If you read here, you’ll know that I spend more of my time calling out the excesses of the Left than of the Right. I’ve explained why, and it’s not because I’m a right-winger or am unaware of their program and, especially, of their deranged candidate for President.
But this time I’ll let Bari Weiss answer for me, in an extract below from a recent piece she wrote for The Free Press. I’m not interested much in the fracas about Tucker Carlson, for too much else is happening in the world, but below is an extract from Weiss’s piece that mirrors my own sentiments. You can read the whole piece, if you wish, by clicking on the headline.
An excerpt:
If there is a criticism I’ve gotten over the past several years it’s that I pay too much attention—and apply too much scrutiny—to the excesses of the illiberal left at the expense of the illiberal right. Wasn’t I ignoring the elephant and allowing myself to get distracted by the gnat?
My response to that is twofold.
The first is that there is no shortage of writers, reporters, and outlets focusing on the dangers of the far right. I saw the far left as conspicuously overlooked by people who otherwise take a great interest in political extremism. And I understand why they were averting their gaze: The social cost of noticing this subject is very high. Given that the job description of a journalist is to observe the world, uncover things in the public interest, and then tell the plain truth about it, choosing topics where others fall silent seems wise to me. It still does.
The second is that I have been concerned for years now that the illiberal ideology that has become increasingly mainstream on the political left—one that makes war on our common history, our common identity as Americans, and fundamentally, on the goodness of the American project—would inspire the mirror ideology on the right.
And that is exactly where we find ourselves, with an illiberal left that defaces Churchill statues—and an illiberal right that defaces Churchill’s legacy. With a left that insists 1619 was the year of the true founding of America—and a right that suggests the Greatest Generation was something closer to genociders. With a left that sympathizes with modern-day Nazis in the form of Hamas—and a right that sympathizes with the original ones.
Yep. Like you and like Bari Weiss, my thinking on this is that the right has enough detractors; it has largely been rejected by our social contract. (Of course, the rules of that contract can change, but as of now, the right—as in “Jews will not replace us!”—is a pariah.) That’s not the case with the left. The left is favored in our current social contract, so the risk from the left—the risk of mainstreaming left-wing speech policing, antisemitism, anti-science, and all the rest—is much greater. If “liberalism” is to survive, the illiberal left needs to be reined in. Keep going!
The number and magnitude of anti-Jewish “demonstrations” (riots) by the Left are much, much higher than the one small Charlottesville parade. There is no comparison. See what would happen if there were thousands demonstrating to “send blacks back to Africa”.
All of the violence and censorship comes from the Left – all of it. And the notion that “government” either ignores it or facilitates it brings it close to fascism.
Finally, while Trump is clearly offensive to some, he has spent his life in the private sector navigating changing economic conditions, failing at some ventures while being successful in others. Known as real life.
Contrast that with lifetime government bureaucrats, who operate in an ecosystem without competition, no consequences and “success” measured by how much of private sector money they can spend under the guise of “programs”.
+1
These are good points.
It would seem to me that while the Left censors via social pressure, the Right also engages in censorship and does it from a position of power in Red states, where they have outlawed teaching certain topics and banned books from schools and public libraries. And should Trump win, they would use Federal power to do more of that.
And to describe Trump as some ordinary businessman is such an incomplete picture as to miss his character entirely. He has cheated his way through life, breaking laws with impunity and stiffing those he owes, while squandering hundreds of millions of inheritance in the most stupid ways. He has never experienced real life as most people do.
“All of the violence and censorship comes from the Left – all of it.”
Demonstrably false. There are many examples; you can begin with the events of January 6th, 2021.
Including such a risible statement really undermines the rest of your comment.
So, all of the “globalize intifada” demonstrations, assaulting Jewish students, preventing them from entering buildings, barricading themselves in administrative buildings, demonstrating outside Jewish owned businesses and threatening the owners with death, which occurs on a daily basis and has for the past 7 months is the same as 5 hours on January 6th?
Got it.
Q.E.D.
Oklahoma City, Tree of Life, Buffalo, El Paso, Colorado Springs, Charleston…in 2022 alone there were 25 reported “extremist” murders committed-21 by ideologically right wing white extremists. I’m sure the hundreds of people killed by people espousing far right ideologies would be glad to know “all of the violence occurs on the left.”
