A True Lefty Leaves The Left

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,827
1,790
This is so coherent, one cannot help wonder what took him so long to figure it out!

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/22/INGUNCQHKJ1.DTL


Leaving the left
I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity
- Keith Thompson
Sunday, May 22, 2005


Nightfall, Jan. 30. Eight-million Iraqi voters have finished risking their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism. Three things happen in rapid succession. The right cheers. The left demurs. I walk away from a long-term intimate relationship. I'm separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.

I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.

I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode.

My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.


Like many others who came of age politically in the 1960s, I became adept at not taking the measure of the left's mounting incoherence. To face it directly posed the danger that I would have to describe it accurately, first to myself and then to others. That could only give aid and comfort to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and all the other Usual Suspects the left so regularly employs to keep from seeing its own reflection in the mirror.

Now, I find myself in a swirling metamorphosis. Think Kafka, without the bug. Think Kuhnian paradigm shift, without the buzz. Every anomaly that didn't fit my perceptual set is suddenly back, all the more glaring for so long ignored. The insistent inner voice I learned to suppress now has my rapt attention. "Something strange -- something approaching pathological -- something entirely of its own making -- has the left in its grip," the voice whispers. "How did this happen?" The Iraqi election is my tipping point. The time has come to walk in a different direction -- just as I did many years before...

Lots more, really worth reading...
 
After reading this several times, I had to post a bit more. This story seems so close to my own, though I was a bit younger-I did change much more quickly:

A turning point came at a dinner party on the day Ronald Reagan famously described the Soviet Union as the pre-eminent source of evil in the modern world. The general tenor of the evening was that Reagan's use of the word "evil" had moved the world closer to annihilation. There was a palpable sense that we might not make it to dessert.

When I casually offered that the surviving relatives of the more than 20 million people murdered on orders of Joseph Stalin might not find "evil'" too strong a word, the room took on a collective bemused smile of the sort you might expect if someone had casually mentioned taking up child molestation for sport.

My progressive companions had a point. It was rude to bring a word like "gulag" to the dinner table.


I look back on that experience as the beginning of my departure from a left already well on its way to losing its bearings. Two decades later, I watched with astonishment as leading left intellectuals launched a telethon- like body count of civilian deaths caused by American soldiers in Afghanistan. Their premise was straightforward, almost giddily so: When the number of civilian Afghani deaths surpassed the carnage of Sept. 11, the war would be unjust, irrespective of other considerations.

Stated simply: The force wielded by democracies in self-defense was declared morally equivalent to the nihilistic aggression perpetuated by Muslim fanatics.

Susan Sontag cleared her throat for the "courage" of the al Qaeda pilots. Norman Mailer pronounced the dead of Sept. 11 comparable to "automobile statistics." The events of that day were likely premeditated by the White House, Gore Vidal insinuated. Noam Chomsky insisted that al Qaeda at its most atrocious generated no terror greater than American foreign policy on a mediocre day.

All of this came back to me as I watched the left's anemic, smirking response to Iraq's election in January. Didn't many of these same people stand up in the sixties for self-rule for oppressed people and against fascism in any guise? Yes, and to their lasting credit. But many had since made clear that they had also changed their minds about the virtues of King's call for equal of opportunity.

These days the postmodern left demands that government and private institutions guarantee equality of outcomes. Any racial or gender "disparities" are to be considered evidence of culpable bias, regardless of factors such as personal motivation, training, and skill. This goal is neither liberal nor progressive; but it is what the left has chosen. In a very real sense it may be the last card held by a movement increasingly ensnared in resentful questing for group-specific rights and the subordination of citizenship to group identity. There's a word for this: pathetic.

I smile when friends tell me I've "moved right." I laugh out loud at what now passes for progressive on the main lines of the cultural left.

In the name of "diversity," the University of Arizona has forbidden discrimination based on "individual style." The University of Connecticut has banned "inappropriately directed laughter." Brown University, sensing unacceptable gray areas, warns that harassment "may be intentional or unintentional and still constitute harassment." (Yes, we're talking "subconscious harassment" here. We're watching your thoughts ...).

[...still lots more...]
 
to the right. Much akin to the author of that op-ed. He was right on. To be a liberal today is to be against the individual truly sad, pathetic.
 
ThomasPaine said:
to the right. Much akin to the author of that op-ed. He was right on. To be a liberal today is to be against the individual truly sad, pathetic.

Same here, I do wonder how it took him so long?
 
You are correct kattianne, the opinion expressed by the writer is coherent but that doesn't make it factual does it? That should persumably make it easier to see its misstatements and lies and blather so I'm bewildered that you would agree with it!!???

