Pacifism and the Left

[PoliticalChic]

Only a rightwing nut could make the desire for peace look like a character flaw.

Clear differences in meaning are hardly, it seems, in your ken.


"desire for peace" is very different from avoiding confronting evil.




War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill

How many years were you in the military?

How many years have you been in grade school?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Clear differences in meaning are hardly, it seems, in your ken.


"desire for peace" is very different from avoiding confronting evil.




War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill

How many years were you in the military?

She's just one more example of who Remarque was symbolizing when he put the character Kantorek in All Quiet on the Western Front.

When the Nazis couldn't get Erich, they arrested his sister and beheaded her.

Nazis.

The sister philosophy to communism, liberalism, socialism, etc., etc.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many years were you in the military?

She's just one more example of who Remarque was symbolizing when he put the character Kantorek in All Quiet on the Western Front.

When the Nazis couldn't get Erich, they arrested his sister and beheaded her.

Nazis.

The sister philosophy to communism, liberalism, socialism, etc., etc.

That you would miss the point was a bonus.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The left is not uniformly anti-war but they set a pretty high bar for when it is necessary. Even the most hippy dippy liberal knows in their heart that occasionally people are so bad and so untouchable by justice that they deserve killing.

"Not uniformly..."

I'll accept that...
....but this is the Left in question:


Moral confusion of the Left is best exemplified by Michael Berg, a Green Party candidate from Delaware, whose son, Nick Berg, had his throat cut, and was decapitated by the terrorist Zarqawi. The incident became an infamous internet video. Immediately, Mr. Berg senior proclaimed that President George Bush was “more a terrorist than Zarqawi….Zarqawi felt my son’s breath on his hand as [he] held the knife against his throat. Zarqawi had to look in his eyes awhen he did it. George Bush sits there glassy-eyed in his office with pieces of paper and condemns people to death. That to me is a real terrorist. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printindividualProfile.asp?indid=2149

a. Michael Berg is a self-proclaimed, committed pacifist and a veteran anti-war activist. Ibid.

b. Soledad O'BRIEN, interviewing Berg on CNN: “No, no. And we have spoken before, and I'm well aware of that. But at some point, one would think, is there a moment when you say, 'I'm glad he's dead, the man who killed my son'? BERG: No. How can a human being be glad that another human being is dead? Beheaded man's father: Revenge breeds revenge - CNN

 

[NYcarbineer]

The left is not uniformly anti-war but they set a pretty high bar for when it is necessary. Even the most hippy dippy liberal knows in their heart that occasionally people are so bad and so untouchable by justice that they deserve killing.

"Not uniformly..."

I'll accept that...
....but this is the Left in question:


Moral confusion of the Left is best exemplified by Michael Berg, a Green Party candidate from Delaware, whose son, Nick Berg, had his throat cut, and was decapitated by the terrorist Zarqawi. The incident became an infamous internet video. Immediately, Mr. Berg senior proclaimed that President George Bush was “more a terrorist than Zarqawi….Zarqawi felt my son’s breath on his hand as [he] held the knife against his throat. Zarqawi had to look in his eyes awhen he did it. George Bush sits there glassy-eyed in his office with pieces of paper and condemns people to death. That to me is a real terrorist. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printindividualProfile.asp?indid=2149

a. Michael Berg is a self-proclaimed, committed pacifist and a veteran anti-war activist. Ibid.

b. Soledad O'BRIEN, interviewing Berg on CNN: “No, no. And we have spoken before, and I'm well aware of that. But at some point, one would think, is there a moment when you say, 'I'm glad he's dead, the man who killed my son'? BERG: No. How can a human being be glad that another human being is dead? Beheaded man's father: Revenge breeds revenge - CNN

What do you consider 'the left' exactly?

Are you trying to make a joke, coming up with Michael Berg as your 'best' representation of the left?

 

[Truthmatters]

One of my Left-wing buddies posted this in a recent thread:
"War and violence is fine with wingnuts so long as they don't have to fight it. Killing is fine and justified because you are scared. Hypocrite thy name is right wing conservative apologist for murder and death."

I thought the idea worthy of a deeper analysis....


1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.

a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”

b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.

c. Many Leftists oppose children viewing cartoons, like Bugs Bunny, that depict a stylized violence, not to mention playing with toy guns, war scenarios, or even drawing stick figures portraying violence.



