Liberal Extremists

I’ve been doing research recently into bits and bobs – a bit of law, a bit of politics, a bit of the military, a bit of this and a bit of that – nothing that I’m really going to talk about at huge length here because, let’s face it, it’s all related to book stuff and as thus, should be kept firmly in that box entitled ‘narrative suspense was ‘ere’.

But in the course of doing all this, and because of the areas I’m looking at, I keep on stumbling into blogs and online reports and opinion pieces about, especially, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the writer firmly declaims against ‘liberal extremism’.  And I gotta admit, I’m starting to get a bit worried.

It seems especially an American phenomenon, where, usually right-wing writers, and proudly so, will go on a ramble that is something like this:

“The liberal extremists of the socialist engineer Obama, are attempting to impose the nanny state upon the god-fearing, freedom loving people of the U.S.  They are depriving us of our constitutionally enshrined rights of free choice by imposing their bureaucratic will from the socialist heartland of Washington D.C. and forcing decent, moral Americans to chose between their government or their faith by allowing unethical politics with regards to abortion, homosexuality, stem cell research etc..  The attempt to make a socialist nanny state by these nihilist liberals deprives Americans of their independence, self-reliance; and attacks by the left-wing press such as the New York Times supports terrorists and Islamic extremists over our patriotic soldiers fighting to protect freedom, democracy and Christian values.”

Now….

… and let me quickly say at this ellipsis that the most linguistically vibrant parts of the above sentiment, such as ‘nihilist liberals’ are direct quotes because I do not have the imagination to make that up…

… I must admit I was rather terrified to read this kinda sentiment cropping up with such regularity.  Not necessarily because of the views enshrined – obviously I disagree with them, but hell, that’s just me – but because the language involved seems to have no capacity for hearing the other guy’s argument.  The second words like ‘extremist’ and ‘patriot’ start getting trotted out, particularly it seems in U.S. politics, a kind of madness overwhelms the debate where suddenly its not about the arguments, but about the people making them, and what should be a wishy-washy line of complex issues, becomes a black and white shouting match between ‘them’ and ‘us’ or, even worse, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.  And, sad though it is, there generally isn’t a ‘right’ or a ‘wrong’ in politics – merely a utilitarian compromise which, with any luck, is tinged with a hint of universal compassion, respect and understanding for the position of the other guy.  And it’s that absolutism, that sense of politics manufactured on an absolute ethical belief that knows no bounds and is fuelled by an unbending ideology, which alarms me.  You can’t argue against it – not because there’s not holes in the argument, there are, great big gaping ones – but because a debate is a two-way thing, and because a proper decent liberal is by definition going to have to turn round and say ‘what an interesting position, I respect that view but…’ whereas someone unwilling to engage in that can simply go ‘no, you’re wrong’ and there an end.

Naturally, I am open to attack on all fronts when I make these statements because of my afore-mentioned liberal views.  Of course, goes the cry, but of course that Kate Griffin would say what she says, she’s a wishy washy liberal like the worst of them and her sources of information are more wishy-washy liberal newspapers and books.  And hey, don’t get me wrong, there’s a certain something in that argument – I tend to read left-wingish liberal publications more than I do right-wing ones, tend to respect, say, the BBC over Fox News.  (The BBC having been occasionally dubbed a ‘communist’ body by one or two angry voices out there… as if that’s the least of its worries…)  I guess the only defense therefore that can be made against being influenced by voices that are of a similar political alignment to mine is this – god is in the footnotes.  Anyone may make any assertion they wish to, they may proclaim that Obama is an Islamist fundamentalist communist intent on the destruction of the American way of life, whatever that may be – but the truth of the argument lies always in its proof.  Show the footnotes first, and we’ll argue the ideology later.