Why I am neither “left” nor “right”
Well, as they say, “No good deed goes unpunished.” Try to help others — indeed, devote your life to doing so — and you will inevitably find yourself attacked, especially by the people on your own side.
No big deal. Read the Torah. While I’m no Moses, this happened to Moses too; he had to get out of Egypt in a hurry lest the Jewish slaves turn him right in to Pharaoh.
And thus, I have recently been on the receiving end of quite a bit of nastiness from both the political left and the political right. At their best, both groups seem to share a capacity for viciousness and vulgarity that is quite uncompromising. Makes my life an exercise in irony, one both tragic and hilarious.
I was recently a panelist in Greenwich Village, a fabled neighborhood, which, star-struck, I first visited in 1952. Yes, this budding bohemian once wrote poetry at Café Figaro, waited tables at Rienzi’s, visited the White Horse Tavern and the Cedar Bar. From the mid-sixties on, I also lived in the Village, both on its east and west flanks; I stayed there (at a variety of addresses) for more than a decade–after which I continued to attend countless “downtown” feminist meetings, parties, and demonstrations.
I was, therefore, quite happy to be on a panel in the Village, glad to see friends and allies from the 60s and 70s on the panel and in the packed audience. And then, “Feminism: 1970” appeared, once again, right before our astonished eyes, and the attacks began.
“You are a panel of white women only, where are the black women, the women of color?” It is fine to raise a question about racism; less fine was the angry, bitter, strangled voice in which it was raised—of course, by yet another white women. A firestorm erupted.
On cue, right after “racism” came this question — again, in a coarse and bitter voice. “Where are the working class women? I see none on the panel.” Ah, funny you should ask. One of the panelists had just talked about women making only 78 cents on the male dollar, only she’d said that, based on her calculations, once you factored in unpaid work such as parenting and housework, or low-paid work for part-time workers, women in America were really earning 38 cents on the male dollar. Had this questioner been asleep? Or did she just want to “rage against the machine”?
Hard on her heels came a mighty growl from a woman in a motorized wheelchair. “What about me, I have multiple sclerosis, who cares about me? Why are there no disabled women on the panel, why haven’t you talked about disability issues?” Again, a fair enough question but her rage was…clinical. Funny, several of us had canes and walked unsteadily. Six panelists were in their sixties and seventies.
The balkanization of the imagination (only a disabled woman could talk about disability; only a woman of color could talk about racism, etc.) was staggering and heartbreaking. And completely unacceptable.
Most of the feminists and lesbians present were polite, supportive, accomplished, and civilized. But no one exactly knew how to stand up to this loutish bunch and no one on the panel or in the audience could believe that this was really happening. And so, the “bystanders” let the bullies rage on. It really was 1970 all over again. Without a grownup in sight.
I know what it is to face a raging, hostile mob. But in this case, I did not anticipate such anger and bitterness among senior citizens and was unprepared for it. What a bunch of burned-out spoilers. They need an AA or NA meeting, a therapy group—a leash of some kind, on their 1950’s-style grade B women’s prison movie aggression.
Let them blog—that’s what I’m doing.
Having sat through many left meetings with the same litany of lifestyle complaints as you mention, I agree completely with your apt label of Balkanization of the imagination.
To be pilloried by both sides today is becoming more and more a pre-requisite sign of genuine intellectual honesty and independence.
Phyllis,
“To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.” As I am sure you know, the criticism you describe should be accepted as the true honor it is. Silence is not the answer. Let’s keep speaking out; if nothing else, it is good for our circulatory system. Thank you for your continued insightful writings.
Liberals and conservatives are in basic agreement. They are pro-American and support Israel’s right to exist. George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy agreed on these issues.
Rightists and leftists are in basic agreement. Islamists–more rightist than anybody else in the world–and Marxists–more leftist than anybody else–hate America and democracy, and feel Israel should be destroyed. Noam Chomsky, Ron Paul, and Pat Buchanan agree on more issues than they disagree on.
By the way, I have lived in Greenwich Village since 1951, although there were relatively short breaks when I lived in Philadelphia and China.
I have been dreaming the same dumb dream too! Funny you should blog this today – just 2 hours ago – I blogged the following piece:
IMAGINE: Women united as a 52% voting bloc
Posted on November 17, 2009 by freemenow
Please visit my website and make your decision. Many of my listeners and readers thought we were full fledged liberals but we have decided we never were now that we understand what it really means to be liberal. Many of us also cannot claim to be true conservatives! Truely- what most of us turned out to be are Independents.
I always knew that is where I fit best. Absolutes are never a good thing for me- I find its better to be flexible and be able to bend as the situation calls for. In any event as a woman and part of the 52% of the population- the voting block and the citizenry which requires representation and who demands fair and equal laws and fair treatment- I believe we need to be united. But currently most of us have been divided by issues that keep us diametrically opposed.
In two years I have found that each side is not as radically set in these roles as we have been led to believe. Indeed we have so much more in common than not. We need to come together on those things which bind us and fight together for those things which benefit us as a whole rather than be forced to fight each other over those things which we disagree and needlessly fight over because we are forced into these corners. No one group ever agrees on all issues – we are no different yet we have been fighting each other as if enemies for over 40 years. It must stop- we are defeating ourselves as a group! IMAGINE if men were split in half as a voting group who despised each other as men?
I am fighting to get us there and determined to find a way to use our power to work for us on those things which we need for ourselves as women, for our children, for the future of our country to bring our country back to the glory on which it was founded.
http://freemenow.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/imagine-women-united-as-a-52-voting-bloc/
Outstanding article, one of your best. I face the same thing on a daily basis from the extremist right and extremist left. I think they’re the same people–extremists, period.
I’m in the middle, too, but do find the extreme right more dangerous because of their raging fear of not conforming to the most outrageous voices on the right.
Great essay, Phyllis!
This really needed to be said. There are a lot of non-extremists out there, quietly shaking their heads, wondering when it all got so crazy.
Moderates are the new silent majority.
I’ve been thinking the same thing, notably is everybody crazy? I have been attacked by the Left for daring to even bring up the Jihad and not blame it on the Jews or Bush and co, and the more frenzied Right for not blaming everything that’s going wrong on Obama, and pointing out that not everything wrong in the world can be laid at the door of Islam. We have 9-11 conspiracy looniness from the Left and far Right and Birther conspiracy crap on the frenzied Right too.
it’s a scary world and it keeps getting scarier..
Certainly, I second this. The political polarization of society is the largest impediment to our reaching the EXISTING CONSENSUS on human equality and liberty that we already have today. The truth is that we must reach this consensus today to get them from fighting among themselves and redirecting their energies in a positive fashion towards championing our universal human rights of equality and liberty!
I find another forbidden area here in Britain Phyllis. There is a massive debate about climate change and though I’ve been an environmentalist for thirty years I have become very sceptical about much of the “climate change science.”
Despite having had a career as an IT consultant that took me into organisations connected with Electricity, nuclear technology, oil and chemicals, gas and water distribution, The Ministry Of Defence and telecommunications I don’t ever refer to myself as a “scientists.” I am repeatedly told that as I am not a scientists I cannot comment on science.
Among my prepared responses to this is “science can be learned by rote, wisdom is only acquired through experience.” It does not shut the boy scientists up but it does goad them into making fools of themselves.
Okay moderates riddle me the following: 1. Where do moderates stand on Islamic terrorists using our Constitutional values and protections to kill innocent and unarmed Americans. Do you believe they should go about America until they find their target(s) with impunity? 2. Where do you stand on illegal immigration? Are we to continue the unrestrained border crossings? How about giving them the right to vote without them learning English, or ascribing to our values and traditions? 3. Where do you gentle moderates fall down on spending? Certainly spending cannot go on without irreversible costs to our republic. 4. And of course where do moderates come down on abortion?
Now on each issue I stand where you would place me as an extremist on the right. But to me I’m just a conservative.
So thank you Ms. Chesler for lumping me in with extremist leftist who want to radically change (read destroy) America because of your soft moral equivalence of both the right and left.
Ms. Madigan you are hardly a moderate. And if the left is staking out the middle with their extreme views then I will gladly take the mantle of extreme right.
Ms. Rubin you betray your leftist ideology. Please don’t insult us with your drivel. Tell us Ms. Rubin where do you stand on any of the above issues as a moderate?
dearest sister!
So good to see you on CNN. Well done.
I wish you had your own show. You would kick the dogma out of both sides in no time.
As a leftist lesbian feminist witch i still think there is not enough discussion of the GENDER WARS. Which totally encompasses both the radical right and the all male god religions. Male god religions are excuses for gender wars.
