Yesterday at American Thinker, I ran into an open letter from a recovering liberal, making amends for his past. It’s an interesting continuation of my previous post, concerning tone in the political debate as it regards liberals & conservatives. My basic contention is that, generally speaking, the left is either unwilling or incapable of engaging in a civilized, point for point debate on the issues. There are a few exceptions. My friend Lynn from church is a model for those on the left, and David Banks appears to be a regular reader of realityunwound and remains civil and well informed.

I’m not talking about snark. Snark is an acceptable tone of response, if not an occasionally irritating one. I’m talking about responses to arguments that don’t deal with issues, facts, or points at all but immediately degenerate to vile anger and baseless ad hominem attacks. Take some of the responses to my Monday post that I didn’t put in the comments section, but rather relegated to the spam folder. Here are a few snippets from bobxxxx: 

“Creation Matters” can be translated to “MAGIC Matters”. You, sir, really are nuts if you think anyone is going to be impressed by your ignorant Liars-For-Magic.

It would appear that bob disagrees with me, but he doesn’t further the debate, he’s simply rudely dismissive. In another well thought out and constructed comment, he says: 

Speaking of morons, the author of this article is an idiot and a liar. There are exactly zero competent biologists who doubt the truth of evolution. All the evidence supports it. Only Liars for Jeebus have a problem with evolution because they’re cowards who are terrified of reality.

Now, that’s compelling scientific evidence! Again, he hasn’t engaged in the conversation, he has angrily dodged the conversation and attempted to marginalize anyone who would think differently from him, with more personal attacks. Here’s my favorite: 

I have a suggestion for creationists who like to complain about name calling. If you don’t like being called a drooling idiot, why don’t you god-soaked hicks grow up and educate yourselves. Every educated person knows the basic facts of evolution are the strongest facts of science. Religious alternatives are childish fantasies and anyone who believes these insane creation myths deserves to be ridiculed. Also, anyone who tries to rename their childish belief in magic to “intelligent design” is a bloody liar who wants to destroy America’s science education. They deserve nothing but contempt. So creationists, just stop being so dishonest, and stop being so hopelessly stupid, and us educated people might stop laughing at you.

If bobxxxx is an educated person, he has failed to let any of that education leak into his posts or his thoughts, and has instead failed to achieve even the lowest level of dialogue. I wish bobxxxx were the exception. Unfortunately, he’s not. 

Which brings me back to the letter at American Thinker. Robin, the author, after apologizing to many of those impacted by her years of liberalism begins to delve into why she would switch sides:

In February of 2008, I saw a new client, a bright and sensitive young woman who came in looking like she just escaped a war zone. In some ways she had; she had innocently shared with others at her job that she voted for Hillary rather than Obama. Immediately she was being targeted for abuse that put her in fear for not only her job, but her life.

So it is not enough to be a liberal, you must be the RIGHT KIND of liberal. You didn’t hear about supports of Romney being targeted for attack by Huckabee supporters, we played the game, voted in the primaries, and then wished we had voted for someone different (McCain snark). Robin goes on:

Things went from bad to worse when Sarah Palin entered the scene. When Geraldine Ferraro ran for Vice President, there was no debasement of her character, no sexual threats. But with Palin, a full scale “wilding” ensued that chillingly reminded me of the random sexual attacks on women by gangs of men in New York. She was called every vile name in the book by both male and female liberals.

This, to me, was the great question of the campaign. Where were the feminists in support of a woman rising to the top? Light bulbs should go on, radical leftist feminism isn’t about advancement of women, it’s about destruction of the system. Sarah Palin was a threat, despite her gender, so she was fair game. The mask came off, and I hope people noticed.

Actress Sarah Bernhardt hoped a gang of black males would rape her.

Remember that? What would the response have been had Dennis Miller hoped that Michelle Obama would suffer the same fate by a gang of skin heads?

The final straw for me was when a close friend flew into a rage at me when she learned I wasn’t supporting Obama. The political became personal when she began impugning my character. Worse yet, she tried to intimidate me into changing my mind by threatening to dump me.

