[Paleopsych] Hoist the left on its own petard

[Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.]

Michael,
This is a strong point you make, but irrelevant to my question. I do 
want to understand how the left justifies ignoring the Social Security 
issue.

But to your point: There appears to be a de facto alliance formed 
between the radical left - read, anti-capitalist "progressives"- and 
radical Islam. Here is Horowitz' column on it last September, 
meticulously documented, as is his wont.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15221
this is not a comprehensive piece, but it hits some of the points. The 
book details it comprehensively. It suggests the alliance is fairly 
widespread, not limited to extremists. I would like to have a liberal 
view of the specific points in the book. If Horowitz is onto something, 
it bodes ill for the left, something I do not want.

Another less serious example is from Best of the Web (Wall Street 
Journal) yesterday:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362
Read the transcription of Jon Stewart's interview of Nancy Soderberg. 
Taranto's editorial comments are funny, but read carefully the angst in 
Soderberg's view of democracy in the middle east.

My point, which is probably poorly made or else you wouldn't 
misunderstand it, is that there is a developing tragedy here. The left 
seems stale, irrelevant, and preaching to its own choir. Nationally 
people do not apply the label "liberal" to themselves. Notice that 
Hillary Clinton has been consistently supportive of the war. She is no 
fool. She wants a presidential race and she knows that she can't play 
the defense dove like Kerry and still win. But too many Democrats fail 
to see what she sees, the nation has moved to the right and she has to 
position herself in the center to have a chance to lead.

Where are the exciting new ideas of how to improve lives at home and 
abroad? In the past, there were some strong defense hawks - such as John 
F. Kennedy - who were quite at home in the Democratic party. There were 
interesting ideas. The domestic agenda of LBJ turned out to be a waste, 
I suppose, but in some ways it fueled a good development, namely the 
1996 alliance between the Republican legislature and Bill Clinton which 
reformed welfare and improved the lives of so many.

But now I don't hear anything but obstructionism. Hence my puzzle: Why 
the reliance on raw emotion instead of a reasoned approach to social 
security? 

Michael Christopher wrote:

>Lynn says:
>  
>
>>>The Left needs a global vision that is not based on
>>>      
>>>
>supporting Baathists (see www.frontpagemagazine.com
>and look at the discussions about the alliance between
>the left and radical islam).<<
>
>--Whoa... what percentage of the Left (does that
>include prominent Democrats?) supports radical Islam
>or Baathists??
>
>Sounds like an ad hominem, strawman and outright
>slander to me. Unless by "The Left" you mean some
>fringe leftist group not affiliated with the Democrats
>or Greens. If so, you should clarify that.
>
>Michael
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>_______________________________________________
>paleopsych mailing list
>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/paleopsych/attachments/20050303/c5568e46/attachment.html>