Women loose their lives and futures from both the Christian racists, and wahhabist islamists. Killing in the name of god is a crime .
Good health and strength to oyu.
blessed be. zb
Ms. Madigan you are hardly a moderate
Now what could I have said in the comment above that provoke that evaluation?
To Mary Madigan, no sense chatting with such angry people as #11 or taking her silly test to be disected and analyzed by the type of extremist Phyllis is talking about.
I don’t know why extremists enjoy being angry all the time. They are simply staring at high blood pressure, diabetes, heart attacks and strokes.
I totally agree. Although I self-identify as a progressive, I notice a lot of lefties seem much more furious at Sarah Palin than Major Hassan.
Great article, Phyllis. Your descriptions of both the left and right perspectives is very astute.
I disagree with the extreme leftist identity politics, which considers that reason, critical thinking, logic, are not common human properties, but are overridden by either genetic (skin color) or culturally induced traits.
Equally, the extreme right seems to view people in the same way – as objects moulded by genes or culture and lacking any common human identity. Therefore, they define any and all Muslims as evil.
blotto – I wouldn’t define myself as a moderate, for that suggests some kind of ‘in between’ two extremes. I reject such an irrational perspective. What I’m against is genetic or cultural determinism.
For example, I’m against Islamic terrorists using the US Constitution.etc; I’m against illegal immigrants, against the right to vote without English; I’m for small fiscally conservative govt, reduced federal interference in state and local areas..and, I’m personally against abortion.
Does that make me ..what? More to the right than the left, obviously. I’d simply call this view an ‘independent conservative’.
“I was approached by a cult-like cabal of right-wing zealots with whom I sometimes agree in principle but from whom I’ve kept my distance.”
Phyllis. Phyllis … what do you think you’re writing for, The New Republic? You’re writing for a site that had to change a headline because of protests against labeling neo-Nazis “far right.” A site that allowed a comment saying that Obama couldn’t go to Afghanistan because American troops would shoot him. A site in which a prominent blogger accused Obama of treason. A site that regularly pillories all Muslims. A site … Oh, just read it some time.
P.S. – In this very issue — in the blog posted just below yours — you can see how PJM conflates the fight for health care reform with a far-left plan for “taking down capitalism.”
Oh please Ms. Madigan, I’ve read you postings here before. You are not moderate.
OMG, Ms. Rubin how silly of me to inquire as to what perspectives you have on subjects on a debate thread. You claim to be a moderate but avoid defining yourself by real-world examples. If I have hurt your sensibilities, let me plead that I am just another neanderthal. Give me a break.
It is you Ms.Rubin that elected Obama and I bet you thought he was a moderate, non-racialist leader who proves that by voting “present”.
Tell Ms. Rubin where do you think Bill Ayers falls down on the left-right continuum? How about Rev(?) Wright?
So, Phyllis, you managed to piss off BOTH sides? Gee, you must be doing something right!
Thank you, Dr. Chesler, for a wonderful article that really speaks to the divide in this country.
Well done!
Phyllis-we know what the extreme left is-communism,socialism, etc. What I dont get is what the “extreme right” is. If the extreme left is for total control, then the opposite should be none at all. No military? I dont hear Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Mark Levin saying we should have no military. As a matter of fact, they are the strongest supporters of our soldiers. No police or fire? Funny, its always leftist politicians who say “raise taxes or we need to cut “services”, almost always cops or firefighters. No, Phyllis, the so-called “right” as the COMMUNIST MEDIA refers to talk radio and the internet bloggers is what we Americans always have been. Patriots, defenders of our way of life, free enterprisers, beleivers in God, Purveyors of common sense, followers of the US Constitution. We recognize America for her greatness,the hate mongers on the left(and Islamic supremacists are on the LEFT, not the right-they are for a RELIGIOUS THEOCRACY, little different from state run communism)are the ones who try to use our strengths against us. The LEFT is the problem. There is no “extreme right” in the USA.
Following are great moments in moderate history:
Dear Phyllis Chesler,
Great article. I find it very refreshing to read such a reasoned viewpoint, especially since I disagree with some of your positions. But that’s the benefit of civil discourse. Hopefully these types of articles will catch on. Thanks again.
Well, as a zealous right winger I would like to know what good thing, what one good thing, has come out of the collectivists’ handbook?
And if your answer is the social safety net we were infinitely better off when charity began at home.
One other thing Phyllis-FORCED busing-affirmative action-abortion-political correctness-making excuses for mass murderers like Nidal Hassan, Tookie Williams, even Ted Bundy. It wasnt the “extreme right”. All of the above I named were products of LEFTIST AGENDAS. Every single one of them. Pat Robertson an “extreme rightist”? Please tell me what elected office Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh or Micheal Savage have ever held. You cant name me one because they havent ever held one. Pastors and radio show hosts DO NOT PASS LAWS. They attempt to influence an audience. On the other hand, extreme LEFTISTS like Nasty Piglosi, Barney Fag, Dick Durbin, Obamao, Charlie the RangHO, Bill Clinton etc, HAVE NEVER HELD A JOB IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. Most of them are CAREER POLS. Most of them have spent there entire life trying to FORCE THERE AGENDA on me thru government. Again, all extreme leftists. I cant find anyone on the “right” who comes close.
Oh please Ms. Madigan, I’ve read you postings here before. You are not moderate.
Really, blotto? Which specific postings are you referring to?
To Mary Madigan, no sense chatting with such angry people as #11 or taking her silly test to be disected and analyzed by the type of extremist Phyllis is talking about.
Well, I’m just curious.
One problem moderates have is that they take a live and let live attitude towards the loonies in their midsts. We neglect opportunities to dissect and analyze them because, you know, we have useful things to do.
I’m stuck at the computer right now, so I’ve got some time to waste. Blotto is an interesting case…
ETAB,
Great comment on post #16. Your response illustrates that you (or anyone) can make a point and be civil while making it. Too often, commenter’s on this site turn to personal attacks instead of making substantive arguments. Let’s make it a point to continue any further differences of opinion in this matter.
Blotto,
I think you missed the whole point of the article. It probably wasn’t intended (Phyllis correct me if I’m wrong) as an excuse to continue the same old tantrums but to illustrate the need for civil discourse. Pity you missed that part.
Knotacommie,
Why do you even bother writing comments? If you’re more interested in making personal attacks instead of discussing solutions to important problems, aren’t there other site you can do that on?
You are seeing the results of three things.
1) It turns out that “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” was actually a documentary program, not a comedy show.
2) If you stick up like a nail, people whack you.
3) Newtons third law of motion – every action causes an equal and opposite reaction – applies to politic rhetoric. One group shouts that “up is down” and another group shouts back that “down is up”.
My personal antidote to it all is to drink tea and eat sardines.
I sympathize with your experiences. As a libertarian, I’m used to pissing off the left and the right equally, and sometimes I’m surprised to piss them off equally on the same issue (usually the war on some intoxicating substances). After a while, you get used to it, but its still annoying that some people can’t agree to disagree; they have to resort to ad-hominem attacks if you don’t agree with them. Mostly I hear this from “social conservatives”, particularly here on Pajamas Media. If I don’t agree with their stance on religion or abortion then I’m just an apostate to be kicked into the gutter.
Good luck and don’t let the bozos get to you.
No Mr. Indy I did not. And please go to Kos or HuffPo and tell them to mind their discourse. By the way where were you when the left was excoriating Pres. Bush for eight years.
It is moderates or you independents that elected Obama and now the whole nation is suffering. Gee good choice there indys. How’s that hope and change working for you?
Don’t lecture me Mr. Indy about proper discourse until you lecture the left about the lies and propaganda that they have used against the right for years. And anyway what etiquette did I forget to use in addressing both Ms. Rubin and Ms. Chesler??? At least I am not so presumptuous so as to address Ms. Chesler by her first name.
And am I extreme to believe that abortion is wrong; it is taking a human life. Am I extreme thabecause t I believe that immigrants should be able to speak and read English, enter the US legally, apply for citizenship like my ancestors did, and assimilate into the American culture. Am I extreme that I want more vigilance on Muslims in America pretending to be peaceful but desiring to fulfull their jihadi intentions. It is you Mr. Indy that exaggerated my position because you
Again I ask you moderates and independents where do you come down on these issues? Either you take one side of the other.
It appears that you independents and moderates think a little too much of your selves-a little to hoity toity for the rest of us.
Mary-oh geez, I’ll have to get back to you on that. Nice rebut-not.