President Obama ran on promises to change the tone in Washington. To a degree I don’t hold him responsible. These closed-minded biggots aren’t marching at his orders, they are slaves to their own smallishness. They are afraid of ideas, and they are aware of their inability to hold an adult conversation, so they revert to interrupting, fillibustering, and attacking any person who would differ or disagree with them.

On the other hand, President Obama and his administration hasn’t been above reproach. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs can’t help but be insulting, arrogant, and repeatedly going back to bashing his predecessors before answering serious questions about the current administration. President Obama himself has taken personal shots at Rush Limbaugh. Whether he likes or agrees with Rush (and no one would mistake that he does), the President has set the tone of discourse in this country.

Regardless of the substance of the debate, there is little hope for reconciliation in America unless we can begin to communicate. My invitation to those on the left is to engage with facts rather than attacks. Debate the veracity and merit of the issues and policy, not people.

I am proud to be a conservative, mostly because I believe conservative ideals put for the best hope for America to thrive again, politically and socially. See, no matter how much you think such and such a program will be nicer and kinder to people… it will only be as kind as the people who administer it. So far, from what I’ve see on the left, there’s not much hope for change in the current political climate from the left.

10 COMMENTS
Helen
May 13, 2009
ad

Excellent article and all too true. I applaud your courage in standing up to speak the truth. We get very little of it these days, on all fronts. It is sad, but you are correct in assessing that the left have turned into the same angry bullies that they accuse the right of being. Keep up the good work.

Kristen
May 13, 2009
ad

Hey Aaron,

Here’s my two cents:

Bad behavior, insults and general disregard for the opinions of others are not traits encompassed by one particular political group. The fact is, we can go tit for tat with examples of abhorrent behavior on both sides and we’ll probably end up even. For example, I’ve read plenty of blogs that routinely say dykes and fags are going to hell. My girlfriend and I have been verbally attacked just for walking down the street while holding hands. It’s always right wing people who are spouting this hate, but is it fair to say all, or even most, right wing people are hateful? No.

Writing a blog entry decrying an entire group of people based on the behavior of a few of it’s members is pretty unfair and doesn’t contribute to respectful discourse. After all, it seems that you’ve already made your mind up that most of us on the left are thoughtless, mean spirited jerks (w/the exceptions of a few of your friends). Why would I want to engage with anyone who has already decided I don’t know how to have a meaningful discussion?

I don’t think that was your intent. I think you honestly want to have these civil discussions. But making broad, negative generalizations about an entire group is not much of a conversation starter.

A side note- this feminist always defended Palin when she was attacked for her gender. But when she dug her own grave, I let her lie in it. Why? Because I’m a feminist. And I’d treat a male politician the same way.

Personal note- hope all is well with you and your family! : )

Kristen

May 13, 2009
ad

Hey Kristin… first it’s Jason, glad you stopped by to comment. The family is well and good.

I hear your point, and it’s well made. I’m not in any way claiming that there aren’t any morons on the right, or that that left has exclusive rights on idiocy. My thoughts are that, generally speaking, the left tends to degenerate more quickly to angry outbursts, interrupting, fillibustering, etc.

I would also contend that my post is part of a respectful discourse, since I haven’t called anyone a name, degenerated to expletives, or questioned lineage or heritage. I have simply presented and defended a case. I don’t say the left doesn’t know how to have a meaningful conversation, I say that often times, those on the left haven’t done it, and I’ve given evidence.

I would be curious to know how you feel Palin dug her own grave.

Sean
May 13, 2009
ad

Well said!

dbanks
May 13, 2009
ad

Allright, Allright. Bring on the real arguments then. Thats the fun part anyway.

Kristen
May 15, 2009
ad

Yeah, how did I mix you guys up? Well, tell Aaron I say hi. : )

On to the arguments:

I disagree that the left is inclined to behave more badly than those on the right. But I do think that the disrespect from those in power (whether it’s the right or left) are felt more sharply and noticed more quickly by those who are not politically aligned with them.
For example, republicans didn’t all of a sudden care about feminist principles. They saw the sexism only because Palin was playing for their team. (It’s amazing what we notice when we are under attack instead of when we are doing the attacking.)

If they’re genuinely interested in fighting sexism, why are women so underrepresented in the senate (13 democrats, 4 republicans) and the house (57 democrats, 17 republicans)?

