Originally Posted by
Chuck Naill
Originally Posted by
dneal
Do you think there is a radical left?
Some commentator or lecturer I heard the other day made a statement along the lines of: "We know there is a radical right, and where its limit begins (e.g.: neo-nazis, "freemen", etc...). Where is that line on the left?". I thought it was a good point, and have been pondering that.
I would think so, but perhaps defining what it means to be radical is in order. For example, I could be considered radical if I am in the minority opinion. Is that how you define radicalization? If not, how?
Maybe it's like porn, and I know it when I see it... It's a good question, though. I think Antifa and whatnot are obvious. There's nothing "peaceful" about burning cities - and I think that's the criticism of "leftist" journalists and politicians the right has (and is correct about). It's nested somewhere in cancel-culture and safe-spaces, and I don't know where the line is.
Originally Posted by
Chuck Naill
Originally Posted by
dneal
As an aside, and I think I posted it somewhere else, but I have found "motive" to be a very effective litmus test for discerning bias (left or right). Does the speaker assign motive? If so, they're not worth listening to. 'Trump is literally Hitler' or 'Obama is a Communist' are the truncated versions in our ADHD, text-distracted, 30-second burritos ain't fast enough society that has devolved to a bunch of toddlers throwing tantrums about nothing.
The longer versions are much more eloquent, of course; and although I despise The Atlantic's lack of journalistic integrity, I do enjoy the writing and editing. There are magazines on the right I feel similarly about - although it has been sad to watch Peggy Noonan's writing decline... Everything between is the "talking heads". Cuomo, Hannity, O'Reilly, Maddow, Olberman, Lemon, Kelly, etc... They're all just degrees of intensity and verbosity in assigning motive to the other side.
It's rhetorical. It's persuasive. It's profitable.
It's a distraction.
The context for which I heard or read regarding assigning motive was in the setting of seeking an opportunity to compromise and/or reach agreement. If you and I were to meet in a room and I had preconceived opinions about why you were there other than you were there, it will limit me being able to see you as someone who truly wants to find a way to make it work.
When I read an op-ed where the writer referrs to Trump as a Hitler, I agree with you. In fact, I will try to discontinue doing so myself. That said, we have discriptive terms and definitions that can aid when we are trying to explain. Limiting our ability to discribe or compare can prevent effective communication. In my opinion and based on evidence, for me, I can objectivily make the case that Donald Trump was not a good leader nor does he have the skill set necessary to do so in a democratic government where there are three branches of government and term limits in place. We can disagree and I won't decide I know your motives for supporting Trump.
Lets take John McCain's vote against the "skinny repeal" of the ACA. What was the motive? What was Trump's response?
“While the amendment would have repealed some of ObamaCare’s most burdensome regulations, it offered no replacement to actually reform our health care system and deliver affordable, quality health care to our citizens,” McCain said. For me the motive was a concern for the American people who depend upon the ACA for healthcare. There was no indication he did it against Trump.
It is important to know how Trump handled McCain's action. What he said is important, but you don't have to imagine his motivations, just his words and actions.
To me the motive issue is simply one that allows people to leverage rhetoric as a substitute for reason. Pick a controversial topic, say border security. If it's just an indication of "racism", and everything from an opposing point of view is dismissed (because it's "racist), then there's not really any way to compromise. There are a lot of issues in border security. Actual security, economic impact, problems of assimilation, etc... But pros and cons can't be weighed when each side assigns motive to the other and refuses to discuss it. Most of the mass media has staked a position and assert motive as a given. Doesn't matter if it's a conservative or liberal writer. The other side wants to destroy the country or wants everyone to die... How prescient these writers are...
But each side happily consumes their preferred flavor of propaganda, which leads us to McCain. If I were a betting man and we had some way of actually knowing, I would wager McCain did it simply out of spite. I've never been a fan of his though. The argument he made does have merit, although that was lost in the noise. If we're just talking about whether or not Trump is petty and obnoxious (which may just be personality instead of motive), there's no disagreement here. I've consistently advocated discussion of his policies as opposed to his personality (or "bluster" I think I called it in another thread).
But that's exactly the point (and the point of that means/ends article). We get caught up in the "means". How or why we will do or did do a thing. What we should do, and how. No one looks at the ends, particularly if they don't make you feel as good as the means. That's how California managed to have to bail out their marijuana industry. They quibbled over the "how" and regulated it to the point of non-profitability. How in the hell do you lose money selling weed? Regulate the hell out of the process.
I'm reminded of the C.S. Lewis quote about moral busybodies:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
This is the problem for the left. Frankly, they're "know it all's", happy to dictate what's best for you, for your own good. Not too much salt to sodas, says the Mayor of New York, and then passes ordinances to ensure his torment of you, for your own good.
That's what people from Romania to Australia are protesting against. Moral busybodies leveraging the power of government that was entrusted to them by the people.
Bookmarks