ETAB: I am clueless as to your point. You agree with me yet….But hey Mr. Indy thinks you are a great poster. I’m confused.
Thank you for another insightful piece. As others stated, consider the source, and take the critism as a compliment. If only we had more leaders, who would speak their mind in such a thoughtful way before taking a poll.
It’s a hostile environment eh?
Sometimes it’s good to just take a time-out and find your inner peace and sense of self and remain true to the real you.
I gave up people-pleasing a long time ago (saves me a lot of grief).
Chesler is reasonable but not quite reasonable enough.
Chesler says that all muslims are not extremists. This is true. But it is not the same as saying all christians are not extremists.
If you went to a village in Germany or Switzerland in the year 1450, and you asked people about jews, some would be ferocious jew haters. Some not so much. They might even have met some jews that they liked. But none would agree that jews were the same as christians or should have the same rights. Some would kill jews and others would perhaps regret that but not enough to prevent it.
If you went to the Arkansas in 1922 probably a majority of whites would say that lynching was wrong. But they would not try to prevent it. They might even, in a regretful kind of way, imagine that it was sometimes called for. And probably most of the people you would meet would be nice people, kind, full of southern hospitality, except when it came to blacks and probably some of them would be kind to blacks or think they were kind and even be fond of some black people. All that is a far cry from what we require today.
The same with most muslims. In the first place, it does seem like most of them hate jews. In the second place, the basic principle of the religion is that all infidels must be converted or killed. Many may not agree with this. but many do. If those who do think like that get the power to do what they want, the others will not stop them. They will not want to stop them. They will just go along with whatever is happening and probably think it is a good thing, although perhaps regrettable. And thinking that, they will be quite nice people, who love their children and like a good laugh.
The fact that most are not extremists does not really mean anything in terms of the west versus islam. We may be divided. They are not. In the end and always, they will stand for each other, no matter what the differences among them. It is like old time christians against jews.
Most of us, even the most devout christians would agree that religion is a private matter. To muslims and many others besides this is a statement that makes no sense. Religion is not private. It is a community matter. An individual is not allowed to decide he no longer wants to be muslim or that he is now an atheist. This is just one example of how people think differently. A man in Afghanistan who converted to christianity had to spirited out of the country for his own safety. If a christian changes religions, I regret it. But I don’t think he should be arrested or killed or disowned by his family or thrown out of school. No one else does either.
All westerners are liberal, except for those who openly proclaim that they are nazis, etc. Rush Limbaugh is a liberal compared to most of the world. Our liberal conservative dichotomy does not fit the globe. It is a mistake to imagine that it does.
The trouble is that America was once nearly uniform in their values, a Christian nation that believed in marriage and self-reliance, and did not believe in things like abortion. This was not “far right”, this was the center.
The Left has been very successful in the media and academia at redefining the “center” to include formerly abhorrent things like abortion. Simultaneously, the Left has had great success in re-branding leftist philosophies like National SOCIALSM –
(NAZIs), as “Right Wing”.
So, where does that leave us? In the situation we have today. On the one side, intellectually dishonest liberals redefine the terms of the debate to their advantage, while those who seek to preserve the traditions that made America the freest and most prosperous society in history see themselves as marginalized and branded as radicals.
All of you “moderates” out there can wring your hands and drive around with those silly “COEXIST” bumper stickers, but it will be to no avail. The Left has sown the seeds of our society’s destruction, and it is too late to prevent it now.
It’s interesting that you think the left has sown the seeds of destruction when it’s the policies of greed, corruption and division from the right that have brought our society to the brink.
Actually, a majority of white southerners back in the 1920′s were civil to blacks. What they were not was naive about black chaos. How very bigoted of them.
Robert F, you need to study your history. Abortion has not been considered “abhorent” throughout most of U.S. history. As a matter of fact it was practiced legally in the U.S. until 1880, by which time most states had banned it except to save the life of the woman. Anti-abortion legislation was part of a backlash against the growing suffrage and birth control movements of the time.
Excellent piece. Have been meaning to comment for some time on your writing here. Your insights are valuable to us PJM readers.
The views of thoughtful people on the right can differ in several dimensions, but our discourse always benefits from a wide spectrum of informed opinion.
As others have noted here, many of us have combinations of beliefs which fail extremist litmus tests across the board. Unlike most of us, you’ve opted to participate in the messy and often ugly public marketplace of ideas. For that you have my undying gratitude.
Seeing your title, I was curious to learn how you would describe the Right as “balkanized” because I thought surely you know the left is zealously uniform. Oh, sure. They talk about “multiculturalism”, but that’s merely their euphemism for uniform hatred for the USA.
Your encounter with the folks you call “right-wing” was unfortunate, but I question your designation. In my experience, genuine conservatives are not so narrow-minded. Nevertheless, I appreciate your piece.
As for one ill-informed commenter, all totalitarian systems, including Islam, are left-wing by definition.
Sorry. Islam is an imminent danger to our society. The theology clearly calls all Muslims to be jihadists.
What is obnoxious is lumping this view in with bigotry. It isn’t bigotry. I don’t hate Arabs; I don’t hate Afghans; I don’t hate Turks, or Somalis, or Indonesians, or Moroccans. No more than you have to hate Southern whites to understand that Ku Klux Klan was evil. Not all Muslims want to terrorize non-Muslims — but neither did all white Southerners lynch black people, nor did all Germans or Russians commit pogroms against Jews.
Go to Strategypage.com and see how many wars there are going on in the world today (about 80), and then see how many are being fought by Islamic countries. “Religion of peace?” Please open your eyes. If you live in a country bordering an Islamic country, chances are good you have had to fight, or are fighting, or will soon be fighting. If you live in a country with a large and growing Islamic minority, chances are good you’ve had riots, bombings, arson, and numerous threats, implicit and explicit, about what you can say or do.
> And yet, in my view, it would be a failure of western principle, Judeo-Christian ethics, and military strategy to meet this “stealth” and “battlefield” jihad with across-the-board hatred of all Muslims…
You don’t have to hate Muslims to hate the religion, its accompanying political agenda, and the pending death of Western values that their success is making imminent.
Right on! Me too! Neither a liberal nor a conservative. Neither a Democrat or a Republican. That’s me! Sing it, sister!
To Minda, I enjoyed reading your well-reasoned, mature post even though I don’t agree with all of it. When the extremists on the left and the right have no kind words for independents, then I know that’s where the answer lies-with independents. And, as politicians know, no one wins a national election without the support of independents.
I find that many of those in the “middle” tend to be the people that can’t make a rational or moral decision.
Why anyone is not Left: They are decent persons in several key areas.
Why anyone is not Right: They are cowardly persons in several key areas.
Deagle, I take it you don’t approve of me.
Barbara A sez “Robert F, you need to study your history. Abortion has not been considered “abhorent” throughout most of U.S. history.”
Babs, sorry but you need to study your history. You’ve been drinking Harry Blackmun’s silly, half-assed, totally unreliable history of abortion in the US. It is a bunch of crap.
Abortion was always considered abhorent in decent society in the US. Doctors swore not to abort children in the traditional Hippocratic Oath. Abortion was considered a serious sin in the overwhelmingly dominant Christian tradition that governed the country.
(Yes, some founders were deists; they were also heavily influenced by Christian values.)
The idea that anti-abortion laws were a backlash against suffrage is even sillier.
Harry Blackmun was full of $#%+.
Knotacommie – there certainly is such a thing as an extreme right- and you most certainly appear to be from that area.
You make the point for stearing clear of the left ands right perfectly! Radicals simply can not see anything but what they want to see — not even when they sound foolish!
And as for those who feel ‘we in the middle’ can not make a rational or moral decision let me leave you with this thought– God gave us free choice and the mind to think things through. If he wanted robots – he would have created them- but he created instead Independents.
jeepers Phyllis maybe now we see why there are so few woman leaders. If I ran into such crowds of women I’d go do something else.
…you did bring up something I would like to get your answer on …why do people (you) not criticize the entire muslim religion?
it is not a nice way of life, there is NO fairness (I refer on a basic human level). I am aware that few people practice the religion as it is prescribed but that doesn’t excuse anything. …I don’t see an up side.
I think you are well read and present yourself well ..but if I said I enjoyed reading you I get a bit conflicted since what you write is about the negative around us ..the only positive is that the negative hasn’t crushed us all.
regards
Chesler, what really impressed me is how personally you take all this. What really pushes your buttons is the personal insult, the failure to respect Your Most Esteemed Person — not the policy disagreements, which, frankly, are quotidian.
