Thought this response to rightwing attacks on my Biden post makes some points worth repeating, so here it is:
"Michael:
As an admirer of your literary work and your blog, it puzzles why you would provide a opportunity for people like “Another Lally” and “Jim” to disseminate their right-wing opinionettes. Your blog is your space, and these apologists for the anti-American politics of the republican party should not be allowed to occupy any of it. Like too many liberals, you are making the mistake of thinking that you should be fair and open-minded with people who are never that way themselves, that you should allow these misguided characters to have their say under your roof.
But your blog is not a public forum---it’s your domain and should be governed by your perspectives. You have no obligation to give these guys room in a space that is increasingly popular because of your accomplishments, creativity, reputation, and reasoned and passionate opinions on art, politics, music, movies, and life. They are nobodies who can start their own blogs and write to each other. Through the benefit of corporate ownership, right-wing extremists control almost all of talk radio, Fox “News,” the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, and all sorts of other media. Let “Jim” and “Another Lally” spew forth within the many right-wing blogs, among their benighted brethren on the right, where they belong. There is no reason why you should accommodate them or give them a soapbox for their destructive, un-American squeaks and groans. Progressives have to learn to stop enabling these nasty right-wing losers. Kick 'em out! Let them try to build a readership on their own and see how far they get.
You and I both know that if the labels were switched, “Jim” and “Another Lally” would be bashing any Democrat who ignored a clear and direct warning, as did Bush, that Bin Laden was planning to attack us, then let Bin Laden attack us, and eight years later, still hadn’t caught him. They would come down very hard on a Democrat who would doctor intelligence to deceive the American people into an unnecessary war in which more than 4,000 American troops have died (and more than 100,000 Iraqis) and that will cost over a trillion dollars---especially when that war and the subsequent occupation were incompetently planned for and completely mismanaged after the initial “mission accomplished” period. “Jim” and “Another Lally” I’m sure would find fault with a Democrat outing a courageous covert American spy to gain some sort of twisted revenge on her husband. I’m sure these two bold patriots would think that the leaders of a Democratic administration that threw away habeas corpus, allowed massive warrantless spying on the American people, introduced torture as accepted American practice, fired US attorneys for not prosecuting republicans, awarded no-bid contracts to their pet corporations, etc., should all be impeached. But since it was republicans who committed all these atrocities against America, J & AL think it’s all excusable.
That’s the way of the right-wing extremists who have controlled the media and the political discourse in this country for so long. The Js and ALs will go on absolving these war criminals because they’re republicans. Although it is a bit heartening to see an increasing number of traditional conservatives recognizing how the right has violated and undermined America’s foundational principles, knee-jerk right-wingers like J & AL will never accept that their team could be so wrong in so many ways. And they sure don’t want a Democratic administration to be the beneficiary of all these new un-American powers that Bush has established.
Their answer?---crazy little flip-flopping John McCain, who finished nearly dead last in a class of almost 900 at the Naval Academy, who crashed five planes in his pilot days (how does that stack up statistically with his fellow pilots?), who made tapes renouncing the US while in captivity (how many other POWs did that?) which seem to have conveniently disappeared, who everyone who knows him agrees has a nasty temper and temperament, who called his second wife a “c-nt” in front of a reporter, who says he doesn’t know anything about economics, who is clearly itching to fight more wars, who in his forties cheated on his first wife (after she was injured in an accident) with a 24-year-old multimillionaire heiress (a former addict who was caught stealing drugs from her own foundation), who doesn’t know how many mansions he owns, who doesn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shia, who helped destroy the S&L industry as one of “The Keating Five,” who is surrounded by and beholden to innumerable lobbyists (and probably has slept with at least one of them), who voted against torture before he voted for it, who has been humping Bush’s leg for the last five years. What a maverick! What a straight-talker! The only thing worse than four years of McCain would be four more years of Bush. Or might even Bush, God help us, be a better bet than little John?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Here's my two cents.