Now, these figures don’t look great for the democrats, either. But it seems disingenious to start crying sexism and demand feminist action when the right has done much to minimize and malign feminists who have been fighting sexism for years.

As far as digging her own grave, the interview with Katie Couric comes to mind, as well as her inability to talk in any way besides soundbites. I mean, I can disagree with your opinions, Jason, but at least they’re thoughtfully formed and backed up.
McCain would have done better to have chosen you. Or maybe Kay Baily Hutchinson (I’m not up much on my Texas politics, but if the republicans felt they needed a woman, why not her?)

That’s my piece. Hope all is well with you, hope you’re enjoying the nice hot weather (I’m so jealous, I had to wear a sweater this morning).

May 15, 2009
ad

You said, “Republican’s don’t all of a sudden care about feminist principles. They saw the sexism only because Palin was playing for their team.” I totally disagree with that. My take is that (generally speaking, of course) male or female isn’t an issue. To make that point, I say that if sexism were an issue by those on the right, you would have seen the same kind of treatment of Geraldine Ferraro that you saw of Sarah Palin. The fact is, the right treated Ferraro MUCH differently than the left treated Palin. That is an indication of what I’m talking about.

Your point about Palin is well made. Personally, I think that was the primary mistake of the McCain campaign, and unfortunately I think it cost Sarah Palin WAY more than it did McCain, especially considering the long term. KBH is running for governor in Texas. She was actually one of the dark horses for VP in McCain’s camp.

And I’d trade your sweater for my sweaty do-rag any day!

Kristen
May 15, 2009
ad

Sexism isn’t just about how we choose to denigrate someone based on their gender. It’s also about the systemic ways in which we prevent women from achieving the same economic and political power as men. So, I’m wondering what the republican game plan for heavily recruiting, supporting, and running female candidates. If there isn’t one, it seems, again, pretty disingenious to point the finger at others. For the survival of the republican party, they should probably question why their female representation in congress is much lower than the democrats and why women are more likely to vote democratic.
And my sweater is all yours. No need to send a sweaty do-rag, though if you could mail me a good chicken fried steak with gravy that would be swell- still haven’t found a good one up here.

May 15, 2009
ad

I thought the idea was to move beyond ideas of gender, race, creed, etc. I feel like the idea is to recruit the very best, most qualified candidates, whether they be male or female. I think anything less than that is sexist. If I choose you, and you know that I have to choose X number of women, are you the most qualified candidate, or are you the most qualified woman?

I’d say the Republican Party has a pretty good track record of choosing women to significant spots… Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, Lisa Murkowski, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Sandra Day O’Conner, even Harriet Miers who didn’t fare so well. The goal shouldn’t be equal numbers of men and women, black and white, latino, etc. That’s manipulation and pandering. The goal is to get the very best person, be they male or female.

What are the systemic ways that women (African American’s, Latino’s, Homosexuals) are kept from achieving power, and why are the Democrats better than Republican’s in these regards?

Kristen
May 18, 2009
ad

I never said people should be hired based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation. But I do think our country is still in the process of undoing systems of oppression and it may be a few more generations before this is actually accomplished. Our generation is really the first generation of adults to benefit from the ideas of gender and race equality. We’d be naive to think we’ve moved beyond racism and sexism. And the representation of men vs women in congress is a pretty significant example. Sure, we can list examples of prominent women in all professions includign government as you did, but statistically, across the board women are in far fewer positions of power. Why? As far as gay people, well, it’s still legal in most states (including Texas) to fire someone for being gay. And our families are taxed differently. For example, whatever money my employer puts into my health care plan for my girlfriend is considered taxable income by the federal government for me. If we were a straight married couple, it would not be.
If I died to tomorrow, my girlfriend would not be entitled to my social security benefits. If we were a married straight couple, she would be. (This is a particularly important concern for me since my girlfriend is currently suffering from a serious yet-to-be diagnosed medical condition that has left her unable to work).
Gay people are fired from the military (including Arabic translators). These are some current examples of the systemic oppression of gay people.
Now I never said the democrats were great, but they’re apparently better than the republicans if you just look at the numbers- higher representation in congress, and more support from women voters. Why?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.