I mean, people tend to (1) suspect that where you stand depends on where you sit, a.k.a. identity tends to trump intellectual ideology (your “leftists”), and (2) tend to overgeneralize, especially about their enemies. What a shock! Who would have suspected?
Interestingly, your response is to overgeneralize about the groups who disrespected you. You speak of the “leftists” and “those on the right” as if they form some purebred identity group, about which you can draw sweeping conclusions from meager data, and allowing for very little nuance. And how is this so different from the two groups you disparage here?
I have to say also, your concept of political alliance is a strange straw man. No one joins “the left” or “the right” because they agree with every line spoken by any other member of the alliance. That’s nuts. It’s a practical thing, a way to get much of what you want done, by finding common cause with as many people as possible over as much as possible, falling well short of everything, and learning to compromise and agree to disagree with quite a bit.
It’s a second reflection, I think, of the essential narcissism of this piece that you do not recognize that ordinary grubby fact about social alliance, and that you would seem to quixotically seek some utopian alliance, with the many members of which you personally would have exactly zero disagreement.
I cannot help you on the left but I have a simple solution on the right for the “condemn all muslims” extremists. Simply say that you do not condemn all muslims because you want to win the war. Winning the war happens faster the more muslims stay or are enticed to our side and the longer they stay there. If Islam truly will force them all to the other side eventually, our best chance for victory is to deny them unity.
This attack from the right generally leaves extremists unprepared and at a loss. You might try it. It’s almost as much fun as attacking animal rights activists for insufficient compassion (and yes, there’s a case for that too).
Solomon:
My approval or disapproval of you has no consequence (except maybe for you). I have stated my opinion (and probably factual – or would not draw adverse opinions). The muddy middle is just that – not able to draw any fixed opinions (draw your own conclusions). The causation is up for grabs…
As a blogger who was kicked into the Outer Darkness by PJM for speech that was deemed to be politically incorrect, I’ve thought a lot about what people say, what they feel it is permissible to say, and what they notice but never mention. That third category, silence, is by far the largest category.
Our cultural dialogue has become degraded –well, our culture has too — and the more this happens the less people really listen to one another or understand how to respond to their interlocutors with any lasting civility.
Two distinctly separate functions in formal language — descriptive and normative categories — are now conflated to the point that in some situations you may not even say what you see — to notice is suspect,to report the experience threatens others.
This is sadly true in the UK right now and will spread as the fine print in the Lisbon Treaty begins to be enacted. Geert Wilders’ “hate crimes” trial is just the most visible of the insanity.
However, we are not immune, as was so obvious in the last campaign when people were intimidated into silence when it came to criticizing our first black presidential candidate. It was sobering to watch.
The other day someone sent me an email (it had been validated) from the Yale Divinity school dept heads to their students. These worthies were most upset that the students had been so insensitive as to –gasp!– have a watermelon eating contest. This behavior was so inconceivable that the students were in some sense irredeemably bad. The only recourse was long, arduous repentance.
Our blog is called “racist” by some and mealy-mouthed by others. The task becomes to delineate carefully for oneself whatever core principles of belief and behavior comprise a life of integrity. Living by those principles with awareness is difficult because it means as one grows, “living by” changes as one’s understanding does. However, the principles do not alter.
It takes courage to say “I support this” and even more courage to say “I do not support that”. But the most difficult thing of all is to say “I don’t know”.
Thanks for an enlightening essay. Much to ponder.
Ms. Chesler,
It is too bad that we have come as a nation to see ourselves in fragmented terms. While somewhat unavoidable in that women and men lead marginally different lives and blacks and whites were not equal through all our history, it has now become de rigeur to see oneself as part of an aggrieved minority, instead of an important part of the whole.
I so enjoy your commentary and then the back and forth from your followers. I just want everyone to know that to pay attention to the “ads” in the upper right corner or elsewhere is very serious. Up front, I want to support sites that bring interesting and informed debate. So, being a bit chubby and near West Chester (at least on my screen) had a diet formula to try at a drastically reduced price, I bought in. Well, now six weeks later I have charges against my Visa from three different companies. And, of course, the fine print means that I will pay at least the first monthly installment from these companies. And then continue to fight them and return and refuse their products. Don’t be a dunce like me. Do not support any advertisement that you do not have personal experience with. And, please, if you want us to look at your site, please be more responsible about the advertising scams that you allow on your site.
57. dymphna:
lol ..who won the watermelon eating contest ?
actually one shouldn’t have watermelon eating contests as it could be harmful to ones health ….too much water in the system is dangerous for humans.
phyllis, it is like the Bosnian and the Serbs..give then license and they will revert to ancient tribal hatreds.+ I sometimes think there are genetic leftist and genetic rightist who at certian periods of political crisis will polorize as if their lives were at stake. we are in a time like that now. However, I do think there are more crazies on the left. I ought to know I was one of them. A Communist in the forties, I was disenchanted as an activist in the Wallace campaign in North Carolina and expelled for being and “enemy of the working class”
Had I been in the USSR I would not be celebrating my 80th birthday next week.
I have made my journey through the political wars of the past 60 years and steered clear of extremist.
I always trust a person who seeks the truth, but never trust one who has found it.
Phyllis, I have been an admirer of yours for40 years, read many of your book although I can’t remember which one and I even wrote to say how moved I was by one of them..(never received an answer)not a complaint. I just discovered PajamaMedia a few month ago and love it….You are still a great person in my mind.
Selwyn
I’d wade through the comments, which I’m sure are simply delightful as always but it’s late and I have to work in the morning. Still I did want to comment on the article which as usual is well written, insightful and entertaining. Here’s the thing, there are plenty of crazies to go around, but there used to be enough people with good intentions and a willingness to listen to and work with each other that things got done. They weren’t perfect, but then as human beings perfect is a lot to ask.
Once upon a time we had real leaders who pledged their sacred honor and all that they possessed to give birth to a new nation, conceived in liberty and with the ideal that all men (women) are created equal.
We have the right and privilege to disagree, we do not have the right to slander each other over our disagreements. We also do not have the right to attack people under the guise of being offended, disenfranchised, or overlooked. Some of our most thorny problems could be worked on if only we could stop being so attached to our positions and look at things from someone else’s view point.
This is what you get honestly when you have a get something for nothing mentality and people who have NO integrity running the show. They didn’t like the rules in the 60′s and 70′s so now they’re using walkers and canes instead of malitov cocktails. Same group different weaponry. So sad.
Phyllis,
My first job out of college was working for NYU at 22 Washington Square North. I remember those lazy hazy summer afternoons. Sitting outside on a Washington Square Park bench, munching on a sandwich, making small talk with my colleagues, and, at the end of the day, hopping the subway to Penn Station, meeting up with my brand new wife who, as I write, sleeps thirty feet from this Mac computer. Together we’d Long Island Railroad it back home to the Island. That was forty years ago, and those were good memories.
If, as a conservative on foreign matters, liberal on domestic ones, I attended one of your meetings, I’d listen to your insights, try to deposit in my memory bank your nice turns of phrase, savor unexpected transitions, study the audience, and, during a lull, if Betty, my wife, was with me, whisper into her ear the same thing I tell her every night before she goes to sleep. “You are the most wonderful girl in the whole wide world. And I love you.” Sometimes she laughs. Sometimes she mocks my Hallmarkian sappiness. Sometimes she returns the favor. Sometimes she never hears me because she’s already gone to sleep.
Although my writing here at PJM takes many tones, as I use different pen names (bill being my real name), I can’t envision screaming at a speaker in a public place. Getting in a pre-fabricated dig. Trying to rattle the people at the mike. Upset those around me. Become the focal point for having a loud voice and a low sense of self.
Or maybe it’s just a masked form of bullying I can’t respect.
Probably worse form is standing by in the audience, allowing the inmates to control the captive audience.
Whether it’s Al Sharpton or Ann Coulter or my cyber friend, Phyllis at the podium, and members of the audience are playing the role of brown shirted, long knife night types; slurring, snorting, shouting and generally making asses of themselves, there is no excuse for not speaking up in defense of civility. None whatsoever. Thugs in wheel chairs are still thugs. And, in my mind, their disease doesn’t inoculate them against appropriate response.
Major Hasan wasn’t physically disabled, but, apparently, his religion protected him from appropriate consequences for his words and deeds. Maybe that’s the lesson we take away. We are our brother’s and sister’s keepers. An attack on Chesler, as much as we may detest her every word and every breath is an attack on not just one but all.
Dear Ms. Chesler:
I think you are being a bit disingenuous, about the equivalence of left and right that you imply in your article re: Islam, Islamic people. In my experience as a conservative and based on broad reading of conservative authors, I don’t find this reflexive hatred and disdain of Muslims that you imply adheres to conservatives.