+1
Chicago – 394 murders through August 2024. 109 shot over 4th of July weekend alone.
All Democrats. And strictest gun laws in the country.
Hundreds, if not thousands of anti Jewish demonstrations in the US in 2024
No comparison. Not even close. The Left is the NFL compared to Pee Wee league.
First of all you said “all.” That’s a joke. “All democrats”? How the hell do you know? Also were these deaths political violence? Give me a break. Study after study shows that the vast majority of POLITICAL violence in the US that ends in severe bodily injury or death where a left or right ideology can be attached to it comes from the right. I don’t even know if you are trolling or being serious-but if serious this is some extreme form of cognitive dissonance.
Sorry – only 74%.
Cook County, IL is very liberal. In Cook County, IL 74.2% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election, 24.0% voted for the Republican Party, and the remaining 1.8% voted Independent.
Nashville School Shooting – not Right
Attempted assassination of Trump (I’d call that political violence, maybe you wouldn’t)
Daily threats against Jews on college campuses and cities.
Again, not even close. The party of “diversity and inclusion” seems to have a lot of hate for those who are not the anointed victim class.
There is nothing comparable on the right. Nothing.
When did 7,000 “right wing”“protestors” do this?
https://youtu.be/1KRE_hIMFVU?si=05g-ZkrQVW5TEIcg
Talk about cognitive dissonance and failing to acknowledge reality….
1.Voting numbers of a county are not evidence for voting behavior of a small fraction of specific individuals who probably don’t even care to vote. Plus this is not political violence.
2.”As of April 14, 2023, police have not publicly disclosed a motive for the shooting. Hale’s surviving writings, including diaries and a planning document, initially called a “manifesto”, were described by police as “rambling” and empty of any specific political or social issues.”-taken directly from publicly available sources.
3.The Trump shooter was a registered Republican who came from a Republican family and who had more online search history that would appear to target Biden and the DNC but seemed to want to kill any politician and the Trump rally was closer and easier.
4.As Jew who actually works on one of the most infamous of these campuses I can say this: these students are severely misguided but nothing they are doing is remotely threatening in terms of the violence I have repeatedly restricted my point too.
5.Ditto for the video. Shameful? Yes. “Severe bodily injury or death” as I have repeatedly said but you seem not to want to engage with? Hardly.
George Floyd riots – $1-$2 billion in damage, including Federal buildings.
But this doesn’t count, right?
Multiple police officers were shot or attacked during the protests.[269] Four officers were shot in St. Louis after facing violent protesters who had been looting and vandalising local businesses.[270] In Las Vegas, a policer officer was shot in the head at Circus Circus Hotel and Casino whilst they were fighting a suspect.[271] Law enforcement officers were also injured by vehicles in Denver and New York City and hit by projectiles elsewhere in the U.S.A.[269] In New York City, nearly 400 officers were injured following two weeks of protesting. Injuries resulted from being hit by moving vehicles and being hit in the head with objects such as bricks and bottles.[272] In one incident in Los Angeles, two officers were shot whilst sitting in their patrol car and protesters blocked the responding ambulance from entering the hospital whilst shouting “we hope they die”.[273] In London, protesters threw objects at police, and picked up and threw temporary barriers at the gates of Downing Street where officers were stationed prompting more officers to enter the area.[274] In all, twenty-seven officers were injured in London,[275] with fourteen officers injured when protesters clashed with mounted police, with Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick saying it was “shocking and completely unacceptable”.[276][277]
At least 104 incidents of vehicles driving into crowds of protesters, including eight involving police officers, were recorded from May 27 to September 5, with 39 drivers charged. According to experts some incidents involved frightened drivers surrounded by protesters while other incidents involved angry drivers or were politically motivated.[278] Since 2015, such actions have been encouraged against Black Lives Matter protests by “Run Them Over” and “All Lives Splatter” memes online, as well as items posted on Fox News and on social media by police officers.[279][280] In Buffalo, three Buffalo Police Department officers were struck by a car, and in Minneapolis, a Minnesota National Guard soldier fired 3 rounds at a speeding vehicle that was driving towards police officers and soldiers.
