Skip to comments.Goodbye, All That: How Left Idiocies Drove Me to Flee
Posted on 01/02/2005 2:33:24 PM PST by OOPisforLiberals
click here to read article
So close, yet still so far.....
I would send this to my now irrational liberal brother but after I sent him all of 5 political type emails over the past 3 years (not knowing how far gone he was), he asked me not to send him political email, anymore. It's funny how the liberals don't like hearing thoughts contrary to their own. This will fall on deaf ears to all of 'em.
A lot of good stuff. This guy is no conservative, but an intelligent liberal. (I do like his comment about the collectivist feel of the pledge, too.) I'd like to think we're open to different voices here, and are more about free debate than the DUmmies--can you imagine them letting a conservative version of this over there?
I had the exact same thing happen--a liberal friend who endlessly stomps on W asked me to stop sending her political emails after only a few. Of course, that didn't stop her from the Bushbashing, until I pointed out her hypocrisy.
So true. The Left wants the US, which they do not identify with, to apologize for EVERYTHING.
I was at a New Year's Eve party and I heard a couple of British expatriates commiserating over what an awful year 2004 had been. The problem, of course, was GWB. One of the examples they shared with each other was the way GWB has wrecked America's image in the world, and has no sense of international sensibilities. In particular, they were griping about was US tsunami aid. Why on earth, they wondered, did the US have to send in 2000 Marines? (Because the armed forces has the helicopters and other logistics, idiots). They saw it as an insensitive display of military imperialism, rather than the most efficient way to get aid to the disaster area.
I'll bump this. I'm always amazed when an intellectual can find his ass with both hands.
Great post. Reality mugged him. Many people are making the journey of leaving the hard Left. It is still not an easy journey to make and I salute the people who make it.
Correction from me : Article is originally from 10/14/2002.
And the hard left is making it easier and easier. It is no longer the party of FDR, HST and JFK all liberal but still Americans. It is now the party of Ted Kennedy, Hillary, Al Franken and Michael Moore.
They are anti American nut cases and that is empowering conservatism.
Not exactly new. I am sure I have read it on FR around that time.
I agree. Reading it was a bit of a long slog for me, (I'm not dumb, just lazy and ill-informed, you see) This was a very good article.
He still had to get his leftist jabs in, though.
Hey, Ron, baby! That's my line!
So close, yet still so far.....
And that is as succinct an analysis as Mr. Rosenbaum shall ever receive.
In saying "Goodbye, all that", Rosenbaum has indeed come a long way. But he remains in denial as to the real agenda of the right, so that he still has a very long way to go.
Let's give him credit for the progress he has made, though. Even if he has merely abandoned the Marxist left so as to join the dilute ranks of the honest liberals, he is to be commended.
If nothing else, he has regained status as a patriotic American.
'So I went up to the antiwar demonstration in Central Park this weekend'...
New Yorkers are the only people in the universe who are allowed to start a paragraph with " SO..."
I still have trust issues.....
I think he's got a good point here.
Of course, the scale of the offenses is greatly different, thousands of innocent dead as opposed to tens of millions.
But when conservative Americans supported or tolerated racism, as something that just wasn't important, they were in blatant violation of the very principles they claimed to be "conserving." I don't know many conservative Americans today who are willing to admit this.
This position also turned out to be an enormous strategic blunder. Imagine if half of the "civil rights workers" who went south in the 60's had been conservatives. Would have cut the liberals most effective criticism of conservatism right off at the knees.
I don't like his comment on the "collectivist" feel of the Pledge. I'm committed to seeing this country be all the Founding Fathers hoped it would. I have no problem pledging my commitment alongside others. There's nothing "collectivist" about it.
I'm also glad the Pledge now includes "under God." I see nothing aberrant in this -- we are a country whose laws are based on the moral values of The Bible - a book about God. The Pledge acknowledges where our values came from. I'm proud that's where they came from and I'm proud our legal system is based on them. It doesn't preclude anyone being an atheist. It reinforces our history and acknowledges the higher authority our forefathers acknowledged.
The ACLU needs to get over it.
Perhaps, for PR purposes, we should provide Marines on disaster relief missions with Hawaiian Aloha shirts...
It would be so much more "sensitive"...
Many of them were.
They just weren't into self-promotion.