Though, to put my cards on the table, I do agree with the saying that there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. However, I base this opinion on my reading of the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira, scholars of Islam, etc.
Also, I am as right wing as they come. I am also Jewish.
So, given that, I appreciate your unbelievable fairmindedness towards critics of your writings. This is an attitude that is very very difficult to maintain.
I know you are fairly left wing, but I find you unique among left wing authors in your openness to criticism and willingness to talk with anyone.
By the way, I read your book, “The Death of Feminism”, and thought it was terrific.
Be that as it may, it seems to me, that based on the evidence the overwhelming psychic energy for jew-hatred, power worship, the longing for the “Dear Leader”, etc., etc. – in short, the failure of nerve of the Paladins of Liberalism – lies with the Left, the Progressives, the truly annoying secular/progressive Yentas.
It is the heartland, the evangelicals, the Jewish Orthodox, the flyover country, the simple, goodhearted, decent folk of America that is the last best hope on the planet for the ideal that man is created in God’s image.
The NY Upper West Side intellectuals, the technocratic elite from the Ivies, the boring and pathetic Main Stream Media, Hollywood Babylon, Academia, Chicago’s Miracle Mile and Hyde Park – I mean, really, given your knowledge of history, have you ever experienced a more pathetic, parochial, semi-educated, cowardly elite in human history?
Well, this was quite meandering, but what it really comes down to is that I find many of the Jews that I know, to my deep sorrow, and Progressives as a general class, to be shallow people, Eric Hoffer’s “True Believers”, little people with a hole in their soul. Oh, I wish it not.
My fellow Jews – they don’t read Hebrew, the don’t read the Bible, they haven’t studied Talmud, they hate the American evangelicals who are the strongest supporters of Israel on God’s Green Earth, they love Obama – an obvious Jew Hater, best friend of Rashid Khalidi and Bill Ayers, the preen themselves constantly over their supposed refined moral sense – my God, at times I simply don’t know what to do, I am truly ashamed of the superficiality of an ancient people – my people.
Oh well, this is what you get at 11 O’Clock, a semi-coherent rant.
In a nutshell, I wish all Progressives were like you, Ms. Chesler.
“One person with a belief is equal to ninety-nine who have only interests.”
- John Stuart Mill
Extremist
Thanks, Ms Chesler, for such a revealing article; one can tell from the comments that you hit the nail on the head. Both agreement and angry demands for Total Purity (as understood by the commenter)are the natural reaction to such a perfect strike!
I found the Comments
17. e 18. by Anonymus
and 43. Reformed Trombonist
especially interesting.
Otherwise: points of view often come from education (within family and school and society), then through observation, personal experiences, reasoning, analyzing, in a process which most probably never ends.
I am almost sure “Leftists” are more heart oriented, while “Rightists” are more head oriented. I prefer those who fully use both, which are as rare as “white flies” are.
I am waiting for Islam exposing itself, before being able to talk about Moderates and Radicals: it is not wrong to say that the Islamic (virtual) Ummah is quite compact, and this “compactness” comes most probably from a common point – either Mecca self or Coran, if not even the whole Shari’a (Coran + Sunnah/Shi’a), or quite clearly the shahada -. I am waiting for Islamic world (Ummah) to talk about its horrors, and
for everyone to publically recognize that Islam is Politics rather than Religion.
Why otherwise would we describe Countries according to their political views (Western, Communist, Secular, …), and when it comes to “Islamic Countries” should be we talking about religious views?
The core of the problem is Islamic Shahada, and its analysis. You believe in it, you follow Muhammad’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours. Otherwise you won’t state it: we have great examples of people believing in God, which left Islam (and even converted to – other – Religions). And they are fully able to say why Islamic shahada has something evil in it, not holy, not sacred, at the opposite. I am sure they do it for the Good and better, not for the Bad/Evil and worst.
By the time I got to hug Wafa Sultan’s view on Islam, Islamism, whatever: not to forget that exactely the same “undifferentiation” between the various form or Islam is made by Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan – appearently Wafa Sultan isn’t saying absurdities (…).
Let’s analyze their example: one would say both Sultan and Erdogan are extremists. One is too much against Islam, the other is too much in favour of Islam: are they views unbalanced? What do they talk about? Reality and Facts or nonsenses? Say they are interpreting a same Reality in two different manners: what does make you a moderate or a radical Muslim? [I want to encourage a clear answer by asking the follow: one is against Hitlerian Nazism, one is in favour. It is said there are moderate and radical Nazists: may I know what does make you a Moderate and what does make you a Radical? (I personally would find a threat both of them - ... -)].
I think Islam is a totalitarian Ideology, and a Totalitarianism: and before changing my mind about this subject I need far more evidences against my “mistake”, than Phyllis Chesler’s “calming down” words (and I reward Phyllis Chelser’s words with highest respect and esteem, because I think and feel her words come from direct/personal observation, experience, analysis).
I unfortunately very badly “wellcame” that sentence: “… Right Wing Crusaders …”, which implies a quite clear opinion about Christianity and its past, or a quite clear “standard” and polarized opinion about Crusades [no focus or criticism on the counterpart ...].
I though understand the need (I had – and maybe still have – the same, too) to have beautiful relations with everyone (or at least on Earth): Islamic people can be very “sweet”, and why not, they can really be like “brothers” and “sisters”. Finally: “there is not such a problem like Islam, there is no such a threat like Islam self. It just depend on whom practices it. And of course: a hand has 10 fingers but they are all different” – anyway this sounds more like a very nice aesthetic lie, and an almost deceptive truth (untied to Reality), and it remembers me about a marriage with an Afghan fairy tale’s prince ….
I am aware of the fact that many Jewish seek an alliance with Islamic (or Islamist) people: it is said both (and only) fight for God’s Oneness, for Righteousness, for a real engagement in worshipping, and against that big lie (…) about Jesus-the-Christ being a/the Messiah or whatever. [In my opinion this is a dangerous Alliance. Anyway ....]
I think the problem here is the will or unwill to adhere to our XXI century’s Society, with its pluri-partitical political System, with its freedom of choice and expression, with its power (to be thoughtful, ethical, aesthetical) given to human Beings and not merely to a precise God who allegedly decided who/what/when, and all the rest is – so to put it – Hell, ….
When then I see the consideration and the (past and present) treatment of others in Islamized Countries, and the Islamic migration (haji) to the West (and else), and the Islamic requests for their “habits/traditions/rules/…” to be respected, in the name of God and Religion (very powerful sentence … or excuse …. In front of – fake or true – concepts like God and holiness, nothing else counts …).
I think I am waiting for things like: “We migrate in your Countries in order to respect you”. [And this has to do with the consideration of females/women, too. It first of all to do with the consideration of "others", males and females, and then with females/women altogether. Up to now "Islamic feminism" still be an "Islamic for Islamic women" one: not enough, according to my "more universal" "feminist" point of view on the Gender's matter.]
ANYWAY PHYLLIS CHESLER IS RIGHT: IF ONE WANTS TO FORWARD HIS/HER POINT OF VIEW, HE/SHE HAS TO ENGAGE HIM/HERSELF (AT LEAST) IN THE SAME WAY SHE PERSONALLY DID AND DOES. [I am not in the condition to do so.]
Best regards, from a Westerner, whose Culture is an Helleno-(Judeo-)Christian one.
After reading the comments, I thought most were so inartfully stated that I decided to rate them. If the thoughts and ideas were especially feckless and insipid, I factored that in.
The totally mindless I gave a TM.
Ten is best. One is worst. If you receive less than a “five”, try reading your comments out loud to yourself before sending them.
comment # 1: seven
2: nine
3: three
4: two
5: two
6: two
7: three
8: One
9: One
10: One
11: One
12: TM
13: TM
14: One
15: Seven
16: One
17: Five
18: One
19: Four
20: Four
21: Six
22: Six
23: Six
24: Six (Hopefully needs a comma)
25: Three
26: Seven
27: One
28: Five
29: Eight
30: Nine
31: Five
32: TM
33: One
34: Six
35: Four
36: Ten
37: Seven (it needs a re-write)
38: Nine
39: TM
40: Two
41: Ten
42: Nine
43: Ten
44: One
45: Four
46: Four
47: Two
48: TM
49: Five
50: Nine
51: Two
52: One
53: Six
54: Two
55: Eight
56: Eight
57: Nine
58: Five
59: Seven
60: Eight
#12 Z Budapest – Wow, what an off-topic rant against men. You described yourself correcctly. Ugly. Go ahead and hate men, but consider this.
