media, or a lame-brained electorate conditioned to conflict and a simplistic contest of 'winners' and 'losers', let me reiterate: Just because there are two sides to a 'debate' does not mean they are equally valid - not by a long shot.
I do consider myself a liberal. I do not consider many people here liberals.
Personally I reject such labels. They are too confusing, too subjective, too easily bandied about, too easily denigrated, misconstrued and taken out of context. The designation "conservative" in particular is meaningless anymore, and generally seems Orwellian in its application today. To my mind a true conservative would be someone like Ike, or Goldwater in his later years - a person who valued the importance of individual freedom, a 'conservator' of constitutional principles, prudent economic control and the environment among other things - a person who believed that government had a role in promoting the general welfare, but not intruding into people's personal lives.
The authoritarian autocrats of today who call themselves "conservatives" are nothing like that. I call them "NeoCons". I describe myself as a free-thinking social/political 'progressive' who retains some old-fashioned 'conservative' values as described above. And once again, for the benefit of the knee-jerk tards who insist on painting me as a "Libtard", let me again point out that I have supported Democrats, Republicans, Independents and Greens. Most often Democrats, as they most often represent my values and have a better chance of being elected than those out of the mainstream.
