Robert:
We've had this conversation before. There are just so many terms available. A qualification that would be precise would have to be encyclopedic. I haven't heard you say anything that would cause me to put you in the Leftist camp. But I have heard Leftists.perhaps I should have called them "radical Leftists," some of whom are on Lit-Ideas express the very things I am inveighing against. They have nothing but criticism for things American. They hate Bush. They hate the war on terror. They think Saddam should have been left alone. They think it is okay for Iran to gain nuclear weapons. They don't believe the civil rights of terrorists or terrorist sympathizers should be infringed. They think Bush a greater danger to the world than Fundamentalist Islam or Al Quaeda. They want the U.S. out of Iraq now and don't care if that means that a minority of potent militants take over Iraq, restore Bathism or worse, and make Iraq safe for Al Quaeda. In reading post after post I never find anything good said by these people about our president or our nation. Also, I never hear anything bad said about Islamism, Militant Islam, or Rogue States. If the term "Rogue State" is mentioned, it is applied to America. The arguments they use are often the same arguments we I hear from Militant Islam. When I mention this they don't respond. Osama bin Laden quoted Leftists in what I believe was his most recent communication. They are (Radical Leftists and Islamists) in effect working together.
But not every Democrat, for example, holds such views and if we have but "left and right" to work with then perhaps I should have said the "radical left." Michael Moore (quoted by bin Laden) Noam Chomsky, and, yes, Ward Churchill come to mind as opitomizing the Radical Left. But it isn't as though their views aren't represented here on Lit-Ideas. Much of what Andreas, Irene and one or two others have said more or less coincides with the Radical Left viewpoint.
You might have noticed that I responded in my current vein to one note by Irene and another by Andreas. I was responding to their arguments in those current and other recent notes. Someone recently said on Lit-Ideas, not Andreas or Irene in this case, he thought Bush a greater danger than -- I can't recall whom he compared him to, but perhaps Ahmadinejad. Such a view is beyond the pale. It crosses beyond the point of the loyal opposition and moves over to the enemy -- much as Jane Fonda likes to do in a physical sense. This is not someone saying, "of couse we should protect American National Interests and fight America's enemies, but I don't think Bush is doing it quite right. Here's what I think he should be doing:" These people are not saying anything like that. These are people wanting Bush and America defeated. These are people wishing Bush's enemies, whether Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, or Ahmadinejad well.
But note the responses I've recived to my notes: Nothing of substance -- no counter arguments. I'm not counting your response as being in that category. Typically your responses to me after I wax indignanst over something Irene, Andreas, or one of their compatriots say, is to distance yourself from the postions I describe. Notice, however, that neither Andreas nor Irene distanced themselves. Notice that we have heard nothing from them to indicate that I have them wrong and that they are loyally hoping that America defeats its enemies. They both responded. Irene went off on one of her typically irrelevant tangents and Andreas gave me a verbal finger.
Lawrence
> ------------Original Message------------
> From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, Mar-7-2007 4:16 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Nuclear Responsibility and Iran
>
> > ...any future history will have to deal with the influence of
> > Leftism and the fact that American Leftists since the time of
> > Vietnam have sided with America's enemies. What has that done to
> > America's polices and image around the world? These Leftists are
> > prominent in the Press, Hollywood, and academia. How has their
> > advocacy and support of America's enemies hindered America's
> > attempts to do not only what was best in terms of America's
> > National Interest, and what is best for our allies and all those we
>
> > are at peace with.
>
> You offer much here, Lawrence, that I would like to respond to, but
> others, in the press and in the Government have 'responded' to the
> positions you set forth rationally and in great detail, and for me to
> rehearse these issues again on this list would serve no real purpose.
> Positions here, if not set in stone, are set in rapidly hardening
> concrete.
>
> There is though one point I'd like to comment on. You've said, over
> the course of several years now, that 'Leftists' (in Hollywood, in the
>
> press, and in Academia) consistently support 'America's enemies.' I
> believe you've even said that 'the Left' supports suicide bombers in
> the Middle East and al-Quaeda. (Below, you say without qualification
> that the 'American left' has sided with 'America's enemies' since
> Vietnam.)
>
> I should have thought that, given your concern for truth, you would
> step back a bit from these remarkable observations and ask yourself if
>
> this is really what you want to say. As far as I know, I'm a 'leftist'
>
> under your concepts of leftism and 'the Left.' So are most of my
> friends. I haven't, and no one I know has, supported 'America's
> enemies,' and it amazes me that you should believe that if I or anyone
>
> else now objects to certain US policies we thereby support suicide
> bombers, the Taliban, al-Quaeda, or any other terrorist group. You
> seem to be relying on the screeds of such nut cases as Ward Churchill,
>
> and those like him, to support an empirical generalization about 'the
> Left,' and 'leftists.' I may be wrong about this of course; you may
> have other examples in mind. It may also be true that you're making
> the somewhat circular, and thereby trivial, claim that a 'Leftist' is
> by definition someone who 'sides with America's enemies.' My guess
> though is you want to say something substantive. And insofar as you
> do, your generalization is not only false, but personally insulting.
>
> I really don't extrapolate from Anne Coulter's rants to what
> Conservatives, or 'the Right' believes across the board. I hope you'll
>
> explain when you have a few moments why this is, as I hope, a bad
> analogy.
>
> Robert Paul
> The Reed Institute
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>
