Centerfield

So true, so true. You and Frank said so much of how I feel about the radical left. Though I'm not a Dem myself, I'm from an extended family full of them, many rightly proud and patriotic. Unfortunately there are a couple who don't fully renounce these twisted leftists who wouldn't in a hundred years be confused with a Republican.

Couldn't agree me. IMO, the rigid and unthinking radical left has more in common with the rigid unthinking radical right. It has much more to do with faith, solidarity, and common cause against their respective mythical boogeymen than it has to do with critical thinking and sensible solutions to the problems of the broad middle.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you...
-Stealer's Wheel

What BK said. (which is why my blog has part of that Stealer's Wheel quote in the sub-title.)

After 9/11 they had a community gathering in my town with many local dignitaries on the stage scheduled to speak. I don't know why I went, other than I was pretty depressed after 9/11 and didn't know what to think.

Every speaker denounced either Bush, the U.S. or western civilization in attempting to make the case we brought this on ourselves.

I think it was during the 4th speaker that I got up and left.

Tim, do you live in the West by chance?

A lot of these people I think enjoy the process of alientation, ie, being "different" from ordinarry people and they go to extraordinary lengths to maintain their alienation. When something bad happens to the US, they have cognitive dissonance and cannot accept the fact that bad things have sources other than American conduct. I read something about Noam Chomsky that applies to radicals generally-they are so self-absorbed, they can't imaging there is a poltical happening that doesn't involve the United States. There is also, I believe, in these people a process similar to what has happened in Europe--an extreme pacifism that so fears any kind of military action that they will rationalize anything rather than justifying war.

the rigid and unthinking radical left has more in common with the rigid unthinking radical right.

I'd say they're the same group, except they exchange nouns in their delusional, off-base statements.

"Exchanging nouns." ROFL. So true.

Tim, around here we shipped out our available blood supplies and disaster crews to NY, had massive blood drives to restock, called up the emergency volunteer people to fill the gaps, and started working on ways to address security and disaster issues without infringing rights.

Any public official who had made public noises about "bringing this on ourselves" would have been recalled as quickly as the petitions could get filed. If they were lucky.

Enemies of democracy? You mean like hiring an outfit to travel state to state registering voters and then throwing away all but those registering as Republicans? No? How 'bout leaving extra voting machines in a warehouse while lines many hours long develop in areas prone to voting for Democrats while across town areas that tend to vote Republican have plenty of voting machines and very short lines?

Is this the kind of thing that qualifies as enemies of democracy?

Which is the greater present threat - a hundred people saying things that offend you? Or organized, deliberate disenfranchisement of registered voters who are obeying the law and doing their damndest to fulfill their civic duty?

Forgive me for not joining in on the dittoing. It's not that I have any love for the far Left. I don't. But, in the grand scheme of things I fail to understand how or why a few people talking is so all fired important.

It's not the size of the group, Kevin, it's how others in "Middle America" percieve these types of groups as speaking for the whole Democratic Party. Bad PR can destroy anything or anyone in politics, merits come in a close second.

A "few people talking" isn't Kevin (though I will point out that the radical left HAS also pulled stunts identical or worse - firebombings and assasinations, anyone - in the past similar to the ones you ascribe to Republicans) .... as long as that's all there is.

However, these people are ideologicaly identical to those who staffed the regimes of Stalin or Pol Pot.... and those who wanted us to cozy up to those regimes. No these people aren't particulary dangerous when they are completely deviod of any real power .... but then again who is? Make no mistake though, they ARE the real enemies of democracy.... and you would discover just how much so, if they ever gained a smidgeon of real power.

Wtg Frank! You actually got one into the magazine. It seems you've been writing articles for months but have never gotten past the web page. Now you can really say "I write for the New Republic" without adding that little addendum "New Republic Online." I bet you're quite proud. Soon you'll be hobnobbing with the Washington elite--eating cake with the big boys. And all it took was a little Leftist trash-talk.
====

Mr. Frank and some of the commentators above do make a good point. Many people on the far Left do see the United States as a great selfish giant that moves around the world, breaking things, leaving indelible footprints, and taking what it likes--and they don't see the good that the United States does do. Frankly, it can often be hard to see (especially when you're as cynical as I sometimes am).

But I think the larger problem are those people who only see the good and not the bad. These Pollyannas, of you will--they're the real trouble. Because they seem to be everywhere.

America has become a religion. To be an American you have to believe in America. You have to have faith in America. I guess that's why the conservatives can call liberals and leftists "unamerican" and get away with it. Because liberals and leftists are natural skeptics. If we have faith at all, it's almost always calculated. We're not the type to blindly believe in something. We've always gotta have pesky reasons.

I'm getting away from my point, so I'll just conclude. In short, Mr. Frank, you're article was pompous crap. I suggest you take a long drive and get some perspective. To my ears, you're just reselling what the conservatives have been selling. Same stuff, slightly different package.

And that crack on Arundhati Roy was way too harsh. Even for trash talk, that was outright mean. She's a really lovely young woman.
======
Btw T.A., I'll be looking if you get anything else published. Besides the obligatory Leftist trash talk, that is.

Eric,

Your comment was typical of the kind we often see here. A little ad hominem nastiness to establish your bona fides as a social critic, then write something that has little to do with what was actually written. First, Frank's column DID appear in the print edition, in the back column, a pretty prestigious area as a matter of fact. So, he is not just writing for New Republic Online. And even if he was, so what? How does that discredit what he wrote?

Second, I don't understand what the hell your problem is. You seem to have decided that Frank's piece is an attack on every liberal/leftist, which is clearly not the case. He was making the point that radical leftists are tedious and pompous and antidemocratic. Yes, he made some references to Newt Gingrich, but I don't get the feeling that he is getting ready to vote Republican.

You say"liberals and leftists are natural skeptics. If we have faith at all, it's almost always calculated. We're not the type to blindly believe in something." All I can say about that statement is "nonsense." Leftists believe in lots of things as a matter of faith. If you doubt that, read what leftists wrote about the Soviet Union. You don't think someone writing for the International Socialist Review is operating on faith? You talk about skepticism, but the whole point about many radicals is that they aren't skeptical about their own position--they believe they know the truth and anyone else is a racist/reactionary/imperialist, etc.

In the typical fashion, you revert to namecalling ("Pollyannas") when you don't have a real argument. I don't know anyone on this blog--and certainly not me--that thinks the US is a perfect country and sees only good things. That seems to be your interpretation of non-radicals.

You aren't a skeptic, you are a cynic so you revel in attacking anyone who is not as cynical as you. IMO, a skeptic is someone who questions everthing, but doesn't necessarily dismiss it. I consider myself a skeptic because I question both the left and the right. You seem to be dismissing anything Frank wrote because (1) you apparently don't like him for some reason, and (2) you apparently can't accept the idea that someone could find radical leftists appalling without being a George Bush conservative.