Being the sensitive individual that you are and finding that what "Seemed to be the right thing at the time." did not lead to the desired destination, you have an understanding that opposing opinion has great value.
For one, that opposing opinion can give greater credence to the opinions that you hold. Should the opposing opinion have no credibility it would serve to bolster yours.
For another, when things are not going as planned, hoped for or expected, another view can always help, even by disagreeing with it.
Most importantly, I think that the path the you have walked has given you an appreciation of listening to things that may be new or different.
Politically, rather than running with the herd, there are issues that you may not agree with. To shut out opposing view would be to foster the death of opposing ideas.
We react rationally as well as emotionally. The combination of both always color our decisions. A total reliance on either extreme would produce a decision or result that may not be what we planned, expected or hoped for.
Had Bush as a member of the religious right made a statement such as,
"If God were to give our nation an enema, he would stick the hose in New Orleans."
after Katrina, I could understand the outrage of many. Many reacted emotionally rather than taking into account the laws and facts of the entire situation.
Presidents and politicians are men. They are subject to the human frailties and peer pressure of the 'machine' should they attain office. The only guide we have as to their possible performance would be to dissect and examine their past performance and ideals rather than take them at their word in the moment. Many times we choose based on other things and we are let down.
This nation has only two major parties at present because the 'monied interests' will only 'allow' two major parties. Fot the most part, we all would prefer greater choice in the selection. Money and media do not allow such choice.
We may not be totally happy with our governance, but thus far it has allowed us and many others to enjoy a very high standard of living.
Debate is always a plus.
Hopefully that was very therapeutic for the writer. It is good to get all that vitriol out. I didn’t detect an intelligent thought in it but then I come from a more civil persuasion. I hope the writer has a pleasant day and I suggest he not go off his meds.
another lally, who are you
I recommend Walter Lippmann's 1939 essay, "The Indispensable Opposition," found here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=the+essential+opposition+lippmann&btnG=Search
but not currently in print. I believe that everyone concerned might benefit from it.
Yes Doug, a very thoughtful dissertaion on the need for seemingly opposing forces which, within reason, allow civilization as we know it to exist in this land that we love.
Civilization in and of itself being unnatural is not an easy thing to maintain. When many people or ideas congregate in an area that would force seeming collision, there is not only a need for tolerance, but also of understanding of the Natural Law that we have violated.
In Nature, each entity has the need for a certain amount of resources in order to survive. In Civilization we break these rules and then attempt to compensate for the shortages we have created. This holds true for the sharred resources required as well as the ideas that we also share.
From Lippman,
"We miss the whole point when we imagine that we tolerate the freedom of our political opponents as we tolerate a howling baby next door, as we put up with the blasts from our neighbor's radio because we are too peaceable to heave a brick through the window. If this were all there is to freedom of opinion, that we are too goodnatured or too timid to do anything about our opponents and our critics except to let them talk, it would be difficult to say whether we are tolerant because we are magnanimous or because we are lazy, because we have strong principles or because we lack serious convictions, whether we have the hospitality of an inquiring mind or the indifference of an empty mind.
And so, if we truly wish to understand why freedom is necessary in civilized society, we must begin by realizing that, because freedom of discussion improves our own opinions, the liberties of other men are our own vital necessity."
Doug Lang,
Thnakyou for directing us to Walter Lippmann. It is an incredable important essay in this very contentious time. It is particuarly important, since we may see a reintroduction of the "Fairness Doctrine" soon. A small excerpt is shown below.
http://grossmont.gcccd.cc.ca.us/bertdill/docs/IndispensableOpposition.pdf
'The opposition is indispensable. A good statesman, like any other sensible
human being, always learns more from his opponents than from his fervent supporters.
For his supporters will push him to disaster unless his opponents show him where the
dangers are. So if he is wise he will often pray to be delivered from his friends, because
they will ruin him."
