And Another Walks Away
I’m guess that the Left really despises someone who leaves their ranks. Most of this comes from the fact they’ve matured. They’ve seen that the movement they joined in their youth (I’m referring to those from the 60’s and 70’s) is dead. It’s mutated into a befuddled mess that includes a distaste for anything that is right and just for this nation. Below is excerpted text from a piece written by Keith Thompson. He’s a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, and this piece ran yesterday. I urge our readers to read the thing in it’s entirety. He is one of the most recent "awakened ones" from the movement of the Left.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/22/INGUNCQHKJ1.DTL
Nightfall, Jan. 30. Eight-million Iraqi voters have finished risking their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism. Three things happen in rapid succession. The right cheers. The left demurs. I walk away from a long-term intimate relationship. I'm separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.
I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.
I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode.
My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.
A turning point came at a dinner party on the day Ronald Reagan famously described the Soviet Union as the pre-eminent source of evil in the modern world.
The general tenor of the evening was that Reagan's use of the word "evil" had moved the world closer to annihilation. There was a palpable sense that we might not make it to dessert.
When I casually offered that the surviving relatives of the more than 20 million people murdered on orders of Joseph Stalin might not find "evil'" too strong a word, the room took on a collective bemused smile of the sort you might expect if someone had casually mentioned taking up child molestation for sport.
I look back on that experience as the beginning of my departure from a left already well on its way to losing its bearings. Two decades later, I watched with astonishment as leading left intellectuals launched a telethon- like body count of civilian deaths caused by American soldiers in Afghanistan. Their premise was straightforward, almost giddily so: When the number of civilian Afghani deaths surpassed the carnage of Sept. 11, the war would be unjust, irrespective of other considerations.
Stated simply: The force wielded by democracies in self-defense was declared morally equivalent to the nihilistic aggression perpetuated by Muslim fanatics.
Susan Sontag cleared her throat for the "courage" of the al Qaeda pilots. Norman Mailer pronounced the dead of Sept. 11 comparable to "automobile statistics." The events of that day were likely premeditated by the White House, Gore Vidal insinuated. Noam Chomsky insisted that al Qaeda at its most atrocious generated no terror greater than American foreign policy on a mediocre day.
Wait, it gets better. When actor Bill Cosby called on black parents to explain to their kids why they are not likely to get into medical school speaking English like "Why you ain't" and "Where you is," Jesse Jackson countered that the time was not yet right to "level the playing field." Why not? Because "drunk people can't do that ... illiterate people can't do that."
When self-styled pragmatic feminist Camille Paglia mocked young coeds who believe "I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening," Susan Estrich spoke up for gender- focused feminists who "would argue that so long as women are powerless relative to men, viewing 'yes' as a sign of true consent is misguided."
And the Left will click their tongues and disdain him for his change in ideology. It’s not that Mr. Thompson has changed; he’s matured. Many on the Left during the 60’s looked for a way to rebel. Most of them found it. Many of them, and Mr. Thompson mentions them, like Noam Chomsky found their niche in academia, and began to turn the youth to their side.
Of course the cultural shift had a significant role to play in that wanton rebellion. Kids were looking for freedom they thought they didn’t possess in more ways than one. Freedom from oppression wasn’t the only thing they were looking for. They were looking for the freedom to rebel against a system they believed was tyrannical and repressive. To them, the status quo of the times was what they wanted to change. And the problem that comes with all "visionaries" is that once they get a taste of power and prestige, they’re apt to drop their cause to drink more from the trough. Anyone remember the pigs in Animal Farm?
Mr. Thompson doesn’t acknowledge that communism and socialism drives the Left now, and has for quite some time. The term "progressive" was a monniker that the Communists of the 30’s and 40’s used to get around having to use the word "Communist". Now, the Left—cultural or political—have once again returned to their roots, and taken up the name they believe best defines them. But that word can’t truly define their ideology. When asked what defines them, we get a laundry list of items that range from gender and racial equality, wishing to help the poor, better education for kids (read: indoctrination), and doing everything they can to maintain their status quo.