You have a reading comprehension issue. Did I say anything about riots, civil disobedience or property damage? I said “POLITICAL violence in the US that ends in severe bodily injury or death.” Multiple times you have ignored this and shifted the point. I see why though-after starting with “All of the violence and censorship comes from the Left – all of it” and having the absurdity of that claim pointed out by the fact that hundreds of people have been killed over the last 30 years in the US in the name of right wing extremism all one can do is shift goal posts to disconnected points like voter statistics in Cook County.
While I may question the specific claims and the inference that the DEMs are to blame for each, in general, I agree with you that the societal upheaval sponsored by the policies, regulations and laws enforced by the left (progressives) are far more dangerous – in the long run, they dismantle civilization. A society cannot sustain itself on post-modern delusions.
And. America cannot survive being hated by its own.
+100
Please specify which progressive policies have caused societal upheaval?
It’s progressive policies of the last century that have had the most positive impacts on US society and raised standards of living of the middle class and for minorities. It’s the right that fought against all that and wants to undo it. If they succeed, then we’ll see some real upheaval.
Phil, you are right about the last century. The last three decades have seen significant/dangerous setbacks – all underwritten by the Democrats.
Specifically:
1. The border crisis: Unchecked immigration has harmed working-class Americans and fueled the fentanyl crisis in multiple cities.
2. Academia and the Democratic Party: Policies like DEI, affirmative action, and the resulting surge in antisemitism, cancellations, and public shaming of dissenters have had devastating effects.
3. Science and Gender Ideology: The conflation of sex and gender has led to:
– Males participating in female sports and accessing female-only spaces
– Promotion of gender reassignment surgery, including for minors
– Erasure of reality and promotion of confusion
– “Decolonizing math” in school curricular (we need to know how to build bridges, not figure out if calculus is racist)
4. Authoritarian attempts to suppress speech: Efforts to silence dissenting voices through censorship, de-platforming, and labeling opposing views as “hate speech” or “misinformation” threaten open discourse and democratic values.
These developments will have long-lasting, far-reaching consequences for mental health, societal cohesion, and the well-being of our nation’s children.
Are people completely unaware that I want to avoid these on-on-one arguments on this site, and also the domination of sites by people who leave more than their share of comments. Stop it. NOW.
Those who do this will be put on moderation until they start obeying the Roolz.
Jerry, this is baffling.
We are meant to debate civilly, that’s what the blog is for. Correct me if I’m wrong. Yes, you can and must check those who are uncivil to each other, but you (really) should not squash debate.
The free exchange of ideas is a very (very) good thing. 🙂
People will stop commenting if you squash their opinions, most of which are expressed civilly.
Two points could be added. (1) No less an authority on “Critical Theory” than Prof. Judith Butler explains that Hamas and Hezballah are “social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left.” (2) The Left/Right horseshoe phenomenon is real, as illustrated by such figures as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard—and by the six-months during which MAGA Republicans and Jill Stein followed the same line in regard to military aid to Ukraine.
+1
Yes.
RFK – for MAGAs too stupid to find a Trump rally. RFK is prime retardation hour.
D.A.
NYC
The Trump side has deteriorated further: the article above concerns a “Holocaust revisionist” who thinks Churchill was the bad guy in WW 2.
Tucker Carlson, who was at the RNC, gave him an hour long interview on X. JD Vance refuses to disavow Carlson.
Trump was looking at picking up a few votes from unhappy Dems but this might kill that hope.
Examination of the following progression (emphasis on progression, versus progess) of thought/thinkers will increase understanding of an enormous amount, IMHO :
Rousseau (1712 – 1778)
Kant (1724 – 1804)
Hegel (1770 – 1831)
Marx (1818-1883)
… not exhaustive, but these thinkers constitute the backbone of Leftism, and The Left – which I think Hegel actually named, but I don’t have a quote.
IOW
Left (versus left) is not equal or equivalent to Democrat. I was utterly unaware of this for a long time.