2. A central theme of Leftism is pacifism, largely because no welfare state can afford a strong military. Europeans came to rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend their countries. This means that ‘equality’ trumps morality.

a. That is why Liberal elites are so confused: they venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free, decent, and prosperous America that has greater inequality of material wealth.

b. The Right regards pacifism as an accessory to evil.


3. Everything associated with the military is held in disrepute: nationalism, a strong military, honoring the military, referring to military dead as heroes. And even referring to anything as “evil.”

a. Since the end of WWII, the Left has opposed fighting almost any evil. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Left opposed military intervention. What could be more moral than opposing Saddam’s take-over of a nation, and considering the strategic importance of the area, and even the fact that the UN supported the use of the military…still, two-thirds of the House Democrats, and 46 of 56 Democrat Senators voted against the war.

b. Pacifism, the antithesis of nationalism, is a major attraction of both the United Nations and the World Court, both venerated by the Left. These vaunted institutions are opposed to all nationalism, except, of course, Palestinian.



4. The generalization of pacifism leads to the Left’s view of nationalism, and then to contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism, of an America which is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as evil, an affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian values which include support for the death penalty.



5. What is, then, the tenet that separates the Left from the Right, the Liberal from the conservative? It is simply this: by nature, is man basically good? The Leftist subscribes to the idea that a) man is, by his nature, basically good; b) the ‘Nobel Savage’ of Rousseau; c) given the correct government and laws, society can establish Utopia here, on this Earth, and now. Based on this doctrine, pacifism is logical. As is nuclear disarmament.

a. A distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.

b. Pacifism is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life. It is a form of wishful thinking.



6. The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good, in the sense of altruistic. Personal aggrandizement is a very strong element in human nature, and, therefore, there must be checks and balances, and these may include force, and, in fact, wars.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

b. The Bible cites God Himself as declaring that the “will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
Largely covered in "Still The Best Hope," Prager

she thinks its smart to see man as NOT GOOD

 

[NYcarbineer]

The left is not uniformly anti-war but they set a pretty high bar for when it is necessary. Even the most hippy dippy liberal knows in their heart that occasionally people are so bad and so untouchable by justice that they deserve killing.

"Not uniformly..."

I'll accept that...
....but this is the Left in question:


Moral confusion of the Left is best exemplified by Michael Berg, a Green Party candidate from Delaware, whose son, Nick Berg, had his throat cut, and was decapitated by the terrorist Zarqawi. The incident became an infamous internet video. Immediately, Mr. Berg senior proclaimed that President George Bush was “more a terrorist than Zarqawi….Zarqawi felt my son’s breath on his hand as [he] held the knife against his throat. Zarqawi had to look in his eyes awhen he did it. George Bush sits there glassy-eyed in his office with pieces of paper and condemns people to death. That to me is a real terrorist. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printindividualProfile.asp?indid=2149

a. Michael Berg is a self-proclaimed, committed pacifist and a veteran anti-war activist. Ibid.

b. Soledad O'BRIEN, interviewing Berg on CNN: “No, no. And we have spoken before, and I'm well aware of that. But at some point, one would think, is there a moment when you say, 'I'm glad he's dead, the man who killed my son'? BERG: No. How can a human being be glad that another human being is dead? Beheaded man's father: Revenge breeds revenge - CNN

So Michael Berg is a confused pacifist because he didn't want Zarqawi dead?

By that reasoning, any Iraqi whose family members were killed by the US in the 2003 invasion would be a 'confused' pacifist, and an object of scorn and ridicule by you,

if he did not want to see Americans killed in return for his losses.

Or, any Palestinian who had family killed by Israeli bombings etc., would be acting sensibly and rationally if he in turn went out and killed Israelis in response...

 

[Truthmatters]

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

She likes blind people because then they can not act out on their NOT GOOD nature.

She has proven the right thinks mankind is NOT GOOD.

She has stated that the republican party thinks the American people are NOT GOOD

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Right believes that man's nature is NOT inherently good, then why do they keep harping on and on about how we deserve more 'liberty'?

Liberty is the license to act according to one's nature. If one believes that one's nature is not good,

then advocating for more liberty is to advocate for the enabling of the 'not good'.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its called insanity.

they think people are NOT GOOD.

they think Corporations are made up of "special people".


Do they think CEOs are More NOT GOOD?

