We can change the world -
Re-arrange the world
It's dying - if you believe in justice
It's dying - and if you believe in freedom
It's dying - let a man live his own life
It's dying - rules and regulations, who needs them
Open up the door
We can change the world
Re-arrange the world
It's dying - if you believe in justice
It's dying - and if you believe in freedom
It's dying - let a man live his own life
It's dying - rules and regulations, who needs them
Open up the door
We can change the world
–Graham Nash, Chicago, 1971 (Crosby , Stills, Nash, and Young)
Ah… plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose1. I got to thinking about the subject of this post in the wee small hours of the morning today, and Chicago popped into my head. Fitting. The year was 1971, the Têt Offensive had been over for a year, and although we didn’t know it at the time, the Viet Nam war was lost. The country was gearing up for an election that threatened to tear us apart as a nation, or so it seemed at the time. The election was anti-climactic; Nixon won in a landslide, only to resign less than two years later. Watergate. And that tune, Chicago , was part of the soundtrack of our lives back then. At least it was a mainstay for those of us of the Liberal political persuasion. I’m not sure what the conservatives were listening to at that time, because I didn’t talk to them. At all. They were The Enemy. The Man.
Plus ça change…
I’ve been cruising some of the more virulent Lefty blogs lately, and I’ve linked to a few of them, at times, simply to illustrate how over-the-top the rhetoric is getting these days. Occasionally, I’ll comment on a post there, if allowed. I say “if allowed” because some Lefty blogs don’t want me or my kind there; Democratic Underground is the prime example. Generally, (strong emphasis on “generally,” there are exceptions) my comments are shouted down, so to speak. Or I am dismissed as someone mouthing “Right-Wing talking points,” or I’m “un-evolved,” or, a lot of the time, I’m simply “evil”…in so many words. Each and every one of those terms has been applied to me in the course of a “discussion.” It’s almost enough to make me quit trying.
I’m not saying the Right is pure in this regard. There is at least one Wingnut for every Moonbat out there. I’ve quit reading the comments at Little Green Footballs and Free Republic , among others, because the rhetoric there can be just as bad, if not worse, than that found on the Left. Civil political discourse is awfully damned rare these days. And I’m not talking just about blogs. Talk radio, especially on the right, can be particularly bad. But this is more a function of the void of Left-oriented Talk Radio, Air America being the exception, and when it goes there will be a serious hole (and thus all the talk on the Left of reviving the “Fairness Doctrine.” Bad idea.). And then there are the authors…e.g., Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity on the Right; Al Franken and Michael Moore on the Left. When it comes to the press, one usually has a choice, e.g., the Washington Post vs. the Washington Times. Unless you live in Seattle or San Francisco , where it’s awfully damned hard to find a conservative point of view. It all seems to be an echo chamber…but at least one is free to choose which echo chamber you want to be in. The downside is people who frequent the echo chambers don’t want to hear the opposing point of view, the opposition is wrong, by definition, or worse: you’re evil.
I could go on…and there’s much, much more to say on this subject, but I’m sure you get the point. We’re all Americans. Very damned few of us are evil; very damned few of us are in it simply for ourselves. We may disagree on the ways and means to get somewhere, anywhere, but we owe it to ourselves to at least listen to the other side, and to listen in a civil, non-disparaging manner.
Just sayin’.
1 literally, “the more that changes, the more it is the same thing"
Sam here,
ReplyDeleteLet me be the first to thank you for this post, Buck. Couldn't agree more! I appreciate your persistence in this call for civility.
I had my own tiff with Maha back in late February over this very issue. I think I picked on her just because she does tend to be more moderate. I wouldn't even have tried with some of the others.
"Maha, you have national attention now for your brilliant writing skills and quick mind [Cspan]. When I first joined you a week or so ago, I thought that this might be a forum where real dialogue could take place. Lately, though – every time I’ve poked my head inside, I hear mostly self-righteous, told-you-so ranting. Don’t get me wrong. The information you’re providing is invaluable. The analysis is superb. It’s the comments that drive me up the wall. What good are they doing?
How did the civil rights movement make such gains? Think of the quiet dignity and calm resolution of people like Rosa Parks and MLK. And did Gandhi scream and yell? Would he have used a blog in this way? Would Lincoln? Think of what the potential is for a forum like this. Is there any forum for this anywhere? The “rabid right” might be on an ice flow heading out to sea, but can the “ranting left” reach out to the moderate majority? Moderates detest this kind of “throwing plates against the wall.” Can we reach CONSENSUS with any of them? If not, we’re going to find ourselves standing on the shore alone and wondering why – again. And time and life are too precious and short for this." From 2/28/06
My comments were not appreciated (I probably sounded like a scolding school marm) and I left the blog for awhile after that. I found it slightly better when I returned. She even had that great post on “Protesting 101” http://www.mahablog.com/page/9/ Don’t know if my needling got under her skin unconsciously or if she was just cycling back to her better self, but I had hope for awhile. Recently, too, with the latest discussion you mention. She’s doing her best to reign in some of the worst of it, but I realize that she’s sort of driving a high power machine there, with her passengers leaning out the windows throwing spitballs. I think I’ve had enough. It’s uncomfortably easy to get swept up by it all.
Just curious, though. If you expressed your worthy sentiments on some of the blogs on the right, would you get a similarly hostile response? It would be interesting to know how it all breaks down.
“Protesting 101” is well-written and perceptive. It’s entirely obvious that Barbara has “been there, done that.” Unfortunately (or fortunately, for the Right), the great majority on the Left will not receive, let alone act upon, the message. We on the Right should be thankful, indeed, for the shenanigans of protesters from groups like A.N.S.W.E.R. and Code Pink. The comments are just as interesting, if not more so, than the original post. I’m not taking anything away from Maha’s thoughts by saying that; it’s just that I found her little tiff with “Elizabeth” at the end of the comments section to be very interesting and informative.
ReplyDeleteAnd then there was this:
We are serious, thoughtful, and kind people. We need to be sure the theater doesn’t make us (and our ideas) look clownish.
The chickenhawks and their warmongering Christian supporters are already full of fear. We need to hold out a hand, not frighten them more.
And that’s verbatim. A “serious, thoughtful, and kind (person),” who, in the very next breath, doesn’t see anything wrong at all in throwing out three labels guaranteed to offend anyone and everyone on the Right. “Cassidy” just doesn’t get it. At all.
Further. “Cassidy” invokes another popular meme on the Left that irritates the HELL out of us on the Right, and that meme is “fear.” There is a very large difference between fear and concern. Fearful people hide, fearful people are often in denial, but concerned people act. One of Dubya’s traits that endears him to the “base” is the fact the man acts. If he says something, one can rest assured he will DO what he says…no equivocating, no seeing the nuances in various alternatives with the accompanying paralysis through analysis, just straight-forward action. This is a classic American value, and thank God it survives.
As to trying to introduce civility in and on the various right-side blogs I frequent, I’ve had mixed results. I indicated I no longer frequent LGF and Free Republic, and lack of civility in the comments is the reason why. Intolerance for differing opinions can be a shared value on both the right and the left. I mostly hang out in moderate spaces these days, but I DO venture into the cesspools (left and right) occasionally when I’m in need of red meat.
:-)
Sam here,
ReplyDelete(I shouldn't be. I still have work to do.)
Okay, here's where we might disagree a bit. This "fear" thing comes from an observation that some on the left (me, included) have noticed from time to time. I believe it stems from the behavior of some of those on the right, who sound as though they think “we'd better do something now or all our women be wearing burkas next year.” We sense an irrational fear that unfortunately seems to be fed by hyped-up news reports. It seems to coming from FOX news, although I haven't heard it personally because I don't listen to it. However, I suspect this because of what I get from my Dad now and then who gets all of his news from there. He honestly thinks the terrorists are on their way over here to do just that. He’s written me emails (and told me in person) that we have to fight the terrorists in Iraq because otherwise his daughter will be wearing a burka. And he states this with fearful passion. Needless to say, I would never say, "Dad, you're just full of fear. Take it easy." I have too much respect for him to do that. I've never even so much as made a face over this in front of him.
I've mentioned on the blog before (with utmost respect) that some of the WWII generation went through an earth-shattering experience in their youths. I mean, look at what they faced! It was unbelievable. I’ve wondered, in the case of my dad (and maybe some others), if this might the reason. The worst my generation had to deal with was hiding under our desks in the event of a theoretical nuclear holocaust. Before 911, we never had to face the imminent threat of foreign warriors on our soil – in recent memory anyway. I know that some on the left would screech at him for being nuts. I don’t feel that way and that’s where the compassion comes in. (However, I do realize that most use that phrase in a more condescending way and I reject that.) My Dad likes Bush for the reason you mention – that Bush will do something. However, what if it’s the wrong thing? Is doing the wrong thing always better than doing nothing? That’s a matter for some debate in history, I’d think. (I’m thinking of the Bay of Pigs. Or when the Soviets pulled back from throwing the bomb at us due to a misunderstanding of their weapons system – you know that story, right? One man made that courageous decision.)
