NationStates Jolt Archive

Doctor Sanity has always been, to me, one of the most entertaining and intelligent bloggers on my side of the political spectrum. I use that label advisedly, as I'm sure (very sure) she would disagree with many of my stances on public issues. (http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/11/intellectual-and-moral-bankruptcy-of.html) However, here she raises some interesting points with a broad relevance to modern political debate, both in America and elsewhere in the Anglosphere.

I'd like to open the floor to some comments from NSers, though, on this, because this is a website with a broad variety of people from all over politics. Firstly, I'd like to begin with my own position on what she says. I'm not going to summarise her statement, because the article bears reading through and I don't want to let you people out of it.

Let me say, however, that I think the problem is really not that the left has lost its way, but that the old left has become the right. Classical Liberalism, much to my occasional sorrow, has replaced the old style of conservatism for the most part, and the general equality of humanity in a theoretical and semi-practical sense (regardless of any lack of logic in such a position) is now a deeply held tenet of conservatives, which is perhaps why we stick so strongly to the Free Market, which gives everyone the freedom, as equals, to succeed or fail.

To those who wish to constantly strike against society and keep moving with their 'revolution', there isn't much ground left to cover. The Left, in order to differentiate itself from the Right, has turned against freedom in general and embraced Marxist theory, which means in practice that everyone fails equally. I'd like to point out that I don't include the broad mass of the public in this, which has always been, is now, and will continue to be, obstinately centrist in its viewpoints.

The problem is that the Centrist position is closer to the Right position than it is to that of the Left, because the Left's intellectuals, such as Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore, are increasingly abandoning common sense and moving further to the left. Indeed, in his support for Saddam's dictatorship (a position which any classical leftist such as the leaders of the French or American revolutions would deplore strongly), he has moved, idealogically, so far to the left as to have abandoned the traditional axis and began to move into a tyrannical position, which is above politics as it is without politics.

The average person in the west, that mythical human being, now is so strongly in support of a free, or at the most a moderately regulated, market that any real position against it is unlikely to draw large support in the population except amongst the idealistic. Interestingly, university students in Australia and America have been subject to increasing radicalisation from 'professors' (who have been forced into academia, for the most part, by their lack of relevance outside those hallowed halls), yet act in support of the Free Market once they graduate.

In the United States, the Democrats changed from the party of Truman to the party of Howard Dean and Michael Moore through the acceptance by the Republicans of much of their early policies, though those Republicans fought bitterly against them when introduced. The choice for the Democrats, then, is to return to the stance of Truman and abandon support for failed intellectual theory, or to face ever increasing political irrelevance regardless of occasional small victories.

<END RANT>

Well, that was my take, useless as I'm sure it is. I turn the floor open to any who wish to make use of it.

Vague, poorly informed hyperbole!

Roania,
Thanks for linking to the Dr. Sanity post and let's all thank Amestria for illustrating Dr. Sanity's point. ^_~

In brief response to your own comments (I'll try to come back to this later) I should probably note along with Van Hayek that the true Liberal movement *began* with free markets. My own suspicion is that a part of the current dementia of the Left is simple frustration at having lost political power and having nothing else to do with their lives. ^_^;

Vague, poorly informed hyperbole!
Holy hyperbole, Batman.

I found Dr. Sanity's article to be woefully vague and uninformed... While reading the article, I very, very rarely felt that (s)he even came close to providing sufficent evidence to prove his/her point.

The fact that the so-called Dr Sanity willingfully fails to provide one single peice of evidince to support her conclusions on the modern left places the validity of her arguement somewhere above "being pulled out her arse".

The left has in the past stould for freedom (independence, worker's rights, feminism, civil rights) and continues to do so today (civil rights, fair chance economics). It is important to note that the right opposed us then, and opposes us again now. We overcame them then, and we'll do it again.

Those silly left-handed people.

I stopped reading when she suggested that lefties thought that america deserved the attacks and that those who died were merely "little eichmanns".

Granted there may be a few people like that out there but she seems to be basing her opinion of todays left on extreme radicals, which as always is a rather poor way to describe a group.

I found Dr. Sanity's article to be woefully vague and uninformed... While reading the article, I very, very rarely felt that (s)he even came close to providing sufficent evidence to prove his/her point.
Now, I don't mean to be insulting, but does it strike anyone else that these "right" opinionists have a sort of conspiracy theory thing going on where the "left" have some form of shadow, Marxist organisation intent on taking over the world.

