In Reply: "There is no intellectual or rhetorical vice exclusive to a particular side of any partisan debate."

In reply to the following two comments at the American Power blog post "Post-Partisan Obama Cult":
---

'Putting aside all the particulars that have nothing to do with the topic, of course the conflict will continue... The Left & the Right have different political philosophies, and the idea that anyone's asking or expecting anyone else to give up or give in is a myth. Disagree.'

"All well and good ... until someone starts turning ideology into policy.

Then, the particulars do matter ... as well as the intellectual honesty of those making the decisions.

If the decision-makers do not have the intellectual honesty to recognize their own errors in the light of history and reason (or hide them behind popular acceptance of their position ... hey, even slavery was popular in some places once), then place both their own error and that of their political opponents in actual historical perspective, then their credibility as decision-makers is compromised.

It's not like I have seen this game before, repsac ... and you need to remember that intellectual honesty is inherently in short supply among the morally relative that dominate ONLY ONE side of this debate.

While you might have a stash of that ... many of your fellow-travelers, some of whom are now decision-makers, threw theirs in the 7-11 trash receptacles a long time ago."
---

'Here, I prefer the traditional "conventional wisdom" that has gotten us through pretty much every conflict since we became a nation over your radical ideas about foreign policy.'

"Acutally, that conventional wisdom has only been applicable for the last 60 years or so ... before that, we usually decisively engaged our enemies and defeated them as expeditiously as possible, and did not engage in the perpetual paralysis-by-analysis/vacillation/navel-gazing/self-flagellation that is now the Left's stock-in-trade.

And it has also been in those last 60 years that technology, commerce, and (yes) freedom have combined to produce a highly-interconnected planet ... a place where a few dozen can stealthily leverage the above to wreak havoc on a scale that previously took years and armies -- both highly visible to the defenders of life and liberty before their use -- to perpetrate.

The game has changed ... so the conventional wisdom of the last century does NOT apply ... as if it ever did."
---

@ Rich: I don't suppose I need to mention that you're drifting off topic, again...

Yes, there are conversations & circumstances where the particulars you brought up do matter. This isn't one of 'em.

No, popularity does not equate with correctness. Most good ideas are opposed by the masses, at first, and many bad ones have come to be widely supported.

There really is no intellectual or rhetorical vice exclusive to a particular side of any partisan debate. That you believe otherwise, and are willing to spread such a sweeping generalization over so much of the left, in big bold capital letters, no less, calls your own intellectual honesty into question.
---

Posted Wednesday, November 12, 2008

In Reply: "Disagree. Don't demean & demonize."

In reply to the following comment at the American Power post "Post-Partisan Obama Cult":

repsac, when the Left expands the definition of "fair and balanced" beyond a debate between Bernie Sanders and Robert Byrd, perhaps your words will hold water.

Since November 2000 ... certainly since March 2003 ... the vast majority of Leftist opinion I've seen has been based upon the fairness-obsessed (at a kindergarten level), navel-gazing, self-doubting conventional wisdom of the 20th Century, as if human history started with the birth of the first Baby Boomer.

Not upon the wisdom embodied by those who founded this nation ... who declared that "we hold these truths to be self-evident", then acted accordingly.

And not in an intellectually-honest manner, but instead a manner that simultaneously called for "nuance" while swinging the broadest brush over the principles of human interaction ... even as they were demonstrated by events like the Awakenings.

What your fellow-travelers seek is not dialog, but capitulation to their worldview.

Until y'all acknowledge your own perceptual limitations ... your own errors of INACTION that made today's conflicts inevitable, harder, and longer ... how your conventional wisdom has time and again failed to secure peace and prosperity ... and your own incivility ... this conflict will continue.

And understand this ... if the price of civility is perpetuating the Leftist worldview as the dominant worldview of our culture, it is a price not worth paying.

If you want civility, the discourse has to be a two-way street, well beyond Sanders Avenue and Byrd Boulevard.
---

It's a good speech, Rich, but it's ultimately non-responsive to the topic.

"when the Left expands the definition of "fair and balanced" beyond a debate between Bernie Sanders and Robert Byrd, perhaps your words will hold water."

Yes, some folks on the left have a narrow view of things. The same is true on the right. Both have people who could open up, a bit. Narrow ideology, or being "fair & balanced" has nothing to do with respect for other people, though.

"Since November 2000 ... certainly since March 2003 ... the vast majority of Leftist opinion I've seen has been based upon the fairness-obsessed (at a kindergarten level), navel-gazing, self-doubting conventional wisdom of the 20th Century, as if human history started with the birth of the first Baby Boomer."

We've been over this & over this... Here, I prefer the traditional "conventional wisdom" that has gotten us through pretty much every conflict since we became a nation over your radical ideas about foreign policy. I'm not saying you're not welcome to have & hold them, but the vast majority of the American people do not appear to agree with you. To the best of my recollection, no one here at this blog has backed you, even. They all just remain politely quiet when you post your "20th century thinking for a 21st century world" spiel...

