MaxedOutMama
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Dr Sanity On Insanity
Dr. Sanity posted on a topic that (to me at least) is intimately related to the topic of discussion at True Grit's and SC&A's. Now Dr. Sanity doesn't mess around. Whereas Ann Althouse uses a rapier to make her points Dr. Sanity just yanks out a saber and starts chopping:
By the way, my real objection is to the elitism and not to all the goals of the left. On some matters I tend to be pretty left myself - some would say far left. But I am always going to view tyranny of any sort as the most absolute evil to be avoided. I don't care if you agree with me on every point - if you want to make everyone conform to your ideas I will believe that you are wrong and I will fight you to the intellectual death. No human being can be right all the time. If you believe you are then you are possessed by a form of craziness.
This insight identifies, I believe, the underlying cancer that has eaten away at civil discourse in this country. It describes almost all the the intensely emotional conflicts in the social arena-- from abortion to Gay rights to almost all instances of public financing of art and culture. This is the reason that no resolution or compromise can ever be made between opposing viewpoints.This, it seems to me, is true. Ilona at True Grit, for instance, describes herself as a fundamentalist Christian. But she is adamant about the need for tolerance in society and flies to the defense of anyone she believes is unfairly maligned. She posted recently:
One side --primarly the Left (I will note the one exception I can think of in just a minute) is much more comfortable imposing its will on anyone who disagrees.
Why is our way better, and to what degree is it better? And how did we get to this place, because a short look at history shows we weren't always here.Also, True Grit posted a recipe for kifli that is greatly to be respected. I drooled and gained three pounds just by reading it. Kifli and tolerance; admit it, this is not the face of Bill Moyer's fundamentalism. Ilona's point is obvious - the type of public space she describes is such a wonderful common possession that everyone has a reason to defend it. The type of public space Dr. Sanity describes is rather pathetic - people tend to flee it:
It sure wasn't secularism. One glance at the Reign of Terror to the Directoire of Revolutionary France will educate you on that point.
But it wasn't an institution of temporal Christianity, either. That had its own list of atrocities. You can read Foxes Book of Martyrs for some of the gory details ( and this is after the Crusades).
So, ok, what was it that lead us to this place of freedom with form, with a literate citizenry who can take responsibility for its own governance?
The history is there to read, and it doesn't involve killing off Puritans or Catholics or Muslims. Persecutions and prejudices worked against it... but there was a combination of the desire for freedom and opportunity to pursue ones happiness that is resident in all men, and an environment of giving first place to those beliefs and principles that best cultivated this for the most people. And it grew.... spread and blossomed into the culture which now gives the most freedom and rights to women and diverse races and creeds to be seen in history.
...the Left has made it their primary modus operandi to use the force of the government to give clout to their cultural, social, political and moral and quasi-religious beliefs in all areas. Of course, they do it because they understand that they are much more knowledgable than you or I are about what is right.That is true. There are large special interest groups that are pushing their agenda as a ruling force. They aren't truly asking for a place in the public square - they want to rule the public square, to so occupy it that they push out all opposing voices.
It is the pervasive tyranny of the elitist.
By the way, my real objection is to the elitism and not to all the goals of the left. On some matters I tend to be pretty left myself - some would say far left. But I am always going to view tyranny of any sort as the most absolute evil to be avoided. I don't care if you agree with me on every point - if you want to make everyone conform to your ideas I will believe that you are wrong and I will fight you to the intellectual death. No human being can be right all the time. If you believe you are then you are possessed by a form of craziness.
Comments:
<< Home
It's part of the same idea, but the other thing they do is assign the reasons you have for disagreement. Obviously if you don't support affirmative action it's because you are a bigot, not because of some other valid concern over it. This is not an exclusive thing of the left, the right does it too, but right now the left seems to be more aggressive about it. That may just be because they are not in power and so they have turned up the rhetoric.
But for some reason I think it's more than that.
But for some reason I think it's more than that.
# posted by 
: 4:10 PM
: 4:10 PM
There are still real liberals who don't follow that strategy, but their numbers or their ability to be heard seem to be flagging.
I don't know, Tommy. I just don't see how anyone believes they can make a tolerant society without exercising tolerance.
I don't know, Tommy. I just don't see how anyone believes they can make a tolerant society without exercising tolerance.
Well that part is easy. They view it as an instructor/pupil relationship. It's not so much that they are intolerant of your view as it is they are educating you.
They would respond the same way if you tried to tell them 2+2=5.
So from their perspective it's not an issue of tolerance. They just need to keep educating you until you see things their way. I think that is why they don't understand the argument when it is pointed out to them that they are being intolerant.
They would respond the same way if you tried to tell them 2+2=5.
So from their perspective it's not an issue of tolerance. They just need to keep educating you until you see things their way. I think that is why they don't understand the argument when it is pointed out to them that they are being intolerant.
# posted by : 4:33 PM
: 4:33 PM
Hmmm. I am not sure if that is the true feeling or a public stance. If all of them really believed that those who countered them did so through pure ignorance, would they really have to be so shrill and hysterical?
I think for true liberals you are correct. They know why they believe what they believe. The problem comes in with the fake liberals, the ones who are riding the bandwagon for their personal advancement. They cover their lack of conviction and argument with emotional outrage.
Post a Comment
I think for true liberals you are correct. They know why they believe what they believe. The problem comes in with the fake liberals, the ones who are riding the bandwagon for their personal advancement. They cover their lack of conviction and argument with emotional outrage.
<< Home