 

[Sky Dancer]

One of my Left-wing buddies posted this in a recent thread:
"War and violence is fine with wingnuts so long as they don't have to fight it. Killing is fine and justified because you are scared. Hypocrite thy name is right wing conservative apologist for murder and death."

I thought the idea worthy of a deeper analysis....


1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.

a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”

b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.

c. Many Leftists oppose children viewing cartoons, like Bugs Bunny, that depict a stylized violence, not to mention playing with toy guns, war scenarios, or even drawing stick figures portraying violence.



2. A central theme of Leftism is pacifism, largely because no welfare state can afford a strong military. Europeans came to rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend their countries. This means that ‘equality’ trumps morality.

a. That is why Liberal elites are so confused: they venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free, decent, and prosperous America that has greater inequality of material wealth.

b. The Right regards pacifism as an accessory to evil.


3. Everything associated with the military is held in disrepute: nationalism, a strong military, honoring the military, referring to military dead as heroes. And even referring to anything as “evil.”

a. Since the end of WWII, the Left has opposed fighting almost any evil. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Left opposed military intervention. What could be more moral than opposing Saddam’s take-over of a nation, and considering the strategic importance of the area, and even the fact that the UN supported the use of the military…still, two-thirds of the House Democrats, and 46 of 56 Democrat Senators voted against the war.

b. Pacifism, the antithesis of nationalism, is a major attraction of both the United Nations and the World Court, both venerated by the Left. These vaunted institutions are opposed to all nationalism, except, of course, Palestinian.



4. The generalization of pacifism leads to the Left’s view of nationalism, and then to contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism, of an America which is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as evil, an affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian values which include support for the death penalty.



5. What is, then, the tenet that separates the Left from the Right, the Liberal from the conservative? It is simply this: by nature, is man basically good? The Leftist subscribes to the idea that a) man is, by his nature, basically good; b) the ‘Nobel Savage’ of Rousseau; c) given the correct government and laws, society can establish Utopia here, on this Earth, and now. Based on this doctrine, pacifism is logical. As is nuclear disarmament.

a. A distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.

b. Pacifism is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life. It is a form of wishful thinking.



6. The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good, in the sense of altruistic. Personal aggrandizement is a very strong element in human nature, and, therefore, there must be checks and balances, and these may include force, and, in fact, wars.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

b. The Bible cites God Himself as declaring that the “will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
Largely covered in "Still The Best Hope," Prager

she thinks its smart to see man as NOT GOOD

That's a major philosophical difference. Are humans pure from the beginning or flawed from the beginning?

And what, if anything, does political stance, (left or right) have to do with morality?

What I can see is different with me and some other people morally, is that some believe man is inherently evil whereas I believe in essential goodness.

Also, there is difference between people who are moral absolutist and those who aren't.

Buddhists have precepts to follow, and one is not to kill. Nonetheless, a moral absolutist would say a woman should NEVER have an abortion, even if her life is in danger. A moral relativist would say, that while killing is wrong, letting a woman die so the fetus can be born may not be wise.

There is always the consideration of wisdom. It is not just rules, but how the rules are applied.

Non-violence as a moral value. That would mean favoring non-violent resistance for social change as demonstrated by Gandhi and MLK. The essential question of the OP has to do with moral absolutism, which the OP identifies with the right, her side. Whereas, moral relativism, would allow someone to see the evil in Bush starting a war without good cause. We may differ in what we consider a greater evil.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One of my Left-wing buddies posted this in a recent thread:
"War and violence is fine with wingnuts so long as they don't have to fight it. Killing is fine and justified because you are scared. Hypocrite thy name is right wing conservative apologist for murder and death."

I thought the idea worthy of a deeper analysis....


1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.

a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”

b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.

c. Many Leftists oppose children viewing cartoons, like Bugs Bunny, that depict a stylized violence, not to mention playing with toy guns, war scenarios, or even drawing stick figures portraying violence.



2. A central theme of Leftism is pacifism, largely because no welfare state can afford a strong military. Europeans came to rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend their countries. This means that ‘equality’ trumps morality.

a. That is why Liberal elites are so confused: they venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free, decent, and prosperous America that has greater inequality of material wealth.

b. The Right regards pacifism as an accessory to evil.


3. Everything associated with the military is held in disrepute: nationalism, a strong military, honoring the military, referring to military dead as heroes. And even referring to anything as “evil.”

a. Since the end of WWII, the Left has opposed fighting almost any evil. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Left opposed military intervention. What could be more moral than opposing Saddam’s take-over of a nation, and considering the strategic importance of the area, and even the fact that the UN supported the use of the military…still, two-thirds of the House Democrats, and 46 of 56 Democrat Senators voted against the war.

b. Pacifism, the antithesis of nationalism, is a major attraction of both the United Nations and the World Court, both venerated by the Left. These vaunted institutions are opposed to all nationalism, except, of course, Palestinian.



4. The generalization of pacifism leads to the Left’s view of nationalism, and then to contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism, of an America which is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as evil, an affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian values which include support for the death penalty.



5. What is, then, the tenet that separates the Left from the Right, the Liberal from the conservative? It is simply this: by nature, is man basically good? The Leftist subscribes to the idea that a) man is, by his nature, basically good; b) the ‘Nobel Savage’ of Rousseau; c) given the correct government and laws, society can establish Utopia here, on this Earth, and now. Based on this doctrine, pacifism is logical. As is nuclear disarmament.

a. A distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.

b. Pacifism is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life. It is a form of wishful thinking.



6. The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good, in the sense of altruistic. Personal aggrandizement is a very strong element in human nature, and, therefore, there must be checks and balances, and these may include force, and, in fact, wars.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

b. The Bible cites God Himself as declaring that the “will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
Largely covered in "Still The Best Hope," Prager

she thinks its smart to see man as NOT GOOD

That's a major philosophical difference. Are humans pure from the beginning or flawed from the beginning?

And what, if anything, does political stance, (left or right) have to do with morality?

What I can see is different with me and some other people morally, is that some believe man is inherently evil whereas I believe in essential goodness.

Also, there is difference between people who are moral absolutist and those who aren't.

Buddhists have precepts to follow, and one is not to kill. Nonetheless, a moral absolutist would say a woman should NEVER have an abortion, even if her life is in danger. A moral relativist would say, that while killing is wrong, letting a woman die so the fetus can be born may not be wise.

There is always the consideration of wisdom. It is not just rules, but how the rules are applied.

Non-violence as a moral value. That would mean favoring non-violent resistance for social change as demonstrated by Gandhi and MLK. The essential question of the OP has to do with moral absolutism, which the OP identifies with the right, her side. Whereas, moral relativism, would allow someone to see the evil in Bush starting a war without good cause. We may differ in what we consider a greater evil.

1. Non-violence falls victim to the 'law of the jungle' unless there are folks who recognize, confront, and use violence to protect the weak, such as you.

a. "People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf."
Attributed to Churchill

2. Human nature is hardly "good" anymore than any other animal's nature is good.
I recommend you pick up a copy of Desmond Morris's "The Naked Ape."

3. The difference is that the Creator has given intelligence to mankind, not granted to other living things.
Based on this intelligence, we are able to set up government based on checks and balances so as to restrain human nature.
Liberals have yet to understand this....
...see Ms. Truthie's posts.

4. Gandhi and MLK?
I hope you have merely overlooked the author of "On Civil Disobedience," the American author Henry David Thoreau...1849.
You haven't read it?

The silliness you suggest in "Non-violence as a moral value" must be based on the opponent against which you attempt to use 'non-violence' or civil disobedience....

Gandhi faced the civilized British. European Jewry faced the barbaric Nazis.

Get a grip.

 

[Polk]

You look so nice in that outfit....pity I'm forced to grind you to dust....

1. While there are folks who endorse a myriad of positions, even Liberal Democrats who were anti-communist during the 50's....
Even so, it would be difficult for you to deny that the general position of Liberals, Democrats, were anti-anti-communist. Did you read Kangor's "Dupes"?

To this day they rail against the hero Senator McCarthy, and, without the evidence of the Venona Files, would still deny that Hiss, the Rosenbergs, et.al. were paid agents of the Soviet Union.

Care to argue that?
Didn't think so.

2.Now, as for the veracity of the OP, I note you didn't pick out specifics in the OP with which to contend....
...the reason is obvious.

a. "...the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” ..."

b. they despise any " sign of militarism,"...need I provide a copy of the Colonel Holmes letter?

c. how about "oppose children viewing cartoons, like Bugs Bunny, that depict a stylized violence, not to mention playing with toy guns, war scenarios, or even drawing stick figures portraying violence."
Need news articles about children being suspended for said drawings...?

d. How about the Chris Hayes incident..."referring to military dead as heroes."