I don't see how for instance the writer can suggest that "the left" is bad because he states that this mysterious "left" doesn't celebrate that Iraq has suddenly become a democracy and Iraqis have defeated the fascists and bravely gone to the polls to vote.

I am a member of the left and I don't celebrate because I know who the power is in Iraq and it is not the Iraqi people. The ones who are running Iraq are its occupiers. duh It works in Iraq like it works in the US. You vote but it doesn't matter who you vote for because Bush wins.

The writer of that article expressed his opinion. You agree with it. That proves only that you have no powers of discrimination.

I will grant you that there is a phenomonon in the US where someone such as Donna Brazil - I am only using her as an example - can go on a program such as Crossfire and take the chair on the left. She supposedly opposes whatever is said by the person in the chair on the right and this is what passes for public debate and opposition. Therefore it is easy for someone like the person who wrote that article to portray or suggest a "left" and then proceed to define what it supposedly represents or thinks or does.

The truth is that whenever Donna Brazil or anyone else goes on tv and offers an opinion they are merely offering their opinion and cannot speak for anyone else and certainly cannot speak on behalf of the people of a whole party.

I can see however how you could be fooled by these tactics because as a matter of fact the right is one big glob where everyone walks in lockstep and speaks as one. You just demonstrated how that works by presenting the article and agreeing with it in spite of its outright lies and misrepresentations regarding the facts and truth.

At first members of the glob were claiming that Saddam had WMD and we had to defend ourselves from him. Remember? Now you are saying we've successfully given Iraqis Democracy at the very moment we occupy their country and they can do nothing to stop us from taking their oil. The last I heard they want us out of their country but their votes don't seem to count for much.

Please don't dump on me because I am unable to play such ungodly games. I would never subject myself to appearing to be that lame brained.

What has happened here is that in America there are regions where our powerful media exist and there are regions where people farm and work and don't get on tv very much. In NYC and CA there are ethnic liberals who have all the access to media and they are the ones targeted by the propaganda in that article and presented as representing the views of all Democrats. They are the ones used to make liberal into a four letter word. As a matter of fact I don't like them too much myself. They certainly don't speak for me.

FYI there is no "left" that refused to celebrate the "election" in Iraq. There was no geniune election in Iraq. If you give it a little thought you might realize that the only murderous thug who is committing the killing of innocent and defenseless people is the one the writer of this article is proping up.

Surely you know of the famous photo online of Saddam shaking hands with Rumsfeld, google it. Reagan gave Saddam his WMD and Rumsfeld was in Baghdad telling Saddam where the Iranians were so he could slaughter them - Reagan, to the extent that it can be said of him that he actually was aware and knew anything, knew that Saddam was killing Kurds and others.

I always wonder with people such as yourself how much you actually know and how much you are willing to pretend. I cannot believe you can be so challenged mentally that you think we had to slaughter Iraqis in order to save them. We have just committed a holocaust against these people.

George Orwell is the only answer that comes to mind when I come across articles such as the one you presented.
 
yeula said:
You are correct kattianne, the opinion expressed by the writer is coherent but that doesn't make it factual does it? That should persumably make it easier to see its misstatements and lies and blather so I'm bewildered that you would agree with it!!???
Wonderful, enlighten me!
I don't see how for instance the writer can suggest that "the left" is bad because he states that this mysterious "left" doesn't celebrate that Iraq has suddenly become a democracy and Iraqis have defeated the fascists and bravely gone to the polls to vote.

I am a member of the left and I don't celebrate because I know who the power is in Iraq and it is not the Iraqi people. The ones who are running Iraq are its occupiers. duh It works in Iraq like it works in the US. You vote but it doesn't matter who you vote for because Bush wins.
Oh good, you are going to link to your sources, right? You forgot, I'm sure.
The writer of that article expressed his opinion. You agree with it. That proves only that you have no powers of discrimination.
(You mean what by this? Surely you are assuming I'll fall into your logical fallacy, which I'm sure was unintentional...)

I will grant you that there is a phenomonon in the US where someone such as Donna Brazil - I am only using her as an example - can go on a program such as Crossfire and take the chair on the left. She supposedly opposes whatever is said by the person in the chair on the right and this is what passes for public debate and opposition. Therefore it is easy for someone like the person who wrote that article to portray or suggest a "left" and then proceed to define what it supposedly represents or thinks or does.

The truth is that whenever Donna Brazil or anyone else goes on tv and offers an opinion they are merely offering their opinion and cannot speak for anyone else and certainly cannot speak on behalf of the people of a whole party.