I stopped reading when she suggested that lefties thought that america deserved the attacks and that those who died were merely "little eichmanns".

Granted there may be a few people like that out there but she seems to be basing her opinion of todays left on extreme radicals, which as always is a rather poor way to describe a group.
Who are these so-called radicals? The only place I've heard these alleged statesment is in vague references to an online forum on Fox News. Yes, there are 12yo computer geeks who think America deserved to be attacked (perhaps because the missunderstould a prevailing veiw amoung some groups that there were reasons for the attack, that do not excuse it), however, these people do not represent the left.

Pro-choice is not the liberalism, anti-war is not liberalism, Democrat is not liberalism. Liberalism is the belief in liber; the freedom of self.

Now, I don't mean to be insulting, but does it strike anyone else that these "right" opinionists have a sort of conspiracy theory thing going on where the "left" have some form of shadow, Marxist organisation intent on taking over the world.

...but it would be so cool if we did. It'd make me feel special, at least.

Who are these so-called radicals? The only place I've heard these alleged statesment is in vague references to an online forum on Fox News. Yes, there are 12yo computer geeks who think America deserved to be attacked (perhaps because the missunderstould a prevailing veiw amoung some groups that there were reasons for the attack, that do not excuse it), however, these people do not represent the left.

Pro-choice is not the liberalism, anti-war is not liberalism, Democrat is not liberalism. Liberalism is the belief in liber; the freedom of self.

Man, I dont now who they are. I just meant that the column was rather bad because she seemed to be suggesting that those were rather popular sentiments on the left, rather than the preserve of a few crazy people who also call themselves liberals.

Yes, there are 12yo computer geeks who think America deserved to be attacked

Why computer geeks? Are geeks more likely to have anti-american sentiments? Stop discriminating against geeks... Not that this much to do with the topic; I'm just wondering why you say this.

I'd like to open the floor to some comments from NSers, though, on this, because this is a website with a broad variety of people from all over politics. Firstly, I'd like to begin with my own position on what she says. I'm not going to summarise her statement, because the article bears reading through and I don't want to let you people out of it.

Dude I read her article on the link: you summarized it.


The problem is that the Centrist position is closer to the Right position than it is to that of the Left, because the Left's intellectuals, such as Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore, are increasingly abandoning common sense and moving further to the left. Indeed, in his support for Saddam's dictatorship (a position which any classical leftist such as the leaders of the French or American revolutions would deplore strongly), he has moved, idealogically, so far to the left as to have abandoned the traditional axis and began to move into a tyrannical position, which is above politics as it is without politics.


I know not Noam, but Micheal isn't an intellectual just a guy making thought provoking movies(for all the good and ill that comes with that).

The fact she thinks he is a intellectual makes her fear for her sanity.
Who support's Saddam's dictatorship? Bush Sr? True Mr. Bush did until we decided to backstab him at Kuwait. We said, " Go ahead attack Kuwait", but once he did we attacked.

Now does supporting a dictatorship=supporting the rules of law? Not exactly,
we allow criminals to get off crime if they win in court...we don't support the criminal's crimes.

First he has to bring Saddam to a trial in nuetral territory:was this done..nope!

I am against Saddam's actions: I care for freedom/ideals of America to much to allow Iraq War to be started on lies/mid-information. The Founding Fathers would be upset with Mr. Bush.

In the United States, the Democrats changed from the party of Truman to the party of Howard Dean and Michael Moore through the acceptance by the Republicans of much of their early policies, though those Republicans fought bitterly against them when introduced. The choice for the Democrats, then, is to return to the stance of Truman and abandon support for failed intellectual theory, or to face ever increasing political irrelevance regardless of occasional small victories.


Please, some of us support Dean: she can have Micheal though :p

Why computer geeks? Are geeks more likely to have anti-american sentiments? Stop discriminating against geeks... Not that this much to do with the topic; I'm just wondering why you say this.
Geeks are more likely to recycle BS off the Blogosphere into liberal-slanted forums that Fox News are likely to use as the sole voice of the Left.

Man, I dont now who they are. I just meant that the column was rather bad because she seemed to be suggesting that those were rather popular sentiments on the left, rather than the preserve of a few crazy people who also call themselves liberals.
Sorry, my comment wasn't intended as a rebuttal of your arguement. Merely to illustrate the point you just made, then.