And again, whether you're ultimately right or wrong in your foreign policy views, it has nothing to do with respect for others.

"What your fellow-travelers seek is not dialog, but capitulation to their worldview."

Everyone on every side ultimately seeks capitulation by everyone else to "their" worldview, one way or another, but for some of us--many of us, thankfully--dialog is the way to get there... The people on 52/48 are trying to say respect for the other side and "hashing it out," is the way to go... It's not about giving in, but letting go of the bullshit hate and the labels that become meaningless through overuse, & TALKING to one another.

"Until y'all acknowledge your own perceptual limitations ... your own errors of INACTION that made today's conflicts inevitable, harder, and longer ... how your conventional wisdom has time and again failed to secure peace and prosperity ... and your own incivility ... this conflict will continue."

Putting aside all the particulars that have nothing to do with the topic, of course the conflict will continue... The Left & the Right have different political philosophies, and the idea that anyone's asking or expecting anyone else to give up or give in is a myth. Disagree. Don't demean & demonize.

"And understand this ... if the price of civility is perpetuating the Leftist worldview as the dominant worldview of our culture, it is a price not worth paying.

If you want civility, the discourse has to be a two-way street, well beyond Sanders Avenue and Byrd Boulevard."

The price of civility is civility. It's not about what either side believes, or how narrow one's mind is, but about remembering that it's likely you have a close friend or family member on the opposing team, and that when you toss out the "moonbat" or "wingnut" labels & all the meaning you attach to them, you're talking about that friend or family member, too... It's about treating the wingnuts/moonbats you don't know as well as you treat the ones you do know, just because people--even people who don't share your politics--deserve respect. (If someone hits, by all means, hit back... But don't throw the first punch, just because the person's not in your "tribe," and may hit you, maybe...)

---

Posted Wednesday, November 12, 2008

In Reply: "Seeing people left & right as individuals, rather than as groups that speak & act as one."

Apparently, Donnie thinks I fear you folks...

Not so much, actually....

No one at the 52/48 site--be they from the left or from the right (& yes, you folks do seem to ignore all the contributions from folks on the right, there)--is suggesting that you give up your principles, like Obama any better than you ever have, or adopt any other political philosophy... It's suggesting that you (& we) stop demonizing anyone & everyone who doesn't agree with you (or "us")...

That anyone would consider me any kind of Obama cultist is kinda funny. No Democrat, no Obama materials, & didn't even vote for the guy...

Jason has the right idea in his comment: "I suggest accurate, factual, but tough and firm criticism."

Sure, you can look to the way Bush was treated by some on the left (which many of you railed about incesently) & vow to to the same to Obama & Democrats (or "almost the same, except respectfully" in a sorry effort to appear less of a hypocrite than the vow itself evidences, given all that whining), but many Americans are tired of the whole thing, and will reject anyone on any side who goes that way...

@Griper:

repsac,
you ought to read your quotes of others with understanding and present them in that way before using them to promote yourself.

Promote myself? What in hell are you talking about, Griper? (What are the chances you'll actually answer?)

I copied what the man said... It's what the site is about. It's what many Americans are about. Not compromise, but respect & understanding for those with whom you differ. Yes, folks on the left need to be more respectful, too. Of course they do... We all do.

@Tom the Redhunter:

So what does "repsac" thing [sic] our reaction should be?

Respect for other Americans. Argument, based on the merits. Less divisive namecalling & appeals to worn out labels. Seeing people left & right as individuals, rather than as groups that speak & act as one.

I took a trip to his blog, where his last post is an attack on anyone who is not happy that Obama won. Conveniently, he doesn't say what our reaction should be, or what his would have been had McCain won.

My last post was about this same 52/48 site. It isn't an attack on those who aren't happy Obama won, but an "attack" on those who prefer divisiveness to respect. It wasn't about Obama, or anyone's reaction to the election results, at all... EXCEPT... I did post two RIGHTWING bloggers reactions to the election, as examples of folks who had the right idea as regards respect for others. (So much for Tom's "wingnut" theory...)

((Any of you folks who thought the fair professor was dead wrong about McCain from the start, and only voted for the runner up in the "Worst Republican Candidate (running) in the World" contest (I know... For most of you, Ron Paul was the "worst") because you had no other choice, you'll probably like Patrick M's "Sane Political Discourse" blog, one of the two I mention... Disagreement, without being disagreeable... (unless you throw the first punch... Then all bets are off, there...))
---

Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 9:00 AM? (AmPow blog time)

In Reply: John McCain Sings Kumbaya...but some partisans refuse to join in

In Reply to: "Post-Partisan Obama Cult," a post discussing a website where Republicans and Democrats support coming together as one America after the election. (The author was not in favor, obviously.)
---

"I urge all Americans ... I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited." - John McCain

---

Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 8:00 AM (his blog time)