Agreed. Reading these writers (and a few others) gave me additional depth of understanding. While Left does not equal Democrat (as what I think we’re referring to is the global left), I think you would agree that the underpinnings of the D party platform are certainly more tied to the Left than are the policies of the Republicans.
I guess one possible problem is that criticism primarily or solely of the left is that you then become allies of the right by default. That is, they can cite you without risk that they are exposing their followers to someone who actually represents a moderate worldview and perceives the flaws in both extremes. And by the same mechanism, those on the left will dismiss your arguments because you are a supporter of the right, again by default.
It would be interesting to see with Weiss, for example, the political orientation of people who tend to report her articles favourably or unfavourably.
I’d say the hazard is greater if you spend all your energy on the (real) hazards on the left but neglect the hazards on the right (because someone else is doing it or whatever) you open yourself up to being used by lunatics on the right. You end up being dismissed by the people who most need to hear the criticism of left-side nonsense because people assume you’re just a shill for the right. Yeah, they dismissal is wrongly done, but that’s what happens anyway.
As far as I know, I have not been cited ever as an ally of the Right. The only time I’ve appeared on right-wing cites is when some place like The College Fix mentions one of my criticisms of lunacy happening on campus.
How can I be assumed to be an ally of the Right when I repeatedly say I could never vote for or endorse Trump because I consider him pathological–a narcissist with a borderline personality disorder?
Perhaps I should have used “one” instead of “you”. I’m not specifically aware of this happening in your case but it has happened to plenty of others. Bari Weiss, for example.
I could tell that you, GB, meant the general “you”.
I’ll bite. For one thing, those* who call you (our host, not general) right-wing do not equate “right-wing” with support for Trump.
Their doctrine is all-or-nothingism. To them the Left is a monolith. Just a couple of disagreements on specific issues or cases (gender or trans stuff, say, or Israeli genocide, or anything, really) is enough to be defenestrated from their Left.
That and their other doctrine, Guilt-by-associationism. Once somebody has been defenestrated, anyone else agreeing with them or associating with them in any way on any subject is also Out. Agreement with anything Pinker or Shermer, e.g.–or now Weiss also–ever said is a sufficient criterion to be branded Right-wing.
*they do exist. I’ve seen it at Myers’s.
In the article above they go after the right. Tucker Carlson with a Holocaust “revisionist”. Just heard that JD Vance will not disavow Carlson.
The left has their own problems but not usually Holocaust denial (although it’s common in the Middle East).
Agreed, that Holocaust denial was reprehensible. See Michael Shermer’s Skeptic piece here
Thanks for that. I subscribed to his Substack.
I see the popularity of Carlson’s interview with Cooper as a far bigger problem than whether we should criticise the left. People, knowing little or no history, are willing to believe this crap.
I’d like to see modern history as a compulsory course in high schools, and to sugar the pill, it need not be a traditional learn-the-dates kind of history. Even screening respectable documentaries without examination or testing would give kids an understanding of what we know about what, where, when and why. Then at least they might not get taken in by a nutcase who thinks Hitler was the good guy and Churchill the villain.
We should be on the side of reason and common sense, whether on the right, left or center. These divisions (other than in the extreme cases) are often arbitrary and nebulous. The categories erase our common humanity.
Having said that.
From Bari:
“The second is that I have been concerned for years now that the illiberal ideology that has become increasingly mainstream on the political left—one that makes war on our common history, our common identity as Americans, and fundamentally, on the goodness of the American project—would inspire the mirror ideology on the right.”
She’s correct. The more unhinged the left gets, (the once beloved, mostly rational and mostly science loving left) the more credence it gives the dangerous crazies on the right.
Tucker Carlson is a serious problem, he isn’t a good faith actor, is disingenuous, and has no problem lying while coming across as “caring” and patriotic.
Unlike Jerry, I do worry about the millions++ who listen to Carlson and are influenced by him. There are similar loons on the left, though probably less harmful – I’m not sure. Joy Reid comes to mind. Her chronic race baiting is deeply harmful, still, I think she’s genuinely moronic and clueless, unlike Carlson.