Sorry, my comment wasn't intended as a rebuttal of your arguement. Merely to illustrate the point you just made, then.

Oh, ok. Seems i've got too used to being diagreed with. :)

I stopped reading when she suggested that lefties thought that america deserved the attacks and that those who died were merely "little eichmanns".

Granted there may be a few people like that out there but she seems to be basing her opinion of todays left on extreme radicals, which as always is a rather poor way to describe a group.

Those "few people like that" tend to have tenure. The little Eichmann quote originated with Ward Churchill.

http://instapundit.com/archives/020810.php

Now, I don't mean to be insulting, but does it strike anyone else that these "right" opinionists have a sort of conspiracy theory thing going on where the "left" have some form of shadow, Marxist organisation intent on taking over the world.

Conspiracy theory would be too strong in your case since it implies that we think you are capable of sustained purpose. We just think you're a bunch of trained parrots who put a high value on being conformists and avoiding the trials of original thought. :p

Who are these so-called radicals?

Since you asked....

http://www.zombietime.com/world_cant_wait_sf_11-2-2005/part_3/

But thanks for confirming that anyone who is "anti war" is a marginal person living a marginal life in your view. That does tend to be the view of most sane people, doesn't it? ^_~

Dude I read her article on the link: you summarized it.


I know not Noam, but Micheal isn't an intellectual just a guy making thought provoking movies(for all the good and ill that comes with that).

Which is very much an intellectual pursuit as anyone involved in the visual arts can tell you. Now I'll grant that when it came to movies he's an incompetant boob but Michael Moore really is about as intellectual as anyone on the Left is capable of becoming. :p

In the United States, the Democrats changed from the party of Truman to the party of Howard Dean and Michael Moore through the acceptance by the Republicans of much of their early policies, though those Republicans fought bitterly against them when introduced. The choice for the Democrats, then, is to return to the stance of Truman and abandon support for failed intellectual theory, or to face ever increasing political irrelevance regardless of occasional small victories.

Well, that was my take, useless as I'm sure it is. I turn the floor open to any who wish to make use of it.

That's about right. There are a *lot* of things the Democrats could do to win back the trust of the electorate and cast us Republicans back into the Outer Darkness if they were to do that and be both sincere and consistent in doing that. But I'm reminded of a Mark Clifton story I once heard about called "They'd Rather Be Right". In that story you could enter a machine and become immortal if you didn't mind having all your preconceived notions knocked out of your mind but everyone who encountered that machine, including the inventor, ended up deciding that this was too high a price to pay for immortality. To some extent the Democrats are in that position now. They cannot become the party of Harry Truman, Scoop Jackson and Zeke Miller again without permanently becoming a group of people very different from the ones they are today and I do not that this is something the current Democratic High Mucketymucks could find easy to do even for the sake of winning. Remember sincerity would have to be an inescapable part of the process. You can fake that for a while but not over a sustained period of time. I'm not sure there are enough Scoop Jacksons and Zeke Millers left among the Democrats for such a change to be even possible.

That's about right. There are a *lot* of things the Democrats could do to win back the trust of the electorate and cast us Republicans back into the Outer Darkness if they were to do that and be both sincere and consistent in doing that. But I'm reminded of a Mark Clifton story I once heard about called "They'd Rather Be Right". In that story you could enter a machine and become immortal if you didn't mind having all your preconceived notions knocked out of your mind but everyone who encountered that machine, including the inventor, ended up deciding that this was too high a price to pay for immortality. To some extent the Democrats are in that position now. They cannot become the party of Harry Truman, Scoop Jackson and Zeke Miller again without permanently becoming a group of people very different from the ones they are today and I do not that this is something the current Democratic High Mucketymucks could find easy to do even for the sake of winning. Remember sincerity would have to be an inescapable part of the process. You can fake that for a while but not over a sustained period of time. I'm not sure there are enough Scoop Jacksons and Zeke Millers left among the Democrats for such a change to be even possible.

Unfortunately, for a democracy to work there needs to be a choice between parties capable of winning. The future for American democracy, and I know I'm not qualified or an expert, looks to be one where the more sane members of the Left (Clark, Kerry, etc.) and the more moderate members of the Right (McCain, Guiliani) or their ideological heirs are driven to unite. That would leave the American Democratic process becoming increasingly like those in Europe.

That, or it will remain a two-party system, however the choice will be between the centre and the right, not between the left and the centre-right, as now.