You are only free to speak the way you do, because some men are willing to fight other men to allow you to do so. If the men who defend you were to choose not to, you would quickly be beaten and muzzled like most women in the world.
These other women, by the way, live in non-Western Civilization, non-Judeo-Christian countries. Islamic countries, in particular, do not put up with such crap. Try not to bite the hand that defends you.
Mme Chesler – I often have to force myself to slog through your articles, in order to find the few kernels of wheat.
I’m a Far-Right guy. There have been many good criticisms of your article on this thread. One thing I haven’t seen is a direct challenge of your basic view of Islam in your writings.
You write extensively of all the vile practices of the fundametalist Islamics, but despite all the evidence, you still don’t see them as evil. “Oh, they’re not all evil.” No, but their faith IS. It is the foundation of their values.
Are there “moderate” Muslims? Yes. They are the slackers, the less-devout. The Fundies interpret the Quran correctly. They are willing to wage jihad. The slackers are not… and know it. However, today’s moderate is tomorrow’s jihadi, after he gets religion.
Despite all the evidence, you refuse to see this. You are being willfully blind. I’m not arguing ad hominem, here. I’m going after the very basic viewpoint of your writings. You’ve bought into the thinking of the Left of “our little brown brothers”. This is a result of your feminism, and its long association with the Left.
Islam IS evil. YOU have seen their works. The evidence piles up into orbit. It is impossible to rationally deny.
I have considered P Chesler a right-wing person, so I was surprised to read that she rates herself to be a moderate, center person. I don’t know if to believe this. Is she really meaning it, or she just teasing and seeking a response? It’s your fault Chesler, your past writings put you in the right corner.
But, assuming you are a centrist, then you may feel the way I feel. I’m criticized by right-wing nuts all the time and I do not regret that. Leftists ignore me because they either agree or give a damn, which I don’t regret either.
That’s the world of neutrality, independence and justice.
#64 Gordon Soloway raised a significant point about today’s Jewish religion. Which is that it’s less about the Jewish religion our literature the Torah and the Talmud, our practices like Tallit and Tefillin, and our prayer including Psalms and Proverbs as well as a belief in the One God, and more about an ethnic food based and Liberal political affiliation. And yes, Barack Obama is very antagonistic towards the Jewish State of Israel and views us as a European imposed colonial entity oppressing the Arabs and destroying their religion and culture while simultaneously and maliciously manipulating the American Gentiles into helping us do our dirty work. I am less convinced that Obama is a swastika waving anti Semite in the classical sense, since he seems to rely on the advice and vicious cynicism of his assimilated, and by the way deeply anti Israel “court Jews” Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod. But enough, why do American Jews vote so overwhelmingly Liberal even when it would seem to negatively affect them? It is largely due, I believe, to the negative Jewish experience with European conservatives who were wholly anti Israel and anti Semitic, and who were the ones who carried out the Holocaust. Indeed, for decades the American Conservative movement was totally dominated by classic anti Semites and even today ranting and raving neo Nazis like Pat Buchanan (who loathes Israel and barely disguises his loathing of Jews,) enjoys a limited following in the American Conservative movement. Jews have also historically anti establishment, and that has usually meant a support of Socialism or at least progressivism of one sort or another, both in Europe and America.
It may not be possible to break what Bernie Goldberg calls the “Slobbering Love Affair” that American Jews have for Barack Obama, but if Obama keeps on behaving like an immature and belligerent thug towards Israel, and continues to try to impose expensive, badly thought out, and ultimately ineffective health and economic plans on America, then American Jews themselves may make the break with Obama, the Democrats, Socalism, and the failed progressivism they have blindly supported for so many years.
Thank you so much for this. Broad-minded, rational and thoughtful, both here and on CNN.
Wow! What simple, closed minded analysis. Just categorize and dismiss and act like your the real open minded person. Don’t address their real concerns. Just categorize and dismiss. I find this happens allot with liberals when they come to the realization that the left is wrong and the right is correct. It took me awhile to come around. It is hard to dismiss all those years of liberal indoctrination and accept that the “simple” minded people have been right all along. This is demonstrated in her statement,”I was approached by a cult-like cabal of right-wing zealots with whom I sometimes agree in principle but from whom I’ve kept my distance.” What an elite attitude! We can’t agree with those “common” folk. Your solution is not to brand all Muslims. I would say we have been doing that for the last 30 years. How is that working out for us? Is the Islamic religion addressing the more radical elements? I don’t see it getting any better. Sometimes there is not a perfect solution.
A few weeks ago, while reading a comments section on this website, I realized that I too am an Independent. I forget the column’s title but it was something like, “Why Obama is a Silly Little Girl.”
I ditched the Democrats when they turned into the Party of Professional Victims, and I’m ditching the Republicans because I’m not interested in being part of a Hive Mind.
Both parties are perfectly willing to throw women under a bus when it suits their agenda – their methods are just different. And I want no part of it anymore.
Ms. Chesler I have both strongly agreed and strongly disagreed with many of your thoughts and sometimes found myself in the middle also. That having been said, I’m not sure that this article has a place at PJM. This is not a commentary on news events,rather it is simply a lamentation over the fact that you cannot please everybody, all of the time.
Great essay. The only difference I would say in the two extremities is that the left one is atrophied; the right might have some flexibility left.
There are no moderates just fence sitters waiting to determine who they are more intimidated by so they can agree with them.
Conservative woman here. Having been exposed to hillary and pelosi as examples of “center-left” women, I’m glad to be on the right. Being 60, I remember when the dems took a longer view of what could help our country and the unfortunates in it. Now I’m seeing the dems looking only to what is good for them, later today. Their fiscal irresponsibility is astounding. Their social engineering thinking is so confused who knows which way to go. There are things about the right, right now, I wish were better, but, for the good of the country, lady, take a side, stop dithering.
Hmmm I don’t see any of this All Muslims are evil talk from Hannity or Limbaugh, but our current Government is chock full of the grievance victim group identity politics types who also dominate academia and the media. I have no criticism of Ms Cheslers approach, other than her trying to lump conservatives in with extremist on the right, who have bo political power over anyones lives in the US. FAct is, most people in the US identify as conservative, which isnt the caracature of the racist bible thumpers pushed by leftists and “moderates”, despite their frequent ad hom attempt to shut us up. IF moderates were truly the new majority John McCain would be president.
Chris #50, you’re wrong. From prochoice.org: ***Abortions have been performed for thousands of years and in every society studied. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before “quickening” were openly advertised and commonly performed.***
There’s also a detailed history of abortion on Wikipedia.
I haven’t read anything by Harry Blackmun. Please do not use the nickname “Babs”. I do not like it.
My mother-in-law called herself a moderate… when you think the world revolves around you what else can you call yourself.
I prefer to be Ornery-tarian. It’s much more fun… and p*sses my mother-in-law off to no end. I highly recommend it.
Seriously though, most “moderates” I know are too opinionated — especially on their insistence on being seen as “moderate”.
The bigger point about jihadism is being ignored. There is no reason to admit so many Muslims into the U.S. This does not mean we “hate” all Muslims, just that we recognize many of them have difficulty assimilating into our more open culture.
Enforcement of existing immigration law, elimination of the “Diversity Visa” and tracking visa overstayers would have prevented 9/11. We are not obligated to accept the entire world as immigrants, we should pick and choose those whose ideology is most compatible with American democracy and who can contribute in terms of education and skills. There was probably no compelling reason to admit Nidal Hasan’s Palestinian parents to the U.S., as there was no reason to admit Sirhan Sirhan.
I agree that ideological conformity should be resisted on both the Left and Right. The current ideological conformity on both sides that believes our economy and society can only survive with massive immigration, regardless of how poorly educated and/or hostile such immigrants are, should also be challenged.
You make a good point, but this reads like a “preacher’s story”.
As someone with many conservative friends, I find it somewhat unbelievable that you just happened upon someone, days later, who fought with you to denounce ALL Muslims. I know many Evangelical Christians and conservatives and I have never once, not once, heard anyone wish to denounce ALL Muslims. Quite the opposite.
But your overall point is valid. I too used to try and walk the line so that I would not offend my liberal friends. And I often would throw out the bone that, yes, the right did bad things too. But ultimately, I found that my liberal friends, and yes they were friends, were far more vicious when you strayed from their acceptable point of view.
In the end, you can’t please everyone. I finally just took a stand and decided that my lefty friends and family would just have to deal with who I am. Yeah, we avoid talking politics, but my true friends remained friends.