If Trump decides to campaign with Carlson (as he is planing to), the optics will convey a dark story. Carlson is not stupid, he knows exactly what he is doing. And it’s ugly. I’m glad to see Ben Shapiro (DW) and similar others (on the right) denouncing these tactics by Carlson, rewriting and erasing history and leaning to antisemitism.
As far as criticism, let it happen – of both the left and the right and everything in between. Publishers should be keenly aware of audience capture and work against it – the FP does a good job of it. There may be no such thing as a “happy medium”.
We live in bizarre times.
“he isn’t a good faith actor, is disingenuous, and has no problem lying while coming across as ‘caring’ and patriotic.”
Rosemary, as one who is generally in agreement with you, I’ll demur a bit here. Carlson and I are about the same age, and I watched him regularly when we were both younger and I still owned a TV. (I caught some of his Fox years while visiting relatives.) Now I’ll stream him from time to time if a particular topic catches my eye. (I have not yet seen the latest on WWII history that seems to have caused a stir.) I have disagreed with him, seen him change his mind (Iraq, most notably), and laughed at his goofiness. But I’m puzzled at the accusation of bad faith, disingenuousness, and lying. Can you give examples? I have noted that he seems both angrier and more antagonistic since a left-wing mob descended on his house while he was away and terrified his wife, but I’m curious to know what now, apparently, qualifies him as one of the “dangerous” crazies on the right.
My take, in general. The intensity of the attacks against Tucker and other public figures on the right is directly correlated with the degree to which their backgrounds place them with or near the societal elite—be it in wealth, pedigree, or education. The attacks intensify even more against those who once shared political affiliation with the attackers. It is always the case when hounding “heretics”: there is deep intolerance of those who by upbringing, education, and group affiliation should have been natural and steadfast members of the “right side of history.”
+1
Doug,
I agree with much of what you said, but there are caveats. My concerns about Tucker Carlson stem from his recent interview with Darryl Cooper, a pseudo-historian who promotes conspiratorial views. Carlson presented Cooper as the ‘best and most honest popular historian working in the United States today,’ despite Cooper’s blatant misinformation.
In the interview, Cooper claimed Churchill was a ‘psychopath’ and the ‘chief villain’ of World War II, while Hitler wanted peace but was forced into war. Cooper also downplayed the Nazi death camps, attributing the millions of deaths to Germany’s unpreparedness for prisoners of war. These ideas have been debunked, but Carlson’s platform gives them reach.
Tucker is intelligent and aware of Cooper’s fringe views, making his endorsement disturbing. While Tucker has been great on some issues like gender, race, and border policies, his judgment and sincerity are questionable. His willingness to promote antisemitic leanings and misinformation is bothersome, especially given his massive following. If he were a clueless race-baiter like Joy Reid, I would be apt to give him a pass. But he’s not – he’s very bright, articulate, and has a huge audience. That’s what makes it troubling. I still watch him occasionally, but with a critical eye.
PS: Thank you for challenging me to steel-man my argument. It’s always good. If you watch the interview, I’d be -genuinely- curious about your take.
Well said. Completely agree. Tucker Carlson used to be worth a listen. But he seems to have gone off the rails after leaving Fox.
I thought his “interview” with Putin was questionable. However after this latest video with Cooper I consider him reprehensible.
+1
+1
Some may bristle at my oversimplification here, but both the far right and the far left are, at heart, fascists. Their express goals may differ, but their means of achieving them are the same: suppression of dissent and opposition.
Both must be criticized and I am an equal opportunity critic. There can never be “enough” criticism of the far right, especially as they spin further and further into Nazi idolatry. The normalization of these attitudes, once unthinkable, is right before us now.
But criticism of the left is absolutely necessary and I do not have any problem with any liberal who wants to focus their efforts on exposing the illiberal “progressive” or “woke” left. That is a worthy endeavor in itself. The intensely destructive course they propose in the name of “equity” is a different but similarly painful path to some dark times.
No, Progressives do not get a pass simply because a deranged lunatic is running for President from the right. The difference between liberals and progressives is a distinction that must be emphasized at every turn, and the danger posed by the doctrines of the latter must be made clear.
+1
for this:
“Some may bristle at my oversimplification here, but both the far right and the far left are, at heart, fascists. Their express goals may differ, but their means of achieving them are the same: suppression of dissent and opposition.”