Politically, though, the reason why blacks became predominately Democrat has nothing to do with the political leanings of the Freedom Riders, et al. Barry Goldwater, who had been the GOP standard-bearer in 1964, of course, took a principled stand against the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and voted accordingly.
Goldwater's objection was on Constitutional grounds, as the provisions of the act applied to only 13 states. Had the Voting Rights Act applied equally to all 50 states, Goldwater would've supported it.
Given his personal history, it is impossible to label Goldwater a "racist". But this one very visible public act gave the Democrats and the liberal media a bogey-man to demonize...and they harvested the black vote thereby.
I think any fair person will agree that few American conservatives of the 50s and 60s were particularly concerned about the civil rights (or lack thereof) of black Americans.
Understandably, they were more concerned with a nuclear-armed Communist enemy.
But I still believe the conservative failure to be pro-active about civil rights was an enormous blunder.
I sent my lib sister-in-law some emails about Demo'rat corruption, until she asked me to quit because "they make me nauseous". I eschewed any gloating after November 2!
Sorry, bud, but the Southern racists were Democrats back when civil rights were a real issue.
I respect this type of liberal, even when I think they are wrong. Hitchens is another one, always a good read, even when you disagree.
I dont know if I ever had a "goodbye to all that" moment, although the first gulf war might have been the start. Not the war itself, but the reaction by the leftists was so... so abjectly stupid. It was hard to believe I ever thought the way they demonstrated..
Oh, and for the record, the Pledge thing bothers me somewhat as well. For very conservative reasons.
And yet the founding fathers did not find a need for it. >>>>>>>>>>>I'm also glad the Pledge now includes "under God." I see nothing aberrant in this -- we are a country whose laws are based on the moral values of The Bible - a book about God. The Pledge acknowledges where our values came from. I'm proud that's where they came from and I'm proud our legal system is based on them. It doesn't preclude anyone being an atheist. It reinforces our history and acknowledges the higher authority our forefathers acknowledged.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So without the pledge we would forget that?
"The ACLU needs to get over it."
Having kids stand up and pledge fealty to the government isn't something I find attractive. I couldn't give less of a damn what the ACLU thinks of it, I just am repulsed by loyalty oaths.
Let's agree that the conservative movement was near-nascent at the time. It didn't really exist until the Goldwater campaign in 1964. The civil rights movement was actually much more mature than conservatism.
As you note, at the time, conservatism was more concerned with was national defense and a survival strategy for the Cold War. For all we know, civil rights may have been #3 on the priority list (after controlling spending) -- but #1 absorbed all of the movement's efforts.
Thus, it's difficult to call civil rights a conservative "failure". Especially when Republicans provided the majority of the congressional support for civil rights, while congressional Democrats were generally opposed.
Granted, the Republicans of the time can't be considered congruent with conservatism -- as the latter was still a nascent force (which is, basically, my point).
Conservatism developed later and apart from the civil rights movement. Conservatism, however, is intrinsicly more respectful of civil rights than is liberalism.
A liberal who's becomimng disillusioned with the kooks who've taken over the Left... I do call that progress.
Because America isnt perfect, it must be evil. Because Marxist regimes make claims of perfection, they must be good.
This single sentence is perhaps most penetrating insight I've seen into how the Left thinks.
So, do you also have a problem serving in the military? You have no problem using government currency, I assume. You obviously ride on government subsidized roadways. Do you pay your taxes?
I'm not being a smartass - I know it's hard to determine tone in the written word. My point is, where do you "draw the line" with your fear of the government?
Goodbye to the deluded and pathetic sophistry of postmodernists of the Left, who believe their unreadable, jargon-clotted theory-sophistry somehow helps liberate the wretched of the earth.
Part of this is painful to read because it so resembles my own epiphany of thirty years ago now. The entire Marx/Foucault/Postmodern intellectual dance depends entirely on a close selection of criteria to measure the truth that does not admit of contraindication. It is a system of thought that puts more work into fitting available evidence into the mold of theory than in measuring that theory in the terms of the evidence. It is a very strange, incestuous, inbred, profoundly uncreative shield against the necessities of rational thought and the humbling intellectual experience of being mistaken. As such it is inherently brittle, and what we see before us, IMHO, is a piece of its long overdue crackup.