Good article … one observation … the venom on the left can be found at MSNBC, Huffington Post, Daily Kos … in other words the most prominent voices on the left spew this nonsense … on the right, not so much …
I don’t see the venom at NRO, FOX, Washington Times … you have to go down the ladder pretty far before you get to the nasties …
this sort of moral equivalence is nice for a discussion group but in the real world SEIU thugs beat up people for opposing ObamaCare, Congress threatens to go after insurance companies for opposing Obamacare and the White House tries to ban FOX news from press conferences …
The right may pitch inside, the left throws at your head …
Phyllis,
A thoughtful post. Political ideologues of all stripes tend to be shrill and shallow; they don’t think, they emote, ideology replaces thought. Their actions unwittingly support the corruption within ‘their’ party and loses elections — which some would rather lose than engage in a rational manner with current problems.
I personally experienced the following (on PJM);
… when I staked out my position as a political conservative (supported Bush, twice!, then McCain), who has studied atmospheric physics and agrees with AGW predictions. The results of taking a non-conformist opinion on a topic of science from a basis of scientific analysis (!)…
And regarding the following;
I met with…
Amid all this there were thoughtful and informed disagreements and enjoyable discussions, thanks to e.g. Konyok.
westerncanadian #32
Definitely a cutout and keep
70. michelle from ny: “After reading the comments, I thought most were so inartfully stated that I decided to rate them.”
Get a life.
83. That may be, but only for want of medical knowledge. Christians tolerated abortions before the quickening only because they thought life didn’t begin until the quickening. Now we know better. Furthermore, nothing negates the fact that doctors swear not to perform abortions when they take the Hippocratic Oath. Hippocrates was very pro-life, forbidding his students from performing abortions, euthanasia, wanton experimentation and attempting procedures they had not been trained in.
Can you imagine how politically incorrect it would be today for the military to sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic?
“I have read a fiery Gospel writ in burnished rows of steel;
‘As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my Grace shall deal;’
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the Serpent with His heel;
Since God is marching on!”
Bless you for saying something that needed to be said.
Dear Ms. Chesler,
You said “The leftist-feminists (above) want to reduce everything and anything to their own narrow, personal “identity” issue. The right-wing crusaders (also above) want to erase individual differences, subsume them all into one fighting Party Line.
This article was like a birthday present to me. For at least five years, as a self-identified lib, I’ve had to come to the “dark side” to hear any fair praise or criticism for our president GW Bush; a man I did not vote for, but saw he had his good moments.
Now the tables have turned, and as I have not voted for Obama, I find the same attitude towards him here (albeit, with more evidence) like I saw with fellow libs on the left against W. And the Fort Hood incident while chills me, it chills me more to hear how people would attack or intern thousands of Muslims like we did the Japanese. No it has not been said directly, but I believe that people have politicized the attack like that.
Thank you for this essay.
blotto,
Your last post indicates that you don’t in fact seem to understand the concept of my last post. Do you really think that making personal attacks enlightens anyone or does anything to prove a point. No it doesn’t, so why bother? Riddle me that.
Furthermore, you don’t excuse one group’s bad behavior by pointing to someone else’s. If you have a problem with another website’s comments, then you can tell them so. And FP Bush did deserve much of the criticism (not all) that he received. If President Obama were to mislead the country into a war of choice, let a city drown for four days, and preside over another Great Recession, then he will deserve the same amount of criticism that FP Bush received. I’ll be one of the first to voice that criticism.
Also what you fail to realize about those of us who are true independents is that we criticize anyone who takes actions (or advocates for them) that are harmful to our country. Right or left. My previous posts are not about etiquette but civility. It’s ok to disagree, it’s useful as well, but personal attacks serve no purpose.
Additionally what so many on the right and the left (and apparently you as well) fail to understand is that no we don’t have to decide on the DEM or REB parties in order to take a particular side on the issues. In case you didn’t know, every REB administration in history has increased the size of government and every DEM administration has failed to prevent an increase in poverty. Case in point, the financial problems facing the federal budget were first talked about not by and DEM or any REB but by the INDEPENDENT Ross Perot.
Finally, you need to do a better job of reading my posts. I never commented on any position of yours (or exaggerated them).
ooops, Dr. Chesler. My apologizes
The behavior you portray has nothing to do with left or right, but stems from a severe form of pride which introduces enmity into every relationship and personal interaction. This pride and enmity that has historically led to the downfall of a lot of individuals and whole societies.
Here’s how it operates. When one seriously embarks on a life to “be somebody” on one’s own (i.e. with no help from God), the question that inexorably persists is “How am I doing?”, or in another form: “How’s my project to be somebody going?”
Now, if that one subscribes to an objective standard of truth and virtue, they compare themselves against those objective standards to answer the question. God and they alone are their judge, and it really doesn’t matter what anyone else is doing or saying. They can listen to, leave alone, or even love others and it doesn’t enter into the equation of how they are doing.
But if one believes solely in subjective “values”, the only way one can possibly answer the question “How am I doing” is to compare one’s self to other people – there is no other possible standard. Every other person becomes a competitor and potential disrupter to one’s sense of well-being and self-value. And as competitors they must be pushed down so that the comparison always returns a favorable result.
In pride’s more mature form, the prideful person starts to bend all facts to show and maintain that the other person is lower, less honest, less worthy, in the wrong camp, less capable, less intelligent, has worse motives, is less human, etc. In pride’s most severe form, the competition with other people drives all interactions. People are driven apart from each other; their relationships become strained; they lose their ability to love or help others; and eventually it all devolves into a pure power struggle, as the most direct and sure way to prove superiority to inflict violence and homicide on the other person.
Thought it may be complicated, and though we aren’t yet shooting each other in great numbers (and hopefully never will), if one watches, one will see that that this model very well describes the operative force behind most of what we’re seeing in public discourse today, and what you described in your recent interactions.
92. I don’t really care what Christians or Hippocrates think about abortion. It was just an example used to illustrate the fact that abortion has not “always” been considered “abhorrent”, even in patriarchal society.
BTW, “quickening” was considered by the medieval church to be the point at which the soul entered the body, not the point at which “life” began. The conceptus most certainly was alive before that point, just as any cell in my fingertip is, just not “ensouled.”
Mr. Indp: Geez. First, who made a pesonal attack. Do you mean that by addressing someone’s comments and rebutting them is now a personal attack. OMG. Get a life.
Second, I challenge you to find an extreme position that I have expressed.
Third, please enlighten us as to Pres. Bush’s mistakes. Everybody from the UK to the UN plus our Congressional leaders and FP Clinton said Iraq had WMD. So attacking him and the concomittant insurgents was not a “war of choice” (a liberal concoction). How again did he let NO drown??? Please tell us. And what recession did he preside over. Wait how about the Dem controlled Congress’ recession. Oh yeah that one. For less than a year he did preside over it. But let’s look at who is to blame. IF you can take off those liberal shaded eyeglasses.
Fourth, so Obama has not made any mistakes yet??? Good grief! You have just exposed yourself not only as a progressive but as a fraud. Oh yes that is an attack!!!
Fifth, over the last 60 years the Congress and Senate or both has been dominated by Dems so even if a GOP was president he was hardly able to control spending WHICH is done by the Congress. And since when is it the role of government to address poverty. We’ve spent about $12 trillion and what has it got us. See again your true colors are showing.
Perot is your standard bearer. OMG
Look Mr. Indp. you can claim your mantle of independence but you have to take a side. You voted for Obama and now our nation is heading face first into some Marxist/socialist form of government.
I have not made one ad hominem attack on you or anyone. My challenges were and are thoughtful and deliberate. If they attack your sensibilities that is your problem. Oh and forget the elitist attitude Mr. Indp. You go to the bathroom the same way as I do.
I would like to point out that there are two Rachels on this board. I’m Rachel #86. Even though I am anonymous, I simply can not stand the idea that someone might think that I would write something as foolish as this:
Rachel #94
“it chills me more to hear how people would attack or intern thousands of Muslims like we did the Japanese. No it has not been said directly, but I believe that people have politicized the attack like that.”
Hey Rachel #94. You are a parody of yourself. Yes, no one said that. Thus you just made it up in your own mind and it didn’t really happen anywhere else. Though, I suppose it COULD have. Anything is possible, including aliens. I’m sure it escapes you, but I think you have embarrassed our name by accusing imaginary people of politicizing this discussion.
Go back and read the original article again. CLEARLY, you missed the point.
