I don't know about y'all but I've grown tired - heck, angry. Why not? - at listening to liberals and conservatives try and blame each other with lameass counterfactuals. It really is a wasted and pointless exercise in intellectual futility.
The latest sent to me is from Andrew Sullivan. Maybe it's me, but it strikes me as one of the revisionist "I know we were bad, but whoa they're worse" type of thinking.
Just a couple of thoughts:
Sullivan writes: And there is a defense of heated rhetoric here: what language are you going to use when a president institutes torture or goes to war on empirically false pretenses?
I seem to recall the vitriol started well before this. The rest of his piece is based on the different "degrees" of hatred exhibited by the left and right.
I remember one guy telling me he'd "kill Bush in a heart beat." In fact, again, if memory serves me right, there weren't any shortage of liberal sites inflamming and using what could be construed as violent rhetoric.
Didn't Montel suggest on air Palin slit her wrists?
Just not buying Sullivan's rubbishness...ness. It was equally dangerous.
Geez, has anyone read what American politics was like in the 19th century? Populists - and even demagogues - like Palin have always and will always pop up. That's what political freedom means.
***
On a bigger picture scale...
Here's a list of left-wing political books as well as political violence in history.
"Extreme" conservatism is a puppy next to this list.
Who comes close on the conservative side? Pinocchet? Franco? Although fear communism contributed to Franco's rise.
Some paramilitary groups in South America and the U.S.?
Did any achieve such prominence?
Why, I can't say.
***
Who said: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.