What is happening is very simple - there has developed a vital contradiction between its ostensible values - equality, human rights, liberation of women - and its established practices - that reflexive anti-Americanism, anti-Corporatism, anti-Militarism, anti-Capitalism - that has led it into conflict with those values. Hitchens pointed this out long ago and it is evident that our author is finally being forced to admit it. The greatest acts of human freedom in the last half-century came largely as a consequence of those abstractions that the Left abhors - when faced with a choice between re-examining those abhorrances or simply denying the freedom, the Left has been reduced to denial. And that denial is inexorably reducing its sphere of influence step by step into a mutual admiration society of intellectual dinosaurs. A loud one, to be sure, but one that is increasingly and embarrassingly irrelevant.
I can't answer your post because I don't know where you're coming from. No offense, I just don't see where you get all that. You could ASK me my opinions and we could discuss them, but you've just invented positions for me and then ask how I could hold them.
I don't hold the positions you've invented for me, so I can't reply.
Sorry. I guess I haven't interpreted your lack of desire to say the Pledge, correctly. If you like, please explain your point of view.
There is simply no need for the pledge. I am the one in my social circles who is constantly telling people the founding fathers were believers in god, that the basis of the morals on which this entire nation is built is the Judeo-Christian tradition. Only an idiot denies this.
I have zero problem with god being mentioned on money, or with any of the other things you seem to think I am against.
I simply don't believe that in a nation founded to celebrate freedom, to escape monarchy, and in its existence over the last centure is the symbol for all that collectivism and totalitarianism stand for, citizens should be REQUIRED to recite what amounts to a loyalty oath. That is too much like the camera-ready processions of like-uniformed Soviet children--who are uniformed without free choice, as opposed to those in uniform in a volunteer army they willingly choose to serve in because they embrace what it stands for FREELY, without state coersion--and lately Elian Gonzalez's uniformed classmates parroting their love for a system they know nothing about.
I am a loyal American. Not because I performed a pledge which "proves" that, but because of my freely-held beliefs. And I live in a country that doesn't require me to DO anything to prove that, as opposed to making laws preventing me from harming it (i.e. certain actions would be traitorous under the law).
I would want my kids to learn about this country and love it as I do. Having their first civic actions be REQUIRED of them is not my idea of how to run a free nation.
Wow. When they finally turn and shoot, they really turn and shoot.
Well, I made it back to Fayette Co. safely in time to see the Falcons barely lose to the Seahawks. You see, my best old friend has to leave to go back to his job in Frisco tommorrow so we had one last meeting for dinner. At the Vortex-in Little Five Points. I felt intimidated from the minute I parked my truck in that tattoed, pierced, spiked hair part of Atlanta.
Dave's sister was there, his young daughter who lives in the city with her boyfriend, his ex wife and his brother, who supports Cynthia McKinney.
The bright red haired waitress brought burgers and beer and there was some political conversation.
I used to play guitar with Brother John Boy but that was a few years ago. I told him I loved him like a brother but his politics was why we don't associate-one of us would kill the other and I'm the one who is always armed.
He asked me " you did see Fahrenheit 911 didn't you ? "
You all know the answer. I then loudly asked how many of you liberals had contributed monies to Tsunami relief. Well, none.
I told my friend (who at least voted for Badnarik) I had to leave. I told his ex wife, an old friend, I could not stay in that place any longer and left.
You could feel the animosity at the table.
But I'm back home safe in Fayette Co. now, it's dark and I feel no fear.
I hope my truck (with the W stickers) wasn't keyed. We'll see in the AM.
At least the burger was good, but you'll never see Fuzzycat in that part of Atlanta again.
Oh yeah. I had a professor tell my advisor I was "too political" and had better cool it... and his office door was (and still is) plastered with anti-Bush, pro-Marx spout & drivel.
Published in the New York Observer? Be still, my heart!
Great article! If he hasn't gotten it yet, he's obviously in the process of getting it. (Btw, I've never liked Heidegger, either, and have never seen how people could defend his silence on this rather crucial issue.)
I have a great response for this; it usually shuts them right up. I say, "No, I didn't see it. Michael Moore is just the poor man's Noam Chomsky. And I've already read Noam Chomsky."
It's so funny. If they've read Chomsky, they know I'm right and they shut up. If they haven't read Chomsky, they feel intellectually inferior (which is worse than death to a liberal) and they shut up. Either way, they shut up. And I smile a cat-like smile, and stare at them till they go away. It's very satisfying.
