No, America does not need RW civility. America needs LW vitriol.

Great Debates
81

Ahh, there are far more words that are out there, ignored in SA’s re-written history. His attempts to make the lack of civility a Left Wing problem is every bit as silly as the OP, here, pushing the notion that extreme expressions of extreme politics on the Left would ever motivate the very large center in U.S. politics to move toward the Left.

Among the terms, (quite civil for their time, I am sure), that were being issued from the Right when SA’s imaginary America happened in the 1960s:
treason
traitor
unAmerican
commie
pinko
fellow traveller
nigger lover
race traitor
uppity
“mixing races”
“America: Love it or leave it”
peacenik.
(Note: all of these terms were in use prior to the 1968 police riot in Chicago launched against demonstrators at the Democratic convention and the “campus revolts” that followed that September.)

And the freedom loving Right Wing was also responsible for black lists, loyalty oaths, “red squads” in police departments, and any number of other perturbations in society.

= = =

Neither pretending that one’s own side possesses all Truth and Goodness, nor advocating yelling over rationale discussion, nor pretending that “the other guy” started it when reviewing previous disruptions will provide any framework to move the country forward or resolve problems.

82

Excellent, then you shan’t have any problem naming a few. Just the top five or so will do nicely.

83

No. Most of the world–including those U.S. intelligence agencies that were not ordered to think differently via the Office of Special Projects–were concerned that he might have them, but were willing to allow the UN inspectors to do their jobs as they continued to find increasing evidence that he no longer had such weapons.

84

So we’re back to “elections matter” already? Two years ago you were so proud… and then two months ago that theory was out the window.

85

Olbermann used to do that for you every night … apperently he’s moved on to bigger and better things?

86

What exactly makes you think that I don’t think any leftists were racist.

Please give me some evidence that “Farrakhan was beloved by the elft(sic)”

Other than Chicago’s own wacky Father Mike I can’t think of any white Leftists who liked him.

Did quite a few liberal and left-wing African-American intellectuals and political leaders support Farrakhan? Yes. In fact, Cornell West and Michael Lerner got into an extremely heated, public debate about Farrakhan.

However, their reasons for doing so was because Farrakhan(at that time) had a huge following amongst African-Americans, particularly poor African-Americans.

If you think I’m wrong, please list what left-wing beliefs Farrakhan had.

87

If you think that I was “blathering” then you clearly don’t know what the word means.

Cornell West spoke for about five minutes while Farrakhan spoke for about three-and-a-half hours.

Now, since you’re such an expert on the march, having read one wikipedia article on it please inform us what left-wing messages that Farrakhan said in his speech?

If you can’t do that, please tell me what left-wing messages that Cornell West said in his?

Had anybody claimed that it was a right-wing event your last sentence would have a point but since no one did, you don’t.

As for the rest, Farrakhan wanted a broad coalition within the African-American community so he invited a number of prominent leaders and intellectuals within the African-American community.

He wasn’t a left-winger or a right-winger. He was, and still is, an ardent black Nationalist.

Now, if you have some evidence that the NOI was a leftist organization please tell me what were their leftist beliefs.

88

If you’re sure, then you’re wrong.

“Issued from the right?” I see. So a few slurs made prior to “disruptions” (caused by left-wing agitators no less), completely offset forty years of liberal hate speech aimed at conservatives…most of whom are minding their own business and are coming under fire simply for being conservative? I don’t think so.

You can hardly offset forty years of nasty left-wing insults, hatred character assassination by dragging out a few terms used by a few redneck nobodies during “disruptions” that took place forty-two years ago.

And besides, most of those terms are relatively benign anyway. Oooh…“pinko!” Ohhh…“peacenik!” How the hell do those terms compare with “selfish, evil, morons who want to see people dying in the street”? Answer: they don’t.

Plus they had a relatively short shelf life. Liberal hate speech toward conservatives has gone on for forty years after those terms all became anachronisms and it is only getting worse and worse as time goes by.

And then let’s take a look at who’s pretending one’s own side possesses “all Truth and Goodness.” Surely you can’t be speaking of me, as the only time I’ve ever claimed my side was all truth and goodness was when the notion appeared in your own mind. As I’ve said many times around here only to be completely ignored - the only reason the Golden Age (pre-1968 America) seems so golden is in comparison to the way things are now.

89

Your sarcasm meter is broken in regards to my comment on acceptable terms.