3. Now, since all the specifics are provable....if I were you, I'd look to spin the analysis, such as

a. "Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil"

or

b. the Left's discomfort with "traditional Judeo-Christian values..."

or

c. "The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good,..."

I think 'c.' is your best shot.
Here, this might help:


In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
-http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html

You could try to say that the Left merely sees mankind as perfectible....

Just tryin' to help...

I'll focus on the Chris Hayes incident, since someone else already pointed out that the backlash against violent in cartoons/media generally came from the right.

What exactly was so outrageous about the comment Hayes made? He said using the term "hero" can often times bleed from crediting people for their service to claiming that war is a necessity. And guess what? That's absolutely true. Look at countless numbers of threads here, and you'll see conservatives claiming liberals "hate the troops" because they don't see a particular military intervention as worthwhile.

I'd go one step further on the "hero" question though. The idea that everyone who has served in the military is a "hero" is complete rubbish. If everyone who serves is a "hero", we've turned the word into a meaningless catchphrase that degrades the service of those who have performed true acts of heroism (rescuing a wounded comrade from enemy fire, falling on a grenade to save the rest of the unit). On the flip side, not everyone who has ever put on the uniform is a saint. There are tons of people who served in the military while also having drug problems, or beating their spouse, or any number of other terrible things. Are they great human beings in spite of that because of their chosen line of work? It's a noble sacrifice to serve, especially in a period where the nation is in a conflict and there is no draft, but making that choice doesn't absolve people of responsibility for the other actions they commit.

"The idea that everyone who has served in the military is a "hero" is complete rubbish. If everyone who serves is a "hero", we've turned the word into a meaningless catchphrase that degrades the service of those who have performed true acts of heroism (rescuing a wounded comrade from enemy fire, falling on a grenade to save the rest of the unit). "

1. While there is no argument here about 'everyone...." what you are revealing is that Hayes is admitting that he is on the same page as the Left which is exactly what the OP suggests....

a. I'm going to accept the veracity of the stories about soldiers being spit upon after the Vietnam War, although I wasn't around at the time...

b. ...and this: "... for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam....No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose,..."
Bill Clinton's Draft Letter | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

That was the language used by Bill Clinton about the military, and, by extension, the members of same.
Yours is too nuanced a position...

I suggest that in the argument at hand, there are only two choices, the above, or the idea that our volunteers are heroes. They are the extremes, but they are the positions that exist in this debate.

Based on that idea, Chris' words resonate with the former...and open a wound.
Many folks felt that...MSNBC felt the heat, as did Chris Hayes, himself. Thus, his apology.


"What exactly was so outrageous about the comment Hayes made?"
He told the truth, as it is seen form a Leftist perspective.
This is why you don't see it as outrageous.

But those on the Left, wiser than you, do.

Why are those the only two positions? It's a false dichotomy so you can smear everyone that doesn't support your hyper-militaristic position as "hating the troops".

And I don't see why you should accept claims that soldiers returning from Vietnam being spit on, since there is pretty strong evidence they're false. It's interesting to note they didn't appear in decades after the fact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One of my Left-wing buddies posted this in a recent thread:
"War and violence is fine with wingnuts so long as they don't have to fight it. Killing is fine and justified because you are scared. Hypocrite thy name is right wing conservative apologist for murder and death."

I thought the idea worthy of a deeper analysis....


1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.

a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”

b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.

c. Many Leftists oppose children viewing cartoons, like Bugs Bunny, that depict a stylized violence, not to mention playing with toy guns, war scenarios, or even drawing stick figures portraying violence.



2. A central theme of Leftism is pacifism, largely because no welfare state can afford a strong military. Europeans came to rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend their countries. This means that ‘equality’ trumps morality.

a. That is why Liberal elites are so confused: they venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free, decent, and prosperous America that has greater inequality of material wealth.

b. The Right regards pacifism as an accessory to evil.