I agree with poster #97 that this is not about left/right. It’s more about personality issues. These people migrate toward group situations where they can act out with impunity. They are very attracted to these public areas including the internet where there is no constraint on them to behave like adults.
blotto,
You still don’t seem to understand to concept of my post. The article was about imagination and uniformity. In that context I was commenting on the need for civility. Read my previous posts, I never accused you personally of making personal attacks and I never accused you of having extreme positions on anything. I challenge you to find any such specific comments I made on this thread. Now on to your additional comments:
First, in answer to your question as to FP Bush’s mistakes I stated the biggest ones in my last post. Once again they were misleading the country into a war of choice in Iraq, letting the city of New Orleans drown for four days, and presiding of the Great Recession. On Iraq, no not everybody agreed Iraq had WMD. You probably think that because you heard it on television. Yes almost the entirety of the US media and the congress was duped into believing that Iraq had WMD but that didn’t make it true. Other than the US and UK (both of whom had most of their sources discredited) what countries stated they believed Iraq had WMD? So far, there has been over 4,300 US military deaths, at least 100,000 Iraqi deaths, and (if the US completely leaves in two years) a two TRILLION dollar price tag. Attacking Iraqi insurgents (that weren’t even there until the war) was a REB concoction made to justify the war after the fact. On New Orleans, aside from the Coast Guard there was almost no response from the Federal government in NO for four days. Almost 1,500 people died in NO because of the flooding. On the recession, Bush was the president. It happened on his watch. The REBs were in control of the House of Representative for 12 years BTW. The REBs were in complete control of the congress and the Whitehouse when the Great Recession began.
Second, I never stated that President Obama hasn’t made any mistakes. I think he’s made plenty. Go back to my previous posts and show me where I wrote that. Blotto you just exposed yourself as a liar. That’s the third instance when you claimed I wrote something that I didn’t. Civility includes honesty.
Third, the Senate is a part of the Congress. Before you engage in a dialogue with someone maybe you should research what you’re talking about. In this case I recommend the US Constitution. In our system of government we have checks and balances. The Congress cannot pass legislation without the president’s signature unless they have an override majority in Congress. Do you know how many times in the past 60 years have the DEMs had a veto proof majority in Congress (which includes the Senate)? Also I never said it’s the role of government to address poverty. I was simply pointing out a failure of the DEM platform. And we didn’t spend 12 trillion dollars, your party did.
Fourth, I actually didn’t vote for President Obama. As my handle should suggest I’m an independent. I’ve never supported any DEM or REB. That’s the whole point. I make my decisions based on science not ideology. I make evaluations based on evidence on doctrine. The side I choose is independence. After all, the two ‘main’ parties and their monopoly on political power is the biggest obstacle to solving this countries’ problems. Also, you once again don’t seem to understand the concept of what you’re commenting on. Marxism is an ideology. Socialism is a form of government. This country was put on the path to socialism by your party, especially Bush.
Finally, this discourse is a perfect example of what I think Phyllis Chesler was writing about. Far too often many on the right and the left have a balkanized imagination and a zealous uniformity that stops them from even recognizing this countries problems, let alone trying to fix them.
Barbara A (#83 and #98, NOT BABS) sez “Chris #50, you’re wrong. From prochoice.org: ***Abortions have been performed …. ”
There’s also a detailed history of abortion on Wikipedia.”
Dear Barb,
I am very reluctant to dispute the research of the objective experts who penned the “Procoice.org” or “wikipedia” sites but I think that I must demur.
Abortion was frequently illegal in colonial America and there are documented cases of abortionists being prosecuted, despite the great difficulty in proving the offense in those days.
Abortion was widely illegal (16 states at various stages of pregnancy) in the 1840s and illegal in every state by 1875. Its illegality has absolutely nothing to do with suffrage, which passed as a constitutional amendment about 45 years later, IIRC.
Indeed, the reason that there was a wave of laws against abortion in the early to mid-19th century is that people started publicly defending the practice. It was time to pass a law if social mores no longer sufficed.
Abortion was definitely not an issue before quickening in the 19th century because it was very difficult to firmly diagnose pregnancy before that stage. Not an issue.
Incidentally, early feminists, like Susan B. Anthony, were typically pro-life/anti-abortion.
It is true that abortion has been practiced in most societies, including the early US, but it was still considered abhorent. Today, many people swap wives, cheat on their spouses, smoke crack, beat their kids and dogs, but that doesn’t make those practices socially acceptable. They are abhorent.
I suggest that you go read Marvin Olasky’s book on a Social History of Abortion.
By the way, you are also incorrect on your idea that “…“quickening” was considered by the medieval church to be the point at which the soul entered the body…”
The church has never taken a position on when ensoulment occurs. Aquinas speculated that quickening was the point, but there has never been a definitive church teaching on the subject. On the other hand, Christians have opposed abortion from the beginning of the church.
Thanks for playing.
Chris
I remember this being supported by Hussein (Barack – Obama), which I found disgusting at various levels:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm
I anyway repeat my statement about the importance of full Responsibility when giving birth to a human Being, and I add that it’s rather better not to give birth to a human Being if the life’s Quality one has to offer to him/her is comparable to life’s Quality in – so called and described – Hell.
Usually females are far more responsible for Humans than males are; when it comes to babies, a woman has a very priviledged and deeper Relation with them – and no man should decide at her place if it is the case to have or not to have (give birth to) a baby (human Being).
Well, Chris, I wouldn’t want to impugn the objectivity of Marvin “Americans United for Life” Olasky either. However, as all this amply illustrates, abortion has been a very controversial thing (in some quarters) for a very long time now, but opinion has not by any means always been unanimous.
The problem is people. I have seen the enemy, and he is us.
Take any random group of 10 people anywhere in the US. (Besides obvious extremes like Amish Country or anywhere in California.) 1 of them will be an idiot. 1 or 2 of them will be emotional cripples, all set to bully or get defensive all too quicly. 1 or 2 will be all of the above. Out of the slight majority left, most will be too timid or find it not worth the bother to counter the dummies and bullies for the sake of those not-quite-sane enough to see through them to what they are.
Unfortunately, there is no cure for stupid or monster.
So what, then, do we do?
I’m open to suggestion.
I understand your point Ms. Chesler and I applaud you for making it. However I have to disagree with you on Islam. Islam IS evil, but that doesn’t make all Muslims evil.
How is that so?
Just like someone might identify as Christian but not go to church or only on holidays there are those who are “Muslim” but not strict adherents. The “extremists” are the true followers, the peaceful sorts are the “lay Muslim”.
There is never an excuse for ugly, vindictive behavior. NOne of them, left or right, is free to insult and scorn and deride in public. Criticisms must be thoughtful and argued, not flung like great wads of poop amid hoots and cheers from the gutless.
IMHO, the relative blamelessness of Islam in general is not yet established, on the grounds that so few, almost none, of the ‘normal muslims’ have stood up and made a real effort to speak for their view. This does not mean they are guilty, as those women thought. It could be that they are afraid. But without hearing from them it is impossible to judge. And they steadfastly refuse to speak up for themselves.
So I cannot blame people who believe, in the absence of any other information, that Islam itself is the problem. It is not a warrantless conclusion.
Every day I scour the news for some sign of ‘moderate Islam’ speaking up and saying “it’s not us, we don’t believe in that violent ideology, we just want to be Americans practicing our religion, you can count on us.”
And every day it is absent.
The default position, then, is excusable.
44. Now and Then:
“Right on! Me too! Neither a liberal nor a conservative. Neither a Democrat or a Republican. That’s me! Sing it, sister!”
Maybe not, but you have “fringe leftist, DNC/Kos/Huffpo talking point copy-n-pastin’ whackjob” down pat.
“mr Independent”-you are not an “independent”. What you are is a middle of the road wimp. You merely follow what the majority says. If you are in a room with a bunch of lefty professors, you agree with them. If you are in Pajamas media, you suddenly become a “conservative”. You might want to remember what happens to those who walk in the middle of the road. They usually get run over. Grow a set before YOU start calling anyone an extremist. Maybe you can tell me all the laws Ive passed that have affected you. I can certainly tell me how Obama,Pelosi, Reid,Frank,Schumer, Rangel, etc have damaged my pocket book and affected my life negatively. So spare me your phony “independent” baloney.
Knotacommie,
How can someone not be something and yet be that something? That’s your argument and it doesn’t make any sense. What I am is an intelligence individual not an automaton. Instead of blind fully believing what the DNC or the RNC tell me what to believe; I believe what science and research prove to me. And it was the REBs and the DEMs that brought this country to the state it is in.
Three people on the right? That must have been WNN. C’mon Phyllis don’t tar all of us with that brush.