Step to the Left, Step to the Right: Where Do We Fit In?

TaBooTenente

Join Date 10/2004

Step to the Left, Step to the Right: Where Do We Fit In?

Label Your Favorite Media Majesty

External Link

When it comes to stating our political beliefs these days, we play loosely and aggressively with our declarations. We're the Phil Helmuths and Scotty Nyugens rather than the Howard Lederers and the Johnie Chans of ideologies.

This last round, we Democrats have stolen a favorite tactic of the ghost of Republican Past: the label tactic. Painting GW Bush as anything from cokehead frat boy to a certain fascist regime dictator seemed like a healthy pastime; moreover, it served to whip our disinterested party members into standing in late night poll lines while diehards brought in saucy pizzas and fizzy beverages for sustennance. Unfortunately for us, we also whipped undecideds, moderates, and disaffiliated Republicans into straightening their ties and making their own stand at the polls, into flipping the bird into the face of the unattractive arrogance we have developed.

Political spinning and strategery aside, not only does the labeling seem anti-productive, but seems largely inaccurate to me. Looking for a new, less shrill voice in an earlier article, I believed Draginol, T.B., Dr. Miller (and other conservatives) and I(and other liberlas) were closing in on a consensus as to where the polar divide began, and how certain liberals could approach the problem.

Then this happened:

TaBooTenente states: "One other thing: while I'm willing to accept the left-loonies on my own bill, I'm finding that conservatives tend to disassociate themselves with the right-wing extremists. It creates an unfair balance. Michael Moore offends you (me too, as I've said) into a conservative stance, but I'm supposed to view David Duke as an abnormality?"

T.B. responds (in reference to when he began to feel morally attacked by liberals: I felt like my senses were insulted, my beliefs challenged and a good man attacked by a group of fringe left wackos. I don't know that any particular point was a trigger, more like a continuum that served to continuously push me to further support the Administration (from being lukewarm at best). and "Absolutley!! David Duke was not legitimized by the party whereas MM was, at least what I saw, embraced." (which was a good point, by the way)

TaBooTenente: "David Duke may not be recognized by the Republican Party, but he represents a human being who has taken rightist ideology further into the continuum." and "as much as Fahreinheit 9/11 frustrated me, as did much of MM's antics as the election approached, I would never think of MM, Kerry, or Gore as the fringe left. Look, Kerry is about as middle-of-the-road as liberals get, and Gore's not far off that stride, either...or why do you think Nader keeps surfacing? Ralph Nader also is not ultra-fringe like many think; however, he's much further down the revolutionary ideology than most liberals are comfortable with."

Then Draginol enters with: "I'm sorry but Michael Moore absolutely IS a fringe left wing kook. And until the Democrats distance themselves from people like that they'll keep losing elections.

It is telling that when you look to the right for its kooks you really have to dig. David Duke? Man, he's been a fossil for 10+ years. Pat Robertson has been a nobody for 14 years. The kooky right wingers these days are people like Ann Coulter who is just an author and about as right wing as Al Franken is left wing. There is no Michael Moore of teh right. There's no Sean Penn of the right. There's no nasty, hatefilled violent protesters on teh right. To find that you have to go way back to the KKK (an organization founded by Democrats btw)."

TaBooTenente: "As far as ideologies go, MM is not a fringe-leftist. His politics are not ultra-left. They ARE liberal, certainly, and they are not moderate. But there is a large gap between MM politics, and revolutionary politics."

And then, in a last passionate closing argument, Draginol reiterates: "And I am saying that no, MM IS a fringe-leftists. His politics ARE ultra-left. I'm really surprised you think he's a mainstream liberal. Have you read any of his books? The only thing that keeps him from being completely out there is that he is (obviously) a capitalist.

Draginol makes an interesting point, but I reviewed my previous comments and realized I had never labeled Michael Moore as a "mainstream liberal". Hmm.

So, if We the People are loving us some labels, maybe it's time to revisit what we mean when we throw around affectionate cuddle-bunny nicknames like "Redneck Hickville Rube" or "Arrogant Traitorous Pinko Nutjob". More specifically, we should understand what we mean when we use terms like "Ultra-Right" or "Fringe Left" or even "Moderate".