3. Everything associated with the military is held in disrepute: nationalism, a strong military, honoring the military, referring to military dead as heroes. And even referring to anything as “evil.”

a. Since the end of WWII, the Left has opposed fighting almost any evil. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Left opposed military intervention. What could be more moral than opposing Saddam’s take-over of a nation, and considering the strategic importance of the area, and even the fact that the UN supported the use of the military…still, two-thirds of the House Democrats, and 46 of 56 Democrat Senators voted against the war.

b. Pacifism, the antithesis of nationalism, is a major attraction of both the United Nations and the World Court, both venerated by the Left. These vaunted institutions are opposed to all nationalism, except, of course, Palestinian.



4. The generalization of pacifism leads to the Left’s view of nationalism, and then to contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism, of an America which is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as evil, an affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian values which include support for the death penalty.



5. What is, then, the tenet that separates the Left from the Right, the Liberal from the conservative? It is simply this: by nature, is man basically good? The Leftist subscribes to the idea that a) man is, by his nature, basically good; b) the ‘Nobel Savage’ of Rousseau; c) given the correct government and laws, society can establish Utopia here, on this Earth, and now. Based on this doctrine, pacifism is logical. As is nuclear disarmament.

a. A distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.

b. Pacifism is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life. It is a form of wishful thinking.



6. The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good, in the sense of altruistic. Personal aggrandizement is a very strong element in human nature, and, therefore, there must be checks and balances, and these may include force, and, in fact, wars.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

b. The Bible cites God Himself as declaring that the “will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
Largely covered in "Still The Best Hope," Prager

she thinks its smart to see man as NOT GOOD

That's a major philosophical difference. Are humans pure from the beginning or flawed from the beginning?

And what, if anything, does political stance, (left or right) have to do with morality?

What I can see is different with me and some other people morally, is that some believe man is inherently evil whereas I believe in essential goodness.

Also, there is difference between people who are moral absolutist and those who aren't.

Buddhists have precepts to follow, and one is not to kill. Nonetheless, a moral absolutist would say a woman should NEVER have an abortion, even if her life is in danger. A moral relativist would say, that while killing is wrong, letting a woman die so the fetus can be born may not be wise.

There is always the consideration of wisdom. It is not just rules, but how the rules are applied.

Non-violence as a moral value. That would mean favoring non-violent resistance for social change as demonstrated by Gandhi and MLK. The essential question of the OP has to do with moral absolutism, which the OP identifies with the right, her side. Whereas, moral relativism, would allow someone to see the evil in Bush starting a war without good cause. We may differ in what we consider a greater evil.

Don't confuse the OP's verbosity with complexity, or god forbid, insight.

What the OP does is set up a simple strawman and knock it down.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll focus on the Chris Hayes incident, since someone else already pointed out that the backlash against violent in cartoons/media generally came from the right.

What exactly was so outrageous about the comment Hayes made? He said using the term "hero" can often times bleed from crediting people for their service to claiming that war is a necessity. And guess what? That's absolutely true. Look at countless numbers of threads here, and you'll see conservatives claiming liberals "hate the troops" because they don't see a particular military intervention as worthwhile.

I'd go one step further on the "hero" question though. The idea that everyone who has served in the military is a "hero" is complete rubbish. If everyone who serves is a "hero", we've turned the word into a meaningless catchphrase that degrades the service of those who have performed true acts of heroism (rescuing a wounded comrade from enemy fire, falling on a grenade to save the rest of the unit). On the flip side, not everyone who has ever put on the uniform is a saint. There are tons of people who served in the military while also having drug problems, or beating their spouse, or any number of other terrible things. Are they great human beings in spite of that because of their chosen line of work? It's a noble sacrifice to serve, especially in a period where the nation is in a conflict and there is no draft, but making that choice doesn't absolve people of responsibility for the other actions they commit.

"The idea that everyone who has served in the military is a "hero" is complete rubbish. If everyone who serves is a "hero", we've turned the word into a meaningless catchphrase that degrades the service of those who have performed true acts of heroism (rescuing a wounded comrade from enemy fire, falling on a grenade to save the rest of the unit). "

1. While there is no argument here about 'everyone...." what you are revealing is that Hayes is admitting that he is on the same page as the Left which is exactly what the OP suggests....

a. I'm going to accept the veracity of the stories about soldiers being spit upon after the Vietnam War, although I wasn't around at the time...

b. ...and this: "... for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam....No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose,..."
Bill Clinton's Draft Letter | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

That was the language used by Bill Clinton about the military, and, by extension, the members of same.
Yours is too nuanced a position...

