Okay, time for the semi-rant of the day.
We've been hearing a lot lately about the Angry Left; how the irrationality and blind fury of their position lends itself to a sort of "hate for hate's sake" position. However, it's kind of hard to comprehend concept unless one has come face-to-face with it. (Naturally, it's easier to find this in colleges than just about any other general institution in the U.S.) I've been preparing for a while for the things I was going to hear...but how do you really deal with people who claim that they would kill George Bush--simply for the fact that he's George Bush?
Let's face it, this has gone way past party line or differing ideologies. I haven't been able to find many leftists who can give a clear and coherent reason why they would vote for Dean, other than the fact that he's Not Bush. At the same time, I didn't know that many conservatives who were running around in 1998 talking about killing Clinton. So what's the difference here?
I'm not a political analyst; I can't get into all the ins and outs of this convoluted and perverse web of rage. However, it seems to me that the radicals of the 60's--the people of my parents' generation--have become the Johnathan Chaits and the Ted Ralls of our time. These are the angry young men and women who burned American flags, fought with cops on the streets, and idolize(d) Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. Now they're in their 40's and 50's--but they never moved on. They held onto their anger like Homer Simpson holds onto the last doughnut and they're not letting go for anything, though their party and what remains of their ideology crumbles around them.
The point I'm trying to make here is that it's nigh unto impossible to debate with any of the liberals around me without putting them into a red-faced, spittle-producing, foam-lipped rage. Which is too bad; I was looking forward to some good arguments. Instead, I ended up walking away as fast as possible while rubbing the saliva flecks off my glasses.
Is it any wonder that the 9 dwarves are so incoherent? I mean, they're catering to their constituency.
We've been hearing a lot lately about the Angry Left; how the irrationality and blind fury of their position lends itself to a sort of "hate for hate's sake" position. However, it's kind of hard to comprehend concept unless one has come face-to-face with it. (Naturally, it's easier to find this in colleges than just about any other general institution in the U.S.) I've been preparing for a while for the things I was going to hear...but how do you really deal with people who claim that they would kill George Bush--simply for the fact that he's George Bush?
Let's face it, this has gone way past party line or differing ideologies. I haven't been able to find many leftists who can give a clear and coherent reason why they would vote for Dean, other than the fact that he's Not Bush. At the same time, I didn't know that many conservatives who were running around in 1998 talking about killing Clinton. So what's the difference here?
I'm not a political analyst; I can't get into all the ins and outs of this convoluted and perverse web of rage. However, it seems to me that the radicals of the 60's--the people of my parents' generation--have become the Johnathan Chaits and the Ted Ralls of our time. These are the angry young men and women who burned American flags, fought with cops on the streets, and idolize(d) Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. Now they're in their 40's and 50's--but they never moved on. They held onto their anger like Homer Simpson holds onto the last doughnut and they're not letting go for anything, though their party and what remains of their ideology crumbles around them.
The point I'm trying to make here is that it's nigh unto impossible to debate with any of the liberals around me without putting them into a red-faced, spittle-producing, foam-lipped rage. Which is too bad; I was looking forward to some good arguments. Instead, I ended up walking away as fast as possible while rubbing the saliva flecks off my glasses.
Is it any wonder that the 9 dwarves are so incoherent? I mean, they're catering to their constituency.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home