As far as "chickenhawk" – I think that is extremely disrespectful and I would never use that. I can't know what is in someone's heart and mind in this respect. My dad told me recently that if he had had to go into Japan, he would have been ready. Knowing him as I do, I was able to tell him sincerely that I had no absolutely no doubt of it.
This was mentioned in one of Maha’s later comments today. Here’s what the left objects to (just to have some balance here):
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/5/10/84616/5039
Also, to be fair, the left is susceptible to its own irrational fears. I admit to some of them. The wiretapping and distrust of government that our generation grew up with is suspect to me on my clearer (or more optimistic) days. I'd like to think it's just concern and most of the time it is. I genuinely don't "fear" my government to that extent, even though Maha thinks I should. Maybe that's why I tend toward the moderate side.
Well anyway, back to work and then a walk up the hill to clear my head some more.
Thanks for your thoughts and thanks for listening, Buck.
There have been a few times here at Buck's place and on other friend's blogs where I have very much disagreed with something said in the comments section, but I don't let loose about it. I feel that would be like being a guest in his house and insulting his other friends. So I will usually tone down my opinion or choose not to comment at all rather than start something. In other words, I act as I would if I really knew these all of these people in person. The relative anonymity of the web shouldn't overrule good manners.
ReplyDeleteSam said: "My Dad likes Bush for the reason you mention – that Bush will do something. However, what if it’s the wrong thing? Is doing the wrong thing always better than doing nothing? "
ReplyDeleteIf he sat on his hands and did nothing, because a lot of people on the left said it was the wrong thing, then he would do nothing at all, zero, zip. According to the left, he has done nothing right at all, ever. What good is a president that does nothing? Our government as a whole is already bound by such political nonsense that it is amazing that anything at all gets accomplished as it is.
Clinton did nothing about Bin Laden, was it a case where he was afraid to deal with it at the time, or he thought it was the wrong thing to do? By failing to do the right thing then, did he doom the people on 9/11? Just some thoughts. The point being, that nobody can foretell the future, and so who is to say what is absolutely and definitely the right thing or the wrong thing. The sitting President and his advisors are the ones who make the decisions to act or not. The rest of us are just along for the ride, whoever the President is.
Sam here,
ReplyDeleteHi Laurie,
Nice to hear from you, too. Feel free to speak your mind! Like I've told Buck, I'm here to learn.
As for my last post, I wasn't implying that Bush should never do anything. Just for him to be judicious. As for Clinton, that's another subject for a another time. I'm on my way out the door, but hope to discuss things with you later.
I've got about five minutes between hockey games to semi-respond.
ReplyDelete:-)
I read Steven D at Booman Tribune, Sam, and he lost me at point number two:
Stop calling me a traitor or a fanatic for thinking that the NSA should have to get a warrant from the FISA court before eavesdropping on my telephone and email communications.
There are precious few people in this country that know the details of the NSA's monitoring program; I doubt Steven D is one of them. Four FISA judges that testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee said they believed the program was within the law; not one senator or representative that has been briefed on the program has called for its termination or suspension. Credibility is hard to establish and easy to lose. Steven D blew it, right out of the gate. And it was pretty much all downhill from there, IMO.
From what I've heard from you so far, Sam, I think you could write a much better post on the same subject.
Laurie: Good points. Thanks for weighing in!
Now back to hockey...
My brother (a leftwing, moonbat, hippie,lawyer) has no fear that his daughter will be wearing a burka. He does have a fear, and he has expressed it to me often. His fear of the right is that his daughter will be wearing a cross. I try to avoid political discussions with him because he rants and gets too bent out of shape resorting to name-calling and such (he is actually very smart,but gee whiz). I get the feeling that my brother and his leftwing buddies think that only their views are intelligent - everyone else is an idiot. That people are too stupid to think for themselves so we need more government programs to help them and tell them what to do - as long as those telling us what to do are liberals, life will be good. There is just no civil conversation with him on anything political.