As a responce, I see it more that she has changed, not the liberals. As much as she was saying how much they have, she provides no proof of such a change.

Instead, we have a lot of 'Back in my day, we were real liberals! Why, these young whippersnappers have no idea what it was like...' ranting.

I find it far more likely that she has changed over 30 years than the movement has.

I stopped reading when she suggested that lefties thought that america deserved the attacks and that those who died were merely "little eichmanns".

Granted there may be a few people like that out there but she seems to be basing her opinion of todays left on extreme radicals, which as always is a rather poor way to describe a group.
that only counts when you're describing the left that way, though.
remember that, ok?

I am forced to wonder at the exact qualifications that a man named Dr Sanity possesses. He seems a bit suspicious, and I would like to see where he got his MD.

I would like to see where [Dr. Sanity] got his MD.
He threw it in the trash.

What the hell would you do with an empty cracker jacks box?

...
I'd like to open the floor to some comments from NSers, though, on this, because this is a website with a broad variety of people from all over politics. Firstly, I'd like to begin with my own position on what she says. I'm not going to summarise her statement, because the article bears reading through and I don't want to let you people out of it.I can't bear to read that. This woman seems confused. Feminism really isn't that big of a deal, as far as I can tell. Regarding anti-war types, she seems to have no concept of who they (we) actually are. Hell, she doesn't even understand what modern "conservatives" are. Gah...


Let me say, however, that I think the problem is really not that the left has lost its way, but that the old left has become the right. Classical Liberalism, much to my occasional sorrow, has replaced the old style of conservatism for the most part, and the general equality of humanity in a theoretical and semi-practical sense (regardless of any lack of logic in such a position) is now a deeply held tenet of conservatives, which is perhaps why we stick so strongly to the Free Market, which gives everyone the freedom, as equals, to succeed or fail.Now I have no idea what you're saying. Who are the classical liberals now? And who espouses the ideology of equality? I thought that was mainly a left-ish thing.
To those who wish to constantly strike against society and keep moving with their 'revolution', there isn't much ground left to cover. The Left, in order to differentiate itself from the Right, has turned against freedom in general and embraced Marxist theory, which means in practice that everyone fails equally.There are very few who would identify themselves as marxists, but both left and right wing types seem to favor a powerful central government intervening internally and externally. The difference is that the left is on the side of the welfare-warfare state, while the right belongs to the warefare-welfare state. And how can you say there's little ground to cover? Has the left gotten everything it wanted? I know I haven't (although, I'm not exactly on the left).

I'd like to point out that I don't include the broad mass of the public in this, which has always been, is now, and will continue to be, obstinately centrist in its viewpoints.You don't know what the broad mass public thinks. You conservo-centrists all seem to think that you represent practically everyone's opinion. You're full of shit.


The problem is that the Centrist position is closer to the Right position than it is to that of the Left,Great, now the center isn't in the center.

...because the Left's intellectuals, such as Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore,Michael Moore is not an intellectual, and few Americans have ever heard of Chomsky.
...are increasingly abandoning common sense and moving further to the left.There's no such thing as common sense.
Indeed, in his support for Saddam's dictatorship
...Now, who the hell are you talking about???
Rumsfeld and Cheney stopped supported him years ago.

The average person in the west, that mythical human being, now is so strongly in support of a free, or at the most a moderately regulated, market that any real position against it is unlikely to draw large support in the population except amongst the idealistic. Interestingly, university students in Australia and America have been subject to increasing radicalisation from 'professors' (who have been forced into academia, for the most part, by their lack of relevance outside those hallowed halls), yet act in support of the Free Market once they graduate.Whatever.

In the United States, the Democrats changed from the party of Truman to the party of Howard Dean and Michael Moore through the acceptance by the Republicans of much of their early policies, though those Republicans fought bitterly against them when introduced. The choice for the Democrats, then, is to return to the stance of Truman and abandon support for failed intellectual theory, or to face ever increasing political irrelevance regardless of occasional small victories.

<END RANT>

Well, that was my take, useless as I'm sure it is.Useless, indeed.

She gets off on a bad foot right from the start. To claim that the Left of the 60s stood for "classical liberalism" is the worst kind of revisionism. These were movements informed by Marcuse, Camus, Sontag, Malcolm X.... the emphasis on individual authenticity and psychological politics, substantively participatory democracy... hardly "classical liberals" in any sense.