I suggest that in the argument at hand, there are only two choices, the above, or the idea that our volunteers are heroes. They are the extremes, but they are the positions that exist in this debate.

Based on that idea, Chris' words resonate with the former...and open a wound.
Many folks felt that...MSNBC felt the heat, as did Chris Hayes, himself. Thus, his apology.


"What exactly was so outrageous about the comment Hayes made?"
He told the truth, as it is seen form a Leftist perspective.
This is why you don't see it as outrageous.

But those on the Left, wiser than you, do.

Why are those the only two positions? It's a false dichotomy so you can smear everyone that doesn't support your hyper-militaristic position as "hating the troops".

And I don't see why you should accept claims that soldiers returning from Vietnam being spit on, since there is pretty strong evidence they're false. It's interesting to note they didn't appear in decades after the fact.

This is a philosophical debate with political consequences.

You choose either of the extreme positions, just as you choose one of two major party candidates.

You may choose some other position, but, as when one votes third party, it is meaningless.

"It's a false dichotomy so you can smear ...."
Not false, it represents the political reality.

You consider it a smear, because you are closer to a position that is indefensible.

 

[NYcarbineer]

she thinks its smart to see man as NOT GOOD

That's a major philosophical difference. Are humans pure from the beginning or flawed from the beginning?

And what, if anything, does political stance, (left or right) have to do with morality?

What I can see is different with me and some other people morally, is that some believe man is inherently evil whereas I believe in essential goodness.

Also, there is difference between people who are moral absolutist and those who aren't.

Buddhists have precepts to follow, and one is not to kill. Nonetheless, a moral absolutist would say a woman should NEVER have an abortion, even if her life is in danger. A moral relativist would say, that while killing is wrong, letting a woman die so the fetus can be born may not be wise.

There is always the consideration of wisdom. It is not just rules, but how the rules are applied.

Non-violence as a moral value. That would mean favoring non-violent resistance for social change as demonstrated by Gandhi and MLK. The essential question of the OP has to do with moral absolutism, which the OP identifies with the right, her side. Whereas, moral relativism, would allow someone to see the evil in Bush starting a war without good cause. We may differ in what we consider a greater evil.

1. Non-violence falls victim to the 'law of the jungle' unless there are folks who recognize, confront, and use violence to protect the weak, such as you.

a. "People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf."
Attributed to Churchill

2. Human nature is hardly "good" anymore than any other animal's nature is good.
I recommend you pick up a copy of Desmond Morris's "The Naked Ape."

3. The difference is that the Creator has given intelligence to mankind, not granted to other living things.
Based on this intelligence, we are able to set up government based on checks and balances so as to restrain human nature.
Liberals have yet to understand this....
...see Ms. Truthie's posts.

4. Gandhi and MLK?
I hope you have merely overlooked the author of "On Civil Disobedience," the American author Henry David Thoreau...1849.
You haven't read it?

The silliness you suggest in "Non-violence as a moral value" must be based on the opponent against which you attempt to use 'non-violence' or civil disobedience....

Gandhi faced the civilized British. European Jewry faced the barbaric Nazis.

Get a grip.

Why can't you identify to us the 'left' that you're talking about?

Everyone knows there's a tiny percentage of the American population, or the human population for that matter,

who are pacifists to an extreme. Our own system even provides for conscientious objection exemptions in times of wars.

 

[PoliticalChic]

she thinks its smart to see man as NOT GOOD

That's a major philosophical difference. Are humans pure from the beginning or flawed from the beginning?

And what, if anything, does political stance, (left or right) have to do with morality?

What I can see is different with me and some other people morally, is that some believe man is inherently evil whereas I believe in essential goodness.

Also, there is difference between people who are moral absolutist and those who aren't.

Buddhists have precepts to follow, and one is not to kill. Nonetheless, a moral absolutist would say a woman should NEVER have an abortion, even if her life is in danger. A moral relativist would say, that while killing is wrong, letting a woman die so the fetus can be born may not be wise.

There is always the consideration of wisdom. It is not just rules, but how the rules are applied.

Non-violence as a moral value. That would mean favoring non-violent resistance for social change as demonstrated by Gandhi and MLK. The essential question of the OP has to do with moral absolutism, which the OP identifies with the right, her side. Whereas, moral relativism, would allow someone to see the evil in Bush starting a war without good cause. We may differ in what we consider a greater evil.

Don't confuse the OP's verbosity with complexity, or god forbid, insight.

What the OP does is set up a simple strawman and knock it down.

"God" is capitalized.

 

[Polk]

"The idea that everyone who has served in the military is a "hero" is complete rubbish. If everyone who serves is a "hero", we've turned the word into a meaningless catchphrase that degrades the service of those who have performed true acts of heroism (rescuing a wounded comrade from enemy fire, falling on a grenade to save the rest of the unit). "

1. While there is no argument here about 'everyone...." what you are revealing is that Hayes is admitting that he is on the same page as the Left which is exactly what the OP suggests....

a. I'm going to accept the veracity of the stories about soldiers being spit upon after the Vietnam War, although I wasn't around at the time...

b. ...and this: "... for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam....No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose,..."
Bill Clinton's Draft Letter | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

That was the language used by Bill Clinton about the military, and, by extension, the members of same.
Yours is too nuanced a position...

I suggest that in the argument at hand, there are only two choices, the above, or the idea that our volunteers are heroes. They are the extremes, but they are the positions that exist in this debate.

Based on that idea, Chris' words resonate with the former...and open a wound.
Many folks felt that...MSNBC felt the heat, as did Chris Hayes, himself. Thus, his apology.


"What exactly was so outrageous about the comment Hayes made?"
He told the truth, as it is seen form a Leftist perspective.
This is why you don't see it as outrageous.

But those on the Left, wiser than you, do.

Why are those the only two positions? It's a false dichotomy so you can smear everyone that doesn't support your hyper-militaristic position as "hating the troops".

And I don't see why you should accept claims that soldiers returning from Vietnam being spit on, since there is pretty strong evidence they're false. It's interesting to note they didn't appear in decades after the fact.

This is a philosophical debate with political consequences.

You choose either of the extreme positions, just as you choose one of two major party candidates.

You may choose some other position, but, as when one votes third party, it is meaningless.

"It's a false dichotomy so you can smear ...."
Not false, it represents the political reality.

You consider it a smear, because you are closer to a position that is indefensible.

I consider it a smear because it is a smear. You're claiming that anyone who doesn't support a constant drumbeat to war "hates the troops".

 

[Polk]

I must say I'm enjoying PC insisting that all troops are heroes, except for Carb, of course, becauase you know how he's a dirty lib so his service doesn't count.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"The idea that everyone who has served in the military is a "hero" is complete rubbish. If everyone who serves is a "hero", we've turned the word into a meaningless catchphrase that degrades the service of those who have performed true acts of heroism (rescuing a wounded comrade from enemy fire, falling on a grenade to save the rest of the unit). "

1. While there is no argument here about 'everyone...." what you are revealing is that Hayes is admitting that he is on the same page as the Left which is exactly what the OP suggests....

a. I'm going to accept the veracity of the stories about soldiers being spit upon after the Vietnam War, although I wasn't around at the time...

b. ...and this: "... for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam....No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose,..."
Bill Clinton's Draft Letter | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

That was the language used by Bill Clinton about the military, and, by extension, the members of same.
Yours is too nuanced a position...

I suggest that in the argument at hand, there are only two choices, the above, or the idea that our volunteers are heroes. They are the extremes, but they are the positions that exist in this debate.

Based on that idea, Chris' words resonate with the former...and open a wound.
Many folks felt that...MSNBC felt the heat, as did Chris Hayes, himself. Thus, his apology.


"What exactly was so outrageous about the comment Hayes made?"
He told the truth, as it is seen form a Leftist perspective.
This is why you don't see it as outrageous.

But those on the Left, wiser than you, do.

Why are those the only two positions? It's a false dichotomy so you can smear everyone that doesn't support your hyper-militaristic position as "hating the troops".

And I don't see why you should accept claims that soldiers returning from Vietnam being spit on, since there is pretty strong evidence they're false. It's interesting to note they didn't appear in decades after the fact.

This is a philosophical debate with political consequences.

You choose either of the extreme positions, just as you choose one of two major party candidates.

You may choose some other position, but, as when one votes third party, it is meaningless.

"It's a false dichotomy so you can smear ...."
Not false, it represents the political reality.

You consider it a smear, because you are closer to a position that is indefensible.

And yet you are able to demand that we call all veterans heroes, but refused to call me one.