They disregard the strides made for gender and racial equality that has been made in this nation. They claim it’s not enough. They sniff and cry over the poor despite the fact that "poor" today is not what "poor" meant in the 50’s and 60’s, and the "poor" today would have been considered rich during the Great Depression. Their ideas for better education is just simply throw money at the schools. But the hierarchy within the schools—between teachers and administrators—makes it difficult to spend the money properly. And when the Teacher’s Union gets involved, it’s even more difficult to deal with the real issues regarding education, or the removal of a teacher. They dislike having to dismiss a teacher, and the Union digs in it’s heels when a teacher’s head is called for; and it doesn’t matter the "crime" they commit. In Arizona, the last three teachers that have been accused of either molesting a student or having an "affair" with a student, are still kept on the payroll; Union’s orders.
We have watched as the institutions of higher learning that were once well-respected have now evolved into bastions of Liberal ideology, with ramparts of willing and motivated protesters to shout down any sort of conservative voices or change. Ward Churchill can't be removed because of "tenure" despite the fact he lied to get his position. And there are many more teachers that get away with egregious offenses; again, due to tenure. "Tenure" is the new excuse for those on the Left in academia to prevent the loss of the only job they know which is lying and peddling fibs about this nation. Revising history to suit your needs makes them no better than the communists that rose to power in the former Soviet Union or in China.
We are a nation founded on morals and principles that our Founding Fathers believed in because they wanted to leave all of Old Europe behind. They didn’t want to embrace the ideals they were escaping. And look at Old Europe now. It’s still old, it’s still socialist, and it still has no clue; just like the Left. And the above statements from people like Estrich, and Sontag, and Chomsky are prime examples of the cluelessness of their ideology and their party. Anyone who disagrees, go read Marcie's fisking of Howard Dean's comments made to Tim Russert last week.
I applaud Mr. Thompson for realizing the error of the ideology he once believed in. He is now a "classic liberal" in the way that FDR, JFK, and "Scoop" Jackson were. A strong nation. A strong defense. (Yes, I’m aware that FDR tried to implement many socialistic ideas, but it doesn’t change the fact that he took this nation to war—a war to win—to defend our freedoms.) But Mr. Thompson should take this to heart. He wasn’t the first to turn away from the Left, and their slow self-destruction. And I can guarantee that he won’t be the last one, either.
Publius II
I’m guess that the Left really despises someone who leaves their ranks. Most of this comes from the fact they’ve matured. They’ve seen that the movement they joined in their youth (I’m referring to those from the 60’s and 70’s) is dead. It’s mutated into a befuddled mess that includes a distaste for anything that is right and just for this nation. Below is excerpted text from a piece written by Keith Thompson. He’s a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, and this piece ran yesterday. I urge our readers to read the thing in it’s entirety. He is one of the most recent "awakened ones" from the movement of the Left.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/22/INGUNCQHKJ1.DTL
Nightfall, Jan. 30. Eight-million Iraqi voters have finished risking their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism. Three things happen in rapid succession. The right cheers. The left demurs. I walk away from a long-term intimate relationship. I'm separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.
I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.
I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode.
My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.
A turning point came at a dinner party on the day Ronald Reagan famously described the Soviet Union as the pre-eminent source of evil in the modern world.
The general tenor of the evening was that Reagan's use of the word "evil" had moved the world closer to annihilation. There was a palpable sense that we might not make it to dessert.
When I casually offered that the surviving relatives of the more than 20 million people murdered on orders of Joseph Stalin might not find "evil'" too strong a word, the room took on a collective bemused smile of the sort you might expect if someone had casually mentioned taking up child molestation for sport.
I look back on that experience as the beginning of my departure from a left already well on its way to losing its bearings. Two decades later, I watched with astonishment as leading left intellectuals launched a telethon- like body count of civilian deaths caused by American soldiers in Afghanistan. Their premise was straightforward, almost giddily so: When the number of civilian Afghani deaths surpassed the carnage of Sept. 11, the war would be unjust, irrespective of other considerations.
Stated simply: The force wielded by democracies in self-defense was declared morally equivalent to the nihilistic aggression perpetuated by Muslim fanatics.
Susan Sontag cleared her throat for the "courage" of the al Qaeda pilots. Norman Mailer pronounced the dead of Sept. 11 comparable to "automobile statistics." The events of that day were likely premeditated by the White House, Gore Vidal insinuated. Noam Chomsky insisted that al Qaeda at its most atrocious generated no terror greater than American foreign policy on a mediocre day.