= = =

The “disruptions” forty-five years ago included illegal police actions that deprived persons of their civil rights, firings and blacklists that deprived people of their livelihoods, and other “minor” matters you generally choose to rationalize or ignore.
I am glad that you think that Right wing legislators and governors forty+ years ago were redneck nobodies, but I am pretty sure that most of them figure prominently in the pantheon of the elect among the Right.

Your point to which I responded was that the Right wing nastiness was a response to Left wing nastiness and that is simply wrong. The nastiness on the Right has been there all along and was hardly a response to anything on the Left. Even in the 60s, before there was ever a Harvard Yard, there was a police riot in Lincoln Park.

= = =

Your claim that the Right’s insults had some sort of short life is absurd. People were being called “commies” (and denied work) for well over fifty years, from the 1920s to the 1970s. The calls of “treason” and “traitor” were used throughout the Vietnam era, were dragged up once more during the negotiations over the Panama Canal, and used once again in regards to opposition to our interference in El Salvador and Nicaragua, and were most recently employed at the beginning of Bush’s invasion of Iraq. It is a recurring theme from the Right.

I have not followed your example of attempting to blame nastiness from the Left on behavior on the Right nor have I dismissed nastiness from the Left in the manner that you choose to ignore the nastiness on the Right; I simply note that any claim that the nastiness on the Right was any sort of “response” is insupportable by evidence.
And your implication that all the “hate speech” in the last forty years has emanated only from the Left is simply bullshit.

I have also made no claim that either side has “all Truth and Goodness.” I see that being implied by both factions in this thread and I call bullshit on that idea, as well.

90

Utter nonsense, the invasion of Iraq had everything to do with pursuing a permanent Republican majority. Look at how hard the right came down on any suggestion that the invasion was ill advised.

And did you get your feelings hurt by some lefties? You poor dear. I had a bunch of friends killed in Iraq.

91

Let me see if I can explain the distinction between the things you’re talking about and what I’m talking about. The greatest difference lies in two areas: One, the insults you are talking about were levelled by a relatively small number of right-wingers toward a relatively small number of left-wingers, whereas the scorn and insults levelled at the right since the late sixties is almost always aimed at conservatives in general. And two, the nature of the insults themselves is different. For instance, I’m not aware of any widespread application of ‘traitor’ to mean everyone of a liberal mindset. Usually, that accusation has been aimed toward specific groups or individuals acting in ways perceived to be harmful to the U.S. I don’t recall much in the way of right-wing insults intended to denigrate the intelligence and humanity of left-wing individuals. But since the late sixties there has been a constant public drumbeat coming from the left (propogated by like-minded individuals in the news and entertainment media) to the effect that conservatives as individuals are morons, stupid, backward, uncaring, selfish, war-mongering and evil. Conservatives are often objects of scorn and ridicule on television and in entertainment magazines, and are usually regarded with skepticism and doubt by when covered by the news media.

So in other words, the right-wing insults you’re talking about go mostly to other people’s actions, where left-wing insults largely go to insult and condemn conservatives as human beings. That’s a big difference. And then you throw in the amount of exposure that liberal attitudes toward the right have gotten by virtue of the electronic media since the late sixties, and there is absolutely no comparison with regard to the hatred stirred up by the left since then vs. whatever right-wing insults were around from the 20’s up to the late 60’s.

92

Can you say “paranoid?” Yeah, I thought that you could. What an utterly silly notion. Right up there with the claptrap spewed by Der Trihs.

I don’t suppose it’s occurred to you that lots of conservatives have too.

And no, my feelings aren’t hurt by lefties any more than yours are likely hurt by conservatives. I’m just explaining why there’s so much hatred in politics these days.

ETA: The post above this one is in response to tomndebb.

93

They did. The Democrats are a pro-war authoritarian business party just like the Pubs, but look at the disparate groups who vote for them thanks to successful market branding (out of the part of the population that still votes for some reason, anyway):

blacks
latinos
women
gays
labor
environmentalists
anti-war activists
interventionists
hippies
druggies
technocrats
scientists
Pacific Northwest computer nerds

94

Here’s one: DADT is immoral and should be removed, because the government should not be permitted to discriminate against people for acts that don’t cause harm to others unless they have a provable and direct negative effect on the matter at hand.

I now await your retraction of this insult.

95

It might make you feel better to believe this stuff, but your claims are simply not accurate in any way. The insults have been going back and forth between both sides for a very long time and the number of people who use them as well as the number of people at whom they are aimed has been pretty equally divided throughout that period. Anything more is simply wishful thinking or myopia.