"Jim" and "Another Lally," in my opinion, are not interested in civilized dialogue with the opposition. That is not the way of the right-wing. They consistently and snidely dismiss Michael's very well-informed and rational posts on politics with knee-jerk republican cant. When Lyndon Johnson---unquestionably the most liberal president of the last 50 years---pursued an illegal and unwinnable war in Vietnam, progressives threw him out, because liberals have the ability (sometimes) to put principle above party loyalty. People like J & AL do not seem to have that ability. No matter how clear it is that Bush-Cheney-McCain are servants of corporate America and the super-rich, these guys will stick right with them to the end, until there’s no more middle class or Bill of Rights left in America. They are not the noble opposition, but part of the right-wing infection that has been such a disaster for our country. And, via McCain, they want to give us more of the same. So one of the points I was suggesting in the post was that progressives have to act somewhat, for them, counterintuitively—by which I mean showing less hospitality to the right-wing agenda and fighting back on every front. If we had had more of that fighting spirit in Florida in 2000, we never would have let Bush and the right steal the election in the first place.
But beyond the overtly political arguments, my real question in the original post was whether Lally’s Alley has some sort of obligation to provide these guys with a vehicle in which to publish their right-wing garbage. If Michael Lally started a literary magazine, would he be obliged to publish any work, however awful or objectionable, that arrived in his mailbox? I don’t think so. And his blog is far more personal an instrument of expression than a magazine would be. Maybe there are codes in the blogosphere that cover these matters, and I’m just unfamiliar with them. Maybe Blogspot insists that every comment that comes in must go up. I don’t know. In any case, like most liberals I believe strongly in freedom of expression and would never argue that Jim and Another Lally have no right to their opinions, however obnoxious and offensive I might personally find them. Today, in the U.S., we are in fact engulfed in a right-wing tide of lies and distortions, delivered via a variety of high- and low-tech platforms, that go largely unchallenged. (Just look, for example, at the new book by the guy who headed up the Swift Boat Liars for Bush in 2004; it became an instant “best-seller” because corporate-funded right-wing organizations bought tens of thousands of copies in bulk sales, which is all it takes to get on the best-seller lists. Then the phony best-seller gets a lot of media attention, its lies get released into the atmosphere, and, even if it is later debunked, refuted etc., it’s too late---enough people have absorbed its unholy text, and the damage is done, which is exactly the intent of this particular technique.) So there are many right-wing outlets that would be receptive to Jim and Another Lally’s stalwart defense of the indefensible. I would never stand in the way of Jim’s so far unsuccessful attempts to detect intelligent thought even when it is embedded in the plain facts in front of him. I hope he succeeds some day. Facts, as we know, have a well-known liberal bias. But I would say that I---and by extension, of course, Michael or anyone else on the left--- have no obligation to lend right-wingers a forum to propagate their opinions. They are free-loading in someone else’s domain, taking advantage of someone else’s talent and reputation (and consequent audience-attracting ability) to further their own agenda. Which is why, in the first place, I suggested to them that they start their own blogs and to Michael that he stop posting their comments on his. The right-wing doesn’t need our help.
Lally's Ally,
I suggest you take Doug Lang's advice and read or reread the Walter Lippman essay. If that does not soothe you, try deep breathing and soft music.
PS You might read a little history. The US won the war but lost the peace because congress voted to defund the war. Every recount in Florida showed that Bush won. It is easier for me to detect intelligent thought when the writer gets the history right.
My thinking is actually that of a political dinosaur. I would be what was called a Liberal Republican. I would be a Progressive, but do not have the financial wherewithal to be a philanthropist or the dedication to become a missionary for any cause.
Using the Declaration of Independence as my guide, along with a reasonable understanding of economics, I believe 'what's right is right and what's wrong should be corrected'.
I also am aware that being rigid in one's thinking (Left or Right) increases one's shortcomings.
Having a decent knowledge of history, I find that I can avoid stepping into that same 'present' some pet owner left for anyone willing to step in it more than one time,if that.
I'm glad you were stirred to respond. It's healthy.
- M.A.L.
Post a Comment