The rest, I would argue with – selectively. 🙂
Thank you, Steven E.
Thank you Steven. One can find criticism of Trump and other politicians on the right on sites like Daily Wire, National Review, The Federalist, etc. I’m sure those writers also get criticism for daring to criticize republicans for the same reason that Dr. Coyne is being criticized. My opinion is that these critiques are good for the party (either one), just as debates between the party are good for the general public. If one can’t defend one’s positions against solid criticism, then those positions should be reworked. Not hidden, but reworked.
It sounds like you probably read this, but I didn’t, so I just want to bump it :
George Orwell
What is Fascism?
TRIBUNE 1944
http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc
Pretty good, IMHO, your comment too.
Bryan, that was double plus good.
It’s an amazing time to be in, with an abundance of important literature available at a click – or the library – always a surprise in wait – cheers.
The right will never change so dont waste your time. The left has many many ordinary liberals, Dems, centrists who are not fixated on Marx or socialism but support the good social welfare programs of the left, not the left’s authoritarians
and marxists. So there are many potential recruits to a sane movement of
social democracy. Forget the doctrines left, marxists and bearded revolutionaries and their demagogues. Pick up from Nick Cohen, a sane moderate leftist expelled by the British Marxists.
The *good* people you mention can be found on the left, center and right. They are all worth wasting time on. Every American is worth our time.
I won’t join you in dismissing the right.
Even Marx would probably be disgusted by those who act in his name.
Sorry, but I don’t buy these arguments. First of all, if one truly is a proponent of liberalism, then attacks from the Left AND Right need to be addressed. Indeed, the latter attacks have been much more prevalent in the past, and, given the political power of the right (DeSantis, anyone?), I view them as much more dangerous currently than are those of the Left. Furthermore I view it as intellectually lazy to say that since other people criticize the Right, we don’t have to bother. And, regarding the nature of the threat from the Left, I find it hard to take too seriously. Absent political power, it’s little more than noise (as in the failed pro-Palestinian demonstrations at the Democratic Convention). And finally, what I see happening is that attacking the left exclusively leads the attacker inexorably towards an agenda only marginally distinct from that of Fox “News”. Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech are values that need promoting and defending, and all attacks on them, regardless of the direction from whence they came, need to be called out vigorously and consistently.
Sorry, but I’ve criticized Trump many, many times, and just don’t want to repeat all the attacks on Trump that are made in the MSM, other websites like Pharyngula, and so on.
I am not going to conform to the wishes of readers who tell me I need to be criticizing Trump as well as the left, especially the “progressive Left”. I’ve already made my feelings about Trump known and find it boring to just repeat the criticisms of the WaPo, New York Times, and so on. If you want constant criticism of Trump, then go there. But please don’t insult me by saying I have an agenda indistinguishable from Fox News. That is simply untrue. As for freedom and freedom of speech, have you missed my gazillion posts defending that?
Sorry, but I’m going to write about what interests me, and if it doesn’t provide the political “balance” yoU want, I suggest that you read, say, the Washington Post, or better yet, join the howling mob on Pharygunla, where every political post is an anti-Trump post and there are no calls for criticizing the Left.
And thanks for the insult of calling me “intellectually lazy.”
Why do I enjoy this site and others like thefp?? Because it’s refreshing to hear some of these critiques that are coming from folks like me who have become unhappy with policies from a party that I’ve voted into office, and fail to find those same critques when I open my Apple News feed each morning. I can see a ton of groupthink articles about evil Trump, evil DeSantis, etc. from the traditional sources, and to me it reads like campaign propaganda.
For example, on the issue of trans women (men) competing in womens sports: I have always been supportive of providing opportunities for women to compete in sports, and have coached male, female, and coed sports teams. In my opinion and experience, as well as in my professional experience in design engineering, there are definite differences in male vs. female bodies. My disappointment with MSM on the left is the seeming blindness to this; they report on “transphobic” wackadoodles, (MGT said this! Boebert said that!) but fail to give someone like Riley Gaines or Dr. Coyne a chance to voice valid concerns, in order to shape the narrative. This site provides a nice counterpoint to that without being a true right leaning site like National Review (which I also do like, but I know their agenda). Thank you Dr. Coyne, and keep up the good work!
