In His Comparison of the "Dobson's of the Republican Party" and the Taliban/Al-Qaeda
I've been reading Kos since the blog was just him, before he signed on with the Dean campaign. Although a number of people have reacted very strongly against my bringing up positions that are out of the mainstream for this site, I'm not doing this to cause trouble--I want to participate in a debate. I am a progressive and a liberal. I want to try to understand why those people who disagree with me do so--that is the reason I am posting. I want to start a discussion. If you get angry, fine--but tell me why, and why my positions are so wrong. I want to hear it. I know a lot of people will do just that.
I wrote in a previous diary that many (though certainly not all) liberals (including quite a few on dKos) believe that the religious right in America is the equivalent of the Taliban and al Qaeda. In reality the differences between these Islamist extremists and either American liberals or conservatives is far greater than any differences between our American ideologies.
A few other people have argued that although equating the religious right and the Taliban may be a stretch, its good politics. To that, I disagree--I think it makes us sound like extremists and a little off our rockers. Others have argued that in reality, the religious right is the same as the Taliban, except that it has "learned incrementalism". But though I think the Religious Right's aims are far more than they generally admit, they still do not approach, even in theory, the total religious tyranny that was the Taliban.
Look--there's no reason to deny that we have serious and deep disagreements with Republicans, with conservatives, and most of all with the Religious Right. We do--and we should. They do not represent a majority of Americans. They are high on power. And they're wrong on many issues.
But they are a world away from the Taliban and al Qaeda. And Kos acknowledges that in his second post about the issue: "We could keep this up all day, I suspect. Remember, the point isn't that the American Taliban is just like Al Qaida ...the point is that there's no reason that liberals would ever `root' for Al Qaida or the Taliban or any of the crazies in the Islamic fundamentalist world."
Kos uses his post to simplify the issues Dubya-style to create talking points for how the Religious Right is similar to those we are fighting in the war against terrorism. And that's fine--as long as we maintain perspective and realize that we have far more in common with the "American Taliban" than we have in opposition. The right itself hasn't shied away from blaming the left for being in cahoots with the terrorists--hell, Sean Hannity's moronic subtitle to his useless tome on history and politics was: "How to Defeat Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism". Rove, Coulter, and the rest have all made similar claims--that liberalism is an evil in sympathy with terrorism. And I think all of us agree they sound like morons when they make this claim. If we avoid this type of hyperbole in favor of a more reasoned approach, we can gain the trust of the American people.
I think Kos' post was useful--but I think too many people on the dKos take such things too literally. Bush isn't a fascist, as some have claimed in other posts. He isn't a religious fundamentalist in the mold of the Taliban. He, and those on the Religious Right, understand the role of government as more communitarian on social issues. Those that are most extreme are trying to move America to accept Christian morality as a basis for all law--but they are still not as extreme as Islamists who would compel all citizens to pray and follow sharia.
Some things that virtually all liberals and members of the Religious Right agree on that Islamist fundamentalists oppose:
*democracy is the best form of government
*church and state are separate (though the RR wants religious morality to inform the state's laws and decisions)
*all individuals have certain intrinsic rights
*free speech and a free press (though both the left and right seek to curtail free speech in different ways)
*terrorism is wrong
*women are the equals of men (though some of the RR maintain this with ungodly contortions of logic as they see women as different but equal)
*heresy should not be punished with death
*certain biblical or Koranic practices are barbaric--such as the stoning of adulterers
*and there's a great deal more
My point is that our agreements are so basic we don't notice them. Like agreeing that cars drive on the right side of the road or that you should treat others as you want to be treated, etc. We share a thousand things we need to agree on in order to exist in the same society. But these are ideas which Islamists do not accept. Talking to a "true believer" on the Christian right is possible, even if you leave with a headache. But aside from our common humanity, what do we have in common with Islamic extremists? They deny us even that.
I think it's important to differentiate between our enemies who seek to eliminate us and our opponents who want to beat us. The Religious Right opposes our issues; Islamist extremists oppose our entire culture and society.
The Republicans have often attempted to divide Americans by claiming some variation on this theme: liberals are sympathetic to the terrorists. Doing so is irresponsible and morally abhorrent. And in the end, it will backfire politically. The right move--politically and morally--is to stress again and again that we share this common fight, even though we may disagree with how it is being fought. We must stress that terrorism is directed against liberal values and liberal societies; and we must condemn those on the right who seek to use the War on Terror to divide rather than to unite America. Stretching the truth might get us some short-term points, but in the long-term, this is the only winning strategy.
I think it is important to try to understand how reasonable and well-intentioned people can strongly disagree with us on positions--otherwise, we risk demonizing them. For example, a number of people have commented that the Religious Right can't believe in equality for women because it does not support the right to choose. But with a little imagination, it's easy to see how other factors might lead to this position...I'm trying to say, give these people the benefit of the doubt--that generally, they do no say they believe "women are equal to men" if they do not believe so...