Saturday, August 27, 2005

VDH on the Meeting Between Extreme Left & Extreme Right

Good arguments that left & right are misnomers and the whole positional nature of politics isn't a line, but rather a circle. You have to admit, when you find yourself in agreement with David Duke, don't you need to reassess your position? If I found myself in agreement with Duke on whether or not the sun was shining, I'd go and get another couple of opinions. Doesn't it say something that Cindy Sheehan and her support structure (MoveOn & ANSWER) are in 100% agreeement with Duke?
It's VDH. Go and read.

8 comments:

Nylarthotep said...

Again it is hard to find any lack of logic in VDH commentary. Probably more because I agree fully with his sentiment and logic on why war, especially against terror, is neccessary.

I'm especially amused in his pointing out the far Right's vindictiveness against his opinions. I just never see that. Probably because the MSM doesn't go to the point of ever proclaiming their stand. Another indication of their political leaning perhaps? Even more indicative is the fact that they support the "fever swamp" left of Sheehan while clearly censoring the more unpleasant statements that she has bellowed in public.

Personally, I think having so many critics in the far right and left makes for a clear show of just how correct his views really are.

Granted said...

True. If both extremes hate you, maybe you're on the right track.

L-girl said...

Except... MoveOn and Answer are not in the same camp, and not all alike. Although the right-wing media likes to portray MoveOn as the way-out leftist fringe (like Answer, which is certainly fringe), they are really very moderate. But it's easier and more expeditious to VDH's own agenda to label anyone who opposes the war in Iraq as leftist, radical and extreme.

Nylarthotep said...

Ummm. Maybe you should actually read Hansons article. His whole point is that there is very similar actions from both the far left and far right on the Iraq war.

And as for Hanson's Agenda, he's merely a supporter of the action. He's also pointing to people who directly criticize his commentary on the war. He hasn't ever gone to the point of calling all groups that are against the war as either leftist, radical or extreme. He does speak to specific groups and where they stand. The only general statement he's made on people that are against the Iraq war is that they are wrong.

Granted said...

Move On & ANSWER are not the same kinds of organizations, no. However, when they both have the same agenda, the immediate pull-out of US troops, they can be lumped together. Oh, and with David Duke.
Again, when you find yourself in agreement with honest to gu communists and KKK members, shouldn't you seriously reassess your position?

L-girl said...

when you find yourself in agreement with honest to gu communists and KKK members, shouldn't you seriously reassess your position?

Not necessarily, no. I believe in my own beliefs, for my own reason. I can't control who shares certain beliefs of mine.

Maybe you should actually read Hansons article.

I did read the article.

If Person A is against the war and Person B is also against the war, it doesn't mean that Person A = Person B, or that they share the same belief system. It simply means they agree on this one point.

Here's a real example. I agree with Pat Robertson's position on the war, but I loathe everything else he believes and stands for. He and I agree on this one thing.

I don't need to reassess my beliefs because Pat Robertson and I agree on this one thing - and I would guess Pat Robertson would feel the same way, although he loathes everything I believe in and stand for.

Lumping everyone who wants the US out of Iraq into one big bag may be convenient rhetoric, but it's an illogic and specious non-argument.

Nylarthotep said...

You have a point on the "lumping together" of anti-war groups. Though measuring one's stand against other's who have a similar stand, but for different reasons, should be a healthy affirmation for exactly why you believe what you do. If you don't agree with their reasoning, that's fine. Advocating similar stands with very different reasons puts one politically/socially with a group that you may not wish to be associated with. Assessment may not be needed for your stand, but assessment of that political association should be formed.

This doesn't negate that maybe the reasoning of all such groups, irrespective of differences, is flawed. Which is exactly what VDH is stating in his article. His outline of the groups and the flaws of their arguments is reasonable and actually is an argument.

L-girl said...

This doesn't negate that maybe the reasoning of all such groups, irrespective of differences, is flawed.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Nice chatting with you. Have a nice day.