I strongly suspect there are people who read both Daily Kos and Red State as I do to keep up with the latest in politics. This may be wishful thinking but I sincerely hope people are at least open-minded enough to try to understand opposing points of view.
John Hayward provided a glimmer of this on Red State with In search of liberal Browncoats. Wanderer1961 provided the thought provoking The difference between left and right here at DailyKos. It would be interesting if John Hayward was reacting to Wanderer's entry.
In a desperate attempt of having an actual discussion on between Left and Right I am posting this diary.
A simple rule, the discussion is limited to your personal position and what specific people on the two blogs specifically said. Links would be good. I would be posting this on both Red State and Daily Kos but my posting privileges on Red State have been revoked. Hopefully, Daily Kos blog monitors will be extra tolerant for this entry.
I will start. See below
I agree with most of Wanderer's diary entry (link) but I tend to be more optimistic there are still many moderate conservatives who are neither overtly religious or extremists. Many of my business acquaintances fall in this category. They generally avoid discussing politics with me because I tend to be more knowledgeable about current issues. For example, someone brought up the specter of a "Cow Tax" and I was able to quote chapter and verse on how it was just a right-wing scare tactic. They accepted it is probably was just politics and both sides do it. No death threats, just frustration that they couldn't convince me to contribute to the Chamber of Commerce which is dedicated to protecting us for the evil government.
Wanderer wrote...
They were about openness to change vs. resistance to change. Ironically, even though today's debate (including on this board) is couched in terms of things like women's rights, labor rights, social programs etc., it is really about resistance to change. And those who are resisting are so fearful that they believe the rest of us deserve to die.
I disagree the Right is resistant to change, at least in the particulars. The idea of having the government fight poverty (War on Poverty) is only 8 years older than having "Under God" officially in the pledge of allegiance. Clearly, the Right wants get the Government out of the business of helping the poor, but I think it is safe to say they wouldn't want a Supreme Court review of whether or not "Under God" is a violation of the amendment which starts "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". Roe v. Wade? Now that is definitely something they want changed.
In his diary entry (link) John wrote on Red State...
My liberal friend, noting that the creator of “Firefly,” Joss Whedon, is outspokenly of the Left himself, suggested that perhaps liberal and conservative anti-authoritarians might have more common ground than they realize. It’s an interesting common ground upon which to begin a dialogue. If we agree on reducing the level of authority over our lives, surely we could set aside some of our differences over why we “aim to misbehave,” to borrow a memorable “Firefly” quote. Or, at the very least, we could agree that we don’t want any more authoritarian control, regardless of whether the prospective tyrants claim they would use their new power for causes of the Left or Right.
...and...
Many of the people who identify themselves as “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” are essentially saying that they believe social issues should be topics of discussion, rather than matters of compulsive obedience. ”Keep the Democrats out of our wallets, and the Republicans out of our bedrooms,” as another friend of mine is wont to put it.
So far, so good. John then launches into demonizing the Left as hypocritical and how the Right, while not saints, are much better than the Left.
A possible valid anti-Left observation John makes is...
The fashionable new argument that refusing to subsidize something equals “denying access” is inherently compulsive.
Another observation John makes is...
It’s also interesting to note that modern liberalism viscerally hates the Tea Party movement, even though the Tea Party is primarily concerned with pure anti-authoritarian devolution of the State. They want the government to spend less, behave more responsibly with the money it takes, stop looting future generations with deranged deficits, and cut back on its regulatory burden.
Then there is the Left/Right comparison...
The shadowy menace of socially conservative theocracy has supposedly been looming over us for my entire life, but it’s hard to get a straight answer about what these enigmatic theocrats would force us to do. Granted that in theory the anti-authoritarian doesn’t want to be ruled by either secular or religious dictators, in practice the coercive plans of the social conservatives seem an awful lot lighter than the yoke liberal social engineers expect us to wear. Okay, the dreaded Religious Right opposes abortion, but the current regime involves the deployment of more coercive force than overturning Roe vs. Wade and sending the issue to the states would. You can’t ask the targets of abortion how they feel about the force used against them, of course, but you might take a look at how much “public money” is forced into the hands of the abortion industry. And once we get past the abortion question, what’s left on the sinister agenda of the theocrats? Would someone please total up the bill and let me know how it stacks up against the annual tithe demanded by the Church of Global Warming? Can anyone print up a bullet-point list