I propose this as a generic, basic, linear ideology model:

[--(1)REVOLUTIONARISM--(2)COMMUNISM--(3)SOCIALISM--(4)LIBERALISM--(5)MODERN MAINSTREAM LIBERALISM--(6)L-BALANCED-R--(7)MODERATE--(8)CONSERVATIVE--(9)RIGHT-WING/ MINIMALIST GOVERNMENT--(10)FASCISM--(11)REACTIONARISM--]

Now: where would you classify the "fringe left"? Where would you place the following people: T. Kennedy, Gore, Kerry, MM, GWBush, McCain, A. Coultier, and any others you can think of? Why? Maybe this is the place to start. Then we can get back to some serious name-calling.

TBT
Copyright ©2004, ©2005, ©2006 Joshua Suchman. All rights reserved.
Taboo Home
The Phallic Suggestion
Stone Soup Blog Forum
TPS Mirror

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #49 By: jeblackstar - 11/24/2004 8:30:11 AM
Oh come on, I sat next to Bill Clinton at a conference we both happened to be attending. Admittedly, at the time, he wasn't the president, but I'm certainly no one important and I managed to score a seat next to the governor of Arkansas.

Cheers

You come on. Govenor is a *far* cry from former president.

Successfully updated karma reason!

True, but I'm not a celebrity on any level. I've written a few history books, I was a partner at a rather prestigious firm, and I currently teach Ancient European History. If I could sit next to the Governor of Arkansas, than why is it unreasonable that a member of the press, who has some facial recognition, or even a celebrity like Michael Moore, could sit next to a former president. Would you like to create a vast conspiracy theory because I've shaken the hand of four former presidents? Or the fact that I sat next to the guy in the Darth Vader suit on an airplane? Or the fact that I sat a row back on another from John McCain when he was running for president?

Cheers

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yes, absolutely, TB. Popular opinion, which happens to be flexible and very suggestable, dictates policy in representative governments (though parliament governments--like Israel, for example--are swayed more significantly by fringe beliefs) when no immediate crisis confronts the nation as a whole.

So here's one of my questions that was buried somewhere in an earlier comment:

What do you think happens to policy, or, for that matter, the popular center, when a crisis DOES confront the nation? We might debate what constitutes "crisis", now that I mention it. But what I'm getting at is during crises, or times of rapid change, I believe the center is forced to bifurcate, aligning with more radical elements toward either spectrum end. When this happens, each bifurcated segment of the middle wants to claim "center", like king of the mountain. When this happens, all of a sudden labels re-emerge and politicians have to appeal to a different demographic.

Here's another comment I'll make, that's not intended to start a fight, but to explain the liberal, at least my liberal, perspective. I don't want to claim it's correct, but it may be one of the reasons why this election felt so bloody to many on both sides. I believe that the 9/11 disaster was just that, a disaster. It was terrible. I'm just not certain it was a crisis.

I'm not cheapening anything. I may be underestimating the overall threat, however, and please feel free to suggest that I am. But I would suggest that it was not a crisis. I think many liberals (and honestly, I'm not interested in conspiracy theorists, at the moment--or MM's theories, for that matter) believe that the Iraqi war, and the code yellow, code red terror alerts were part of a Bush team push to move, and re-label, the popular center.

For clarity: I'm not suggesting conspiracy theory. 9/11 happened and it was terrible. Likewise, Saddam has been testing and breaking parameters set by UN since the original Gulf War, and, perhaps, military conflict was inevitable (something else we could discuss at another time). Also, I do not think Bush created any situation solely for his own personal gain.

But I do think that he manipulated the results to meet his own ideology, and in order to do that he dissolved and re-created the popular center. I think without that re-creation, Kerry would appear less "liberal" and more "mainstream liberal" or perhaps even relatively moderate (i'm sure that one is debatable). Maybe not to you, or me, necessarily, but to the larger 68% middle.

TBT

Successfully updated karma reason!