I can see however how you could be fooled by these tactics because as a matter of fact the right is one big glob where everyone walks in lockstep and speaks as one. You just demonstrated how that works by presenting the article and agreeing with it in spite of its outright lies and misrepresentations regarding the facts and truth.
Ok, beginning to think the 'benefit of the doubt' is not in order here. :laugh: Yep, just beginning to think. You-'the left' are individuals. I-'the right' are a blob and in lockstep! :rolleyes: May I suggest the religion forum/creationism/schiavo threads for your perusal?
At first members of the glob were claiming that Saddam had WMD and we had to defend ourselves from him. Remember? Now you are saying we've successfully given Iraqis Democracy at the very moment we occupy their country and they can do nothing to stop us from taking their oil. The last I heard they want us out of their country but their votes don't seem to count for much.
Interesting indeed, since those claims were not made and all the spin in the world will not make it so. See this:
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/01/Animminentbiglie.shtmlThen of course there are these:

On this incident:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbi...00405030839.asp

On this incident and more:
http://www.milnet.com/Threat-From-Syria.html
Please don't dump on me because I am unable to play such ungodly games. I would never subject myself to appearing to be that lame brained.
Trust me, you don't have to worry about appearances here.
What has happened here is that in America there are regions where our powerful media exist and there are regions where people farm and work and don't get on tv very much. In NYC and CA there are ethnic liberals
Why do I get the feeling you mean 'The Joos'?
who have all the access to media and they are the ones targeted by the propaganda in that article and presented as representing the views of all Democrats. They are the ones used to make liberal into a four letter word. As a matter of fact I don't like them too much myself. They certainly don't speak for me.

FYI there is no "left" that refused to celebrate the "election" in Iraq. There was no geniune election in Iraq. If you give it a little thought you might realize that the only murderous thug who is committing the killing of innocent and defenseless people is the one the writer of this article is proping up.
Interesting, I heard not one word from him in favor of GW. My guess, he voted for Kerry and would vote more for someone in favor of abortion and many other anti-GW stands, whom I am assuming you mean, as I doubt you are arguing for Saddam.
Surely you know of the famous photo online of Saddam shaking hands with Rumsfeld, google it. Reagan gave Saddam his WMD and Rumsfeld was in Baghdad telling Saddam where the Iranians were so he could slaughter them - Reagan, to the extent that it can be said of him that he actually was aware and knew anything, knew that Saddam was killing Kurds and others.
check this out: http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/timmerman.htm and there is this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forum...ghlight=supplied+saddam+france+germany+russia and there is this one, that shows where US has been since 1989:

http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/nsg.html
I always wonder with people such as yourself how much you actually know and how much you are willing to pretend. I cannot believe you can be so challenged mentally that you think we had to slaughter Iraqis in order to save them. We have just committed a holocaust against these people.

George Orwell is the only answer that comes to mind when I come across articles such as the one you presented.
Another logic fallacy, you are a loser!
 
Excellent post. I'd recommend but i have to spread it around more first. I think for every former writer on the left saying things there are probably a dozen or more people on the left who have already jumped ship.

The fact is those that claim to be advocating Democracy have done everything to stand in our way of helping the Aghanis and Iraqis from having their own elections and have been talking down our efforts to free oppressed nations.

It's also sad that those who claim to be for the individual are so opposed to tax relief for individuals.

It's sad that those who claim to be for choice are so set against people having choice in their retirement and in which school they send their children to.

It's sad that those claiming to be for minorities and women are so against competant minority and female judges being on the federal bench simply because a Republican President nominated them.

It's sad that those who yell and scream about our troops killing those who strive to oppress and murder us and yet they don't hesitate to kill an innocent child because the child would be inconvenient for a man and a woman to take responsibility for their actions.

The left today is nothing but a bunch of contradictions. The decade of illusion ended on 911 when the American people awoke to find the world alot different than what they were lead to believe. Let's just hope they stay awake.
 
Avatar4321 said:
Excellent post. I'd recommend but i have to spread it around more first. I think for every former writer on the left saying things there are probably a dozen or more people on the left who have already jumped ship.

The fact is those that claim to be advocating Democracy have done everything to stand in our way of helping the Aghanis and Iraqis from having their own elections and have been talking down our efforts to free oppressed nations.

It's also sad that those who claim to be for the individual are so opposed to tax relief for individuals.

It's sad that those who claim to be for choice are so set against people having choice in their retirement and in which school they send their children to.

It's sad that those claiming to be for minorities and women are so against competant minority and female judges being on the federal bench simply because a Republican President nominated them.

It's sad that those who yell and scream about our troops killing those who strive to oppress and murder us and yet they don't hesitate to kill an innocent child because the child would be inconvenient for a man and a woman to take responsibility for their actions.

The left today is nothing but a bunch of contradictions. The decade of illusion ended on 911 when the American people awoke to find the world alot different than what they were lead to believe. Let's just hope they stay awake.

Thanks Avatar. I am not as worried about the left as about the right. Seems most of them have forgotten 9/11 and are concentrating on their own agendas. Hope that doesn't effect what's coming out of the administration, none of it will matter then.
 
Kathianne said:
Same here, I do wonder how it took him so long?

well, men usually take longer to grow up than women... :tng:

this article rings true. when i actually started listening to conservative ideas without being able to respond (i.e. the radio, tv, print, etc.) and actually taking in what they were saying, my logic-based mind told me they actually made sense and I agreed with a lot of their same statements and ideas. I had been the ideal posterchild for liberal brainwashing because i was your typical liberal know-it-all teenager, and young adult.

as time went on, i finally abandoned the left all together, and registered as a republican for elections. i don't agree with EVERYTHING the right believes, but about 85% of everything.
 
kathianne occassionally posting a link to make a point is fine but I usually don't click links. If you cannot make your points yourself then why should I click on one of your rightwing propaganda sources.

You should also learn to spell jews. When david brock published his book "blinded by the right" he stated that his father moved the family to texas and everyone there looked like albinos. I don't see how that statement is any different then my statement about ethnic people in NYC and CA. That sort of thing works both ways.
 
yeula said:
kathianne occassionally posting a link to make a point is fine but I usually don't click links. If you cannot make your points yourself then why should I click on one of your rightwing propaganda sources.

You should also learn to spell jews. When david brock published his book "blinded by the right" he stated that his father moved the family to texas and everyone there looked like albinos. I don't see how that statement is any different then my statement about ethnic people in NYC and CA. That sort of thing works both ways.


Posting a link usually shows that you haven't made up any points off the top of your head. Sometimes the article is posted for others to discuss if they want. What's the big deal?
 
Said1 said:
Posting a link usually shows that you haven't made up any points off the top of your head. Sometimes the article is posted for others to discuss if they want. What's the big deal?


Well, when you're trying to throw out a bunch of half-baked tripe, it's damned inconvenient!
 
yeula said:
kathianne occassionally posting a link to make a point is fine but I usually don't click links. If you cannot make your points yourself then why should I click on one of your rightwing propaganda sources.

You should also learn to spell jews. When david brock published his book "blinded by the right" he stated that his father moved the family to texas and everyone there looked like albinos. I don't see how that statement is any different then my statement about ethnic people in NYC and CA. That sort of thing works both ways.


People regularly request links to assertions. This makes it so people can view your source and judge whether it is a viable source or directly leaning in some direction that makes it unreliable.

You will find if you simply assert something with no link, people will request your link.

If you think the link is unreliable then state why and give a better source for your opposing view. But do not judge people poorly for what will be asked of them regardless of whether you "don't usually click links".
 
yeula said:
You are correct kattianne, the opinion expressed by the writer is coherent but that doesn't make it factual does it? That should persumably make it easier to see its misstatements and lies and blather so I'm bewildered that you would agree with it!!???

I don't see how for instance the writer can suggest that "the left" is bad because he states that this mysterious "left" doesn't celebrate that Iraq has suddenly become a democracy and Iraqis have defeated the fascists and bravely gone to the polls to vote.

I am a member of the left and I don't celebrate because I know who the power is in Iraq and it is not the Iraqi people. The ones who are running Iraq are its occupiers. duh It works in Iraq like it works in the US. You vote but it doesn't matter who you vote for because Bush wins.

The writer of that article expressed his opinion. You agree with it. That proves only that you have no powers of discrimination.

I will grant you that there is a phenomonon in the US where someone such as Donna Brazil - I am only using her as an example - can go on a program such as Crossfire and take the chair on the left. She supposedly opposes whatever is said by the person in the chair on the right and this is what passes for public debate and opposition. Therefore it is easy for someone like the person who wrote that article to portray or suggest a "left" and then proceed to define what it supposedly represents or thinks or does.

The truth is that whenever Donna Brazil or anyone else goes on tv and offers an opinion they are merely offering their opinion and cannot speak for anyone else and certainly cannot speak on behalf of the people of a whole party.

I can see however how you could be fooled by these tactics because as a matter of fact the right is one big glob where everyone walks in lockstep and speaks as one. You just demonstrated how that works by presenting the article and agreeing with it in spite of its outright lies and misrepresentations regarding the facts and truth.

At first members of the glob were claiming that Saddam had WMD and we had to defend ourselves from him. Remember? Now you are saying we've successfully given Iraqis Democracy at the very moment we occupy their country and they can do nothing to stop us from taking their oil. The last I heard they want us out of their country but their votes don't seem to count for much.

Please don't dump on me because I am unable to play such ungodly games. I would never subject myself to appearing to be that lame brained.

What has happened here is that in America there are regions where our powerful media exist and there are regions where people farm and work and don't get on tv very much. In NYC and CA there are ethnic liberals who have all the access to media and they are the ones targeted by the propaganda in that article and presented as representing the views of all Democrats. They are the ones used to make liberal into a four letter word. As a matter of fact I don't like them too much myself. They certainly don't speak for me.

FYI there is no "left" that refused to celebrate the "election" in Iraq. There was no geniune election in Iraq. If you give it a little thought you might realize that the only murderous thug who is committing the killing of innocent and defenseless people is the one the writer of this article is proping up.

Surely you know of the famous photo online of Saddam shaking hands with Rumsfeld, google it. Reagan gave Saddam his WMD and Rumsfeld was in Baghdad telling Saddam where the Iranians were so he could slaughter them - Reagan, to the extent that it can be said of him that he actually was aware and knew anything, knew that Saddam was killing Kurds and others.

I always wonder with people such as yourself how much you actually know and how much you are willing to pretend. I cannot believe you can be so challenged mentally that you think we had to slaughter Iraqis in order to save them. We have just committed a holocaust against these people.

George Orwell is the only answer that comes to mind when I come across articles such as the one you presented.


I for one won't be moralized by someone who would rather have Bush in prison and Saddam frickn' Hussein running a country, then the other way around. I think here would be a better site for you:
MOD EDIT: do not post URLs to other boards from here.
Enjoy.
 
I won't be moralized - I don't blame you. Be a girl scout instead.

Why do you treat Bush like he's your mother or something? Is your idea of debate defending bush and every single thing he does?

Whatever happened to the rightwing chant "rule of law and not men"?

I must deduce from your beliefs that Bush is above "rule of law" that he is not a man. What is he? A frog.

Why don't you google Victor Ashe and bush and see what you get. I think you may be right that bush is not a man.
 
yeula said:
I won't be moralized - I don't blame you. Be a girl scout instead.

Why do you treat Bush like he's your mother or something? Is your idea of debate defending bush and every single thing he does?

Whatever happened to the rightwing chant "rule of law and not men"?

I must deduce from your beliefs that Bush is above "rule of law" that he is not a man. What is he? A frog.

Why don't you google Victor Ashe and bush and see what you get. I think you may be right that bush is not a man.

What the...oh this is fun! Let me try:

*Ahem*. Why do you feel the need to insult me by saying "be a girl scout"? Are girl scouts bad?

Whatever happened to the Democratic idea of equal rights for women?

I must deduce from your beliefs that you hate women. Which would mean you are gay.

Don't worry though, we're pretty tolerant around here.
 
I won't be moralized is inproper grammar. There is no such word as moralized. I called it a bushism. the following are examples of bushisms. go to the site and you can find links to hear the actual comments or to view them.

http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/

"It means your own money would grow better than that which the government can make it grow. And that's important."—on what private accounts could do for Social Security funds, Falls Church, Va., April 29, 2005

"But Iraq has—have got people there that are willing to kill, and they're hard-nosed killers. And we will work with the Iraqis to secure their future." —Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"Well, we've made the decision to defeat the terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them here at home. And when you engage the terrorists abroad, it causes activity and action."—Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"He understands the need for a timely write of the constitution." —on Prime Minister Iyad Allawi of Iraq, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"We expect the states to show us whether or not we're achieving simple objectives—like literacy, literacy in math, the ability to read and write."—on federal education requirements, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way."—Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

"Part of the facts is understanding we have a problem, and part of the facts is what you're going to do about it."—Kirtland, Ohio, April 15, 2005

"We have enough coal to last for 250 years, yet coal also prevents an environmental challenge." —Washington, D.C., April 20, 2005

Click here to see video of Bush's comments. The Bushism is at 19:30.
"We look forward to analyzing and working with legislation that will make—it would hope—put a free press's mind at ease that you're not being denied information you shouldn't see."
—Washington, D.C., April 14, 2005

"I understand there's a suspicion that we—we're too security-conscience."—Washington D.C., April 14, 2005

"I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the issue. I guess, it's the Mother in me." —Washington D.C., April 14, 2005
 

Forum List

Back
Top