Rush Limbaugh has never said anything new; he simply gave louder voice to opinions I have heard expressed since I was old enough to understand what the words meant.

96

If you please, from what specific person or document of the period under discussion is that quote from? As a general rule of grammar, if it’s not a specific quote, it shouldn’t be enclosed in quotation marks.

Again, who or what is being quoted here?

97

Correct.

One of my biggest objections in dialogue among individuals is the frequent use of “the left” or “the right” as if everyone committed the same offenses and has the same mindset. This goes along general insults about lying, being stupid, hating religion, etc etc.
Then there’s the childish score keeping of who made what offenses and which offenses are worse. Good lord.

98

Still wating. Anytime you’re ready.

99

And this would be a good example of the kind of “civility” the Left creates. It constantly utters a stream of insults, demands complete obedience to its whims in its insane assertion that it is proper and decent and condemns anyone who dares disagree, and then when called on it, pretends that the targets are just weak and pitiful and can’t take a joke.

OK, this is the kind of hair-splitting BS I’ve come to expect. You admit flat out that Farrakhan associated with leading leftists such as Cornel West and co. He was supported at various times by Sharpton and the new Black Panthers, and . Some of these are more or less mainstream, some are radical and even stupidly leftist. But they ain’t on the right, or even politically neutral, and supported Obama (though he did say he wanted to avoid tainting Obama the candidate with an open endorsement). He supported Mugabe because he saw it as social justice, using the same language and ideas as many other leftists.

I agree he’s not a good leftist. I don’t hold you accountable for him any more than (I hope) you hold me accountable for Pat Buchanan being a jerk. But he’s a man of the left, likes leftists, associates with leftists, and draws from the exact same ideas as other leftists. What should I call him?

Do you think that saying the people who supported him had mercenary motives really helps? (I’ll give you a second to think over what it means if you answer in the affirmative,and how that woudl tend to knee-cap so much of your argument.) The fact that he dislikes “white” leftists doesn’t make him a politically neutral or a right winger.

I don’t hate them, but I don’t respect them either. I gave respect, and then threw it back in my face. When they start giving, I’ll start offering it back. Hate takes too much energy, and I don’t really care to give that much power to them.

Frankly, I mostly don’t bother with political arguments these days. Too much trouble and it never gets anywhere.

First, you conveniently forget the Right wasn’t only half the anti-Communism, inclyuding the various denunciations. Democrats were deeply involved all along, and rightly so: HUAC was quite correct in searchiung out Communist spies and loyalists, precisely because they were traitors. Every member of CPUSA swore a treasonous oath, and it was directly from them that the Soviets attempted to infiltrate America - and successfully did so numerous times. The oh-so-innocent Hollywood Communists often did take marching orders from Moscow in the late 20’s and 30’s, all the while threatening artists who didn’t toe the line. This is on the public record, and Democrats were right there, rightfully helping to put an end to the very real problem.

As to your other point, however, I agree. And I hope that we will be able to clamp down on such accusations by the time you get around to cleaning your own house on the same point, and then for good measure stop passing stupid bills you don’t understand and stop accusing me of racism. But I’m not holding my breath.

100

Oh, I dunno. Perhaps the Chieftains of the Democratic Party ?
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
– Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
Really, it would have been simpler just to send Ted Kennedy as Special Envoy and have him chauffeur Saddam on a jaunt near the Tigris.

And speaking of the Aged Useless One:

PRESIDENT BUSH has a surprising defender of his contention that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction–Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. “The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent” in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning. And Saddam’s expulsion of weapons inspectors and “the behavior” of his regime “pointed to a continuing effort” to produce WMD, she added.

The senator said she did her own “due diligence” by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. “To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence” that Saddam had WMD.

Clinton isn’t normally a defender of the Bush administration. And on other issues, especially Bush’s handling of postwar Iraq, she was highly critical. But she agreed, with qualifications, that preemptive military action may be necessary in certain cases, as Bush has argued was the case with Iraq.

Weekly Standard – 24 Sept 2003

Since I disagreed with the war and I find both the American Right and the American Left hilarious, I don’t have a dog in this fight; but I’m not persuaded the war would not have taken place exactly as planned had Bush been rejected for his first presidency.

Plus the American People re-elected him. Which such true-believers in Democracy as the Left — it being their pole-star, as it were — have to respect, as the People’s Will.