Wait, it gets better. When actor Bill Cosby called on black parents to explain to their kids why they are not likely to get into medical school speaking English like "Why you ain't" and "Where you is," Jesse Jackson countered that the time was not yet right to "level the playing field." Why not? Because "drunk people can't do that ... illiterate people can't do that."
When self-styled pragmatic feminist Camille Paglia mocked young coeds who believe "I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening," Susan Estrich spoke up for gender- focused feminists who "would argue that so long as women are powerless relative to men, viewing 'yes' as a sign of true consent is misguided."
And the Left will click their tongues and disdain him for his change in ideology. It’s not that Mr. Thompson has changed; he’s matured. Many on the Left during the 60’s looked for a way to rebel. Most of them found it. Many of them, and Mr. Thompson mentions them, like Noam Chomsky found their niche in academia, and began to turn the youth to their side.
Of course the cultural shift had a significant role to play in that wanton rebellion. Kids were looking for freedom they thought they didn’t possess in more ways than one. Freedom from oppression wasn’t the only thing they were looking for. They were looking for the freedom to rebel against a system they believed was tyrannical and repressive. To them, the status quo of the times was what they wanted to change. And the problem that comes with all "visionaries" is that once they get a taste of power and prestige, they’re apt to drop their cause to drink more from the trough. Anyone remember the pigs in Animal Farm?
Mr. Thompson doesn’t acknowledge that communism and socialism drives the Left now, and has for quite some time. The term "progressive" was a monniker that the Communists of the 30’s and 40’s used to get around having to use the word "Communist". Now, the Left—cultural or political—have once again returned to their roots, and taken up the name they believe best defines them. But that word can’t truly define their ideology. When asked what defines them, we get a laundry list of items that range from gender and racial equality, wishing to help the poor, better education for kids (read: indoctrination), and doing everything they can to maintain their status quo.
They disregard the strides made for gender and racial equality that has been made in this nation. They claim it’s not enough. They sniff and cry over the poor despite the fact that "poor" today is not what "poor" meant in the 50’s and 60’s, and the "poor" today would have been considered rich during the Great Depression. Their ideas for better education is just simply throw money at the schools. But the hierarchy within the schools—between teachers and administrators—makes it difficult to spend the money properly. And when the Teacher’s Union gets involved, it’s even more difficult to deal with the real issues regarding education, or the removal of a teacher. They dislike having to dismiss a teacher, and the Union digs in it’s heels when a teacher’s head is called for; and it doesn’t matter the "crime" they commit. In Arizona, the last three teachers that have been accused of either molesting a student or having an "affair" with a student, are still kept on the payroll; Union’s orders.
We have watched as the institutions of higher learning that were once well-respected have now evolved into bastions of Liberal ideology, with ramparts of willing and motivated protesters to shout down any sort of conservative voices or change. Ward Churchill can't be removed because of "tenure" despite the fact he lied to get his position. And there are many more teachers that get away with egregious offenses; again, due to tenure. "Tenure" is the new excuse for those on the Left in academia to prevent the loss of the only job they know which is lying and peddling fibs about this nation. Revising history to suit your needs makes them no better than the communists that rose to power in the former Soviet Union or in China.
We are a nation founded on morals and principles that our Founding Fathers believed in because they wanted to leave all of Old Europe behind. They didn’t want to embrace the ideals they were escaping. And look at Old Europe now. It’s still old, it’s still socialist, and it still has no clue; just like the Left. And the above statements from people like Estrich, and Sontag, and Chomsky are prime examples of the cluelessness of their ideology and their party. Anyone who disagrees, go read Marcie's fisking of Howard Dean's comments made to Tim Russert last week.
I applaud Mr. Thompson for realizing the error of the ideology he once believed in. He is now a "classic liberal" in the way that FDR, JFK, and "Scoop" Jackson were. A strong nation. A strong defense. (Yes, I’m aware that FDR tried to implement many socialistic ideas, but it doesn’t change the fact that he took this nation to war—a war to win—to defend our freedoms.) But Mr. Thompson should take this to heart. He wasn’t the first to turn away from the Left, and their slow self-destruction. And I can guarantee that he won’t be the last one, either.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home