ReplyDeleteI have often wondered "what if" back in the 70's when Iran over ran our embassy and took American hostages, we had retaliated big-time - kicked butt. Would we be having the same problems that we are having today? Who knows? But it seems to me, by doing nothing or very little back then, by not dealing with the first fumes of terrorists, we let the fire get out of hand. Now we are dealing with it so that the next generations do not have to. Whether we like it or not, we have to take a stand against terrorism.
There, Buck, I actually spoke something political.
Lou said: "But it seems to me, by doing nothing or very little back then, by not dealing with the first fumes of terrorists, we let the fire get out of hand."
ReplyDeleteThat is absolutely right. There were a number of those situations I believe where if we had done something, things would be different now. But we know the saying, hindsight is 20/20.
Sam, when you comment here, you could try clicking on "other" instead of "anonymous" and put your name in, just leave the web page part blank if you don't have a page to link to.
ReplyDeletelaurie - Thanks for the tip! I missed the "All of these fields are optional" line before. (Duh) (Shoot. Didn't seem to take after all - unless there's some other reason? It's Sam)
ReplyDeleteAbout your first post, I wish there were more people like you out there on those blogs. Unlike Buck, I don't care for red meat – even for fun! I suppose it’s okay if you want to observe human nature at its most ridiculous, but I’ve been hearing a little too much of it lately – right and left.
Buck – that leftwing site I sent you yesterday, about what makes the left angry? That was a joke. Sorry if you couldn’t read my mind. I intended to have a chuckle over it with you later, but my time ran out last night. (My youngest needed the computer – two English papers and 5 poem revisions. He just caught the bus for college after being up all night, so here I am.) Sorry if I gave you a jolt. Also, sorry if I rambled a bit too much in my last post. I feel like I sailed my little boat into your pleasant harbor and didn’t anchor properly. I’m full of questions these days, sort of like a kid you know? Why is the sky blue? I’m neither left nor right and being a moderate has its pitfalls. Or maybe it’s because of my scientific nature. (Hmm, they say so and so? Have to test this…)
Hope there’s room for me in here. Let me know if I offend. I never intend to.
Unfortunately, though, I won’t be back for a little while. Work is piling up for these next couple of weeks and, since I work at home, I’ve found I’m too tempted to play. I’ll have to cut you off cold turkey for awhile. (I can be very disciplined that way.)
In the meantime, it’s been fun. Thanks for inviting me, Buck. Hope to be here again someday soon.
I've been struggling with an intermittent network connection for the past 12 hours, and, believe me, it's a pain. I seem to be "back," but for God-Only-Knows how long...
ReplyDeleteLou said: I get the feeling that my brother and his leftwing buddies think that only their views are intelligent - everyone else is an idiot. That people are too stupid to think for themselves so we need more government programs to help them and tell them what to do - as long as those telling us what to do are liberals, life will be good.
You're not alone, Lou. I know folks like that, too, and I feel exactly as you. It's particularly painful when you have these sorts of disagreements in the family, coz as we all know, you can choose your friends...but...
I agree with you both (Laurie and Lou) that we should have acted on the earliest attacks way back when. I don't believe either side of the political divide recognized the threat for what it actually is (and was) back then. After all, it was Reagan (one of my major heroes) who withdrew the Marines from Beirut after the bombing there. And he/we did nothing. Hindsight, indeed.
Sam: I understand the work imperative. Thanks for dropping by, and I agree: it was fun. I hope to see you back again, soon.
And...I got a serious giggle out of this:
"that leftwing site I sent you yesterday, about what makes the left angry? That was a joke. Sorry if you couldn’t read my mind."
Now that's a first! I used to take The Second Mrs. Pennington to task about her unspoken expectations, and my constant refrain was "I can't read your mind!" How refreshing to hear a woman come right out and say (in effect) "Oops! You couldn't read my mind!" Thanks for that!
Well... lots of good stuff here. My $.02 is a quote from George W. Bush "What matters in the end is not just making promises, but making good on promises..."
ReplyDeleteHe is a man of action. I'd also like to add he's making decisions based on input from a lot of people smarter than him and he knows that. He also makes those decisions with a lot more information than we have. We (the public) don't have the security clearance to know everything he knows. It's naive to think we can accurately grade all his decisions without being privy to the information that was used in making the decision. Just sayin.