Important point. Also, certain churches that were still conservative at that time (the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) were very supportive of civil rights, and segregationists were even excommunicated. Of course, because these were not leftist organizations, they never got the credit they should have. But that's no surprise.
He's still a liberal, Jim.
I think that's true. But one of the problems is that a lot of those supposed values were coopted in the 30's by the Communists, who somehow seized all of the words. That is, they didn't value the meaning of the words, but they somehow were perceived as holding title to the words, with the result that anyone who was in favor of these things automatically had to be aligned with the left.
Um.... Every time I've heard/read Katha Pollit, she sounded like a dim high-school sophomore, who is best described by a passage later in the same essay:
Goodbye to the deluded and pathetic sophistry of postmodernists of the Left, who believe their unreadable, jargon-clotted theory-sophistry somehow helps liberate the wretched of the earth.Pollit is the airhead who wrote that she didn't want her daughter flying an American flag, because "The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war [...] the violent anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry that has already resulted in murder, vandalism and arson around the country [...] and bombing ordinary people half a world away back to the proverbial stone age." What's really funny is that what the American flag actually stands for is *America* itself. So Pollit is expressing what she thinks *America* stands for.
She's also the idiot who got body-slammed several times in a radio discussion with Andrew Sullivan several months after 9/11, wherein he was in favor of a military response to 9/11 and all she could do was bitch about what was "wrong" with such a response. Sullivan finally had had enough:
Andrew: ... so if military response is not an answer, what would you do, Katha?Pollit then whines that Sullivan hadn't "given her enough time" to think of an answer, and in response he delivers the knockout punch: "If you haven't thought this through by *now*..."
Katha: (long pause)... Well, um, there's... umm...
Andrew: Your stammering is quite eloquent.
Katha (joined by Moderator): Hey! Hey! That's just unfair!
That is, if she *still* couldn't think of a workable response to 9/11 *months* after it happened... Maybe she should get the hell out of the way and stop saying "no no no" to the people who *have* a plan.
I couldn't agree more. One of the founding principles of postmodernism is that cooption of the language is cooption of power. That is one reason for its concentration in such former intellectual backwaters as literary criticism. It was a lot of earnest people believing with all their hearts that if only everyone pretended that the emperor had new clothing on, he really did. The power of the collective here was the power to create its own reality. It doesn't really, of course. Half of the Left still believes that it does and the other half is mortally resentful that it doesn't. For which we non-believers are to blame, naturally.
Just as the fact that the Republicans in Congress voted more solidly for the Civil Rights Act than the Democrats has enshrined the Republican Party as the Party of Civil Rights?
After the election, I wrote a very nice letter to my few liberals friends. The election was so contentious, I actually had to put some friendships on hold as they were getting very nasty in their hatred towards Bush.
Silly me, I thought after the eleciton people would go back to being human beings again. WRONG. The note I wrote was just a generic note, praying for peace (IT WAS NOT, AND I MADE SURE IT WAS NOT A GLOAT NOTE). I truly thought I would be friends with these people again. I never heard back from anyone of them. Not one. Lesson learned. They are mean, nasty, unhappy people.
See..the Jews are starting to turn. It just seems that if you're Jewish you can't stand on the side of the Islamo-fascists who seek your destruction. I don't know, it's not rocket science.
These bozos wouldn't know who Chomsky is. All they know is they hate GWB. John Boy said to me re F911 that the Bush family had ties to the Saudi royal family. All I could say to him was check out the ties Bill Clinton had to Marc Rich. I doubt he got it.
It's not about Democrat vs. Republican. People on Free Republic love to point that out, how Republicans supported civil rights reforms while the racists were the Democrats. And it is an important historical point. It also helps explain why Democrats still tolerate racism in their ranks today.
But it is really a matter of Left vs. Right. And the prevailing civil rights image is that of young, white Marxists travelling to the South to fight for civil rights. Many of the black leaders of the civil rights movement were affiliated with communist organizations, and some still are.
Those southern racist Democrats were not leftists. I don't think they were really conservative either, as it was a betrayal of conservative principles in my opinion, but they certainly weren't "progressives".
This is the key. I strongly believe that the way to the hearts and minds of black people today is through more exposure of conservative values (many of which they already embrace). Conservatism is NEW, and the best way for the black community to achieve any amount of progress today.