The point made above that what is important isn’t “right” or “left” but reason is correct. What dismays me most is that a large chunk of *both* the left and right have lost their minds. More concerning this is a historically repeated dynamic of an unstable society (e.g. the self-polarization of political extremes) and almost never ends well.
Disappointing they’re publishing Sohrab Ahrami – he’s a 3rd class intellectual, a fraud and a weirdo. Not a global level fool, grifter for the intellectually disabled like Peter Zeihan, but not worth reading or listening to.
UNLIKE.. say… Richard Dawkins !! (today) with Sam Harris. I’ll be listening to this later. 🙂
The kind of conversation you devote actual time to, with a beverage maybe, not just while doing the housework.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bInw5JNYgo
40 min.
D.A.
NYC
https://democracychronicles.org/author/david-anderson/
The other article by Victor Davis Hanson is better.
Why I call myself a center wing cynic.
I agree that the ultra-left needs serious criticism. In fact, I agree with almost all of what Jerry says about the loony-left — just don’t do it right now. Come November 6, I will be back bashing them as much as anyone.
What? It’s okay to criticize the Left so long is there is not an election on? Shouldn’t criticism keep on about the Democrats when they’re running a candidate for President? “Just don’t do it now”? Should speech be at it’s freest when there is a contest of ideologies. And remember, there are TONS of people going after Trump, including the MSM and many blogs. So I’m being told to let them go ahead and criticize the Left and extol their maniac candidate–but I have to shut up for several months because what I write here may influence the election (that itself is fantasy)?
Sorry; I’m not having it.
You do know, Harrync, that in politics nothing succeeds like success, though, right? After Election Night, the party that wins won’t listen to Eeyores coming out of the woodwork carping about its policies. They won from listening to their influencers and strategists who will be riding high, tumescent with victory. If you think they have wandered too far away from their roots, they will listen to you only if they lost. “What went wrong? Whom can we pin the blame on? What influencers need to be purged? What part of the coalition or the platform alienates voters and therefore can be, must be abandoned?” None of that will happen if they win. That is fantasy.
If you want to pull them back from loonieness you have to make them afraid they might lose. That means doing what Jerry is doing.
+1
Right, don’t do it right now.
Also, don’t do it after November 6, because the 2028 election is going to be the Most Important Election In Our Lifetime, and it’s important that we’re all pulling in the same direction until after that one’s over. Kamala is going to need us to keep our mouths shut so that devil DeSantis or horrible Haley don’t win.
Sorry, no unreasonable policy or politician is going to be off limits at any time for me, regardless of what party, person, or institution is espousing it. If someone wants to blindly accept the party line, this probably isn’t the right site for them.
One of my big faults is excess brevity, so I will expand a bit on that clearly too compact post of mine above.
Many decisions involve a weighing of competing values. The values I see here are 1) freely expressing your disagreement with policies that you see as wrong or even harmful; versus value 2), preventing a Trump victory in November. I consider value “1)” a very important value, one that generally would override other values. But in this case I think value “2)” is so vitally important, that I think it does override value “1)”. And I think any criticism of Harris or the Democratic party policies at this point in time may harm value “2)”, and thus should be avoided. Your evaluation of the competing values may be different, and your evaluation may even be the correct one. That’s why I try to remember to address my favorite Oliver Cromwell quote to myself every day: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
I’m sorry but I can’t agree. What you’re saying is that we cannot point out problems–any problems–with the Democratic candidate lest the odious Trump win. In other words, we have to censor our criticisms of views espoused by Democrats and just point out problems with the GOP.
Why not point out problems with BOTH sides and let the readers weigh them? Or do you think the readers here are so credulous and naive that any time they see criticisms of Harris, they automatically start leaning towards Trump?
On the other hand, maybe some Republican-leaning person who assumes that all Democrats are a monolithic hive mind who all believe that men can become women by saying the magic words “I’m a woman”, and that science can include sperm whales singing to trees, will stumble onto this site and see that reason-based thinking does exist within at least some D voters.