Tuesday, March 29, 2005

The Enemy of My Enemy...


... is my enemy. So goes the thinking on the Left. So embittered with their political adversaries that they would neglect avenues of common ground on cultural issues prefering instead to side with their own malevolent fringe and demonize any and all degrees of opposition. Capitalizing on slight rifts among voices of the Right during its unified pleading for moral fortitude on fundamental concepts of decency, voices of the Left are taking this opportunity to harvest division from seeds of bigotry and fear.

With each day, the cacophony worsens as some journalists abandon all (or even no) pretense of reason to fashion the pires of inquisition. Over at
Rightwing Nuthouse, Superhawk records New York Times' Columnist, Paul Krugman's complete break with sanity today. Siezing on the raw emotions of some activists, Krugman attempts to paint a picture of the faithful as a swarming insurgency poised for violent revolution...

... nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.

We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous.

But it's also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence.

America isn’t yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren’t sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.

But, even as he feigns marginal solidarity with 'soft' Conservatives, Krugman is basically condemning their common sensibilties for the sake of vilification of all Republicans. Indeed, in his prognostications of violent lawlessness by the majority party, he ignors entirely the enormous deference paid by Both President Bush and Governor Bush to the rulings handed down from the courts. It's a factual obfuscation not lost on the folks at Powerline.

Michelle Malkin studies this further, noting similar expressions of generalized bigotry and attempted marginalization of voices on the right by Michelle Cottle of The New Republic, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, and Jeff Jarvis as mentioned previously.

A schism certainly exists on the political Right. The discontinuity is exposed by serious debates regarding profound cultural conflicts. Passions were united in this case over the issue of the sanctity of life, as one might expect of a people dedicated to common purpose. The fundamentals are never in question. The major rift occurs regarding the government's role in the solution. Here I ask the reader to ignor labels for the sake of meaning with regard to terminology. Conservative voices on the Right argue in favor of Reason. Consistent with their principles, they have engaged the matter to the full extent of legal remedy, to the limits of Constitutional protocol, in the true spirit of American debate. And having exhausted all options to no avail, and lost the argument, are resigned to accept the judgment of a legal process... on the one hand. Yet, there is a subsequent dedication to a continuation of the primary debate on the other.

At the liberal fringe of the Right, there exist the activists - faithfully devout for the most part - who having likewise lost the argument, are now willing to damn the process in favor of immediate and impetuous remedy. Recognizing the intemperance of a rogue judiciary, they seek a radical solution beyond the propriety of legitimate authority... the primacy of life being sole justification in this case, for chaos.

If voices of Reason prevailed on the Left, one might think they would recognize some common purpose with the conservative side of recent arguments. They might have embraced open debate over fundamental principle, yet urged caution with regard to further government involvement in matters of life, thus defending the supremacy of the process while resolving to accept the confines of legal jurisdiction. Afterall, the Left professes similar devotion to freedom and independence from speech to gender rights. The ACLU argues relentlessly for the lives of the condemned and mercy for the butchers of a real fascist Kleptocracy. Woman are perceived to be oppressed by men, especially their husbands who might want them to remain silent in their place. An Executive administration might use brute military force to compell domestic fanatics, or sieze children from their family in defiance of court order. A Chief executive might even be entitled to the privacy of his particular unseemly perversions as long as the foible does not yield judgments on policy as might be the case with the strength and integrity of faith. The Left fears the imperatives of faith over the jurisdiction of law, embraces dissent, and lauds judicial activism. All of these issues continue to be aspects of the Right's schism.

And yet in this case, the Left has comprehensively rejected the obvious commonality of perspective regarding those very same issues at present. They have instead chosen to reveal the truth of their actual dogma. The fringe of the ideological Left champions civil disobediance and we are encouraged to transcend. They burn and destroy cities at whim and we are urged to understand their rage. They talk of assassination and we are lectured in the virtue of free speech. They set homes on fire, and we are petitioned for lenience. They bloviate incessant hyperbole and we are cautioned to humor. They challenge States' rights, cultural tradition and Constitutional manifest, and we are forced to submit to their will. The truth is that their only principle is a ruthless devotion to political supremacy at any cost. It is a cheap luxury to be sure, when the currency peddled is counterfeit to begin with... and margined on the blood of the infirm and unborn.

Regardless, in the end, the enemy of our friend is still our enemy. Yet we are all brethren under the same flag. Reciprocal tolerance is afforded accordingly. And although folks like Krugman and his fellows in the ranks of Old Busted Media choose to ignor the facts, the current debate actually
defies party lines, even if not ideological ones. Afterall, we are a people ostensibly united along the lines of common principle toward the goal of the greatest individual liberty for the broadest common good. (Edited 03.30.05:16:12)

Aren't we?...

UPDATE: 03.30.05:13:09
Did I forget Andrew Sullivan? No! I just don't think he's as relevant as he thinks he is. Mr. Sullivan seems to be engaged in a fascinating debate about what he is about, what he believes, what he is. None of which produces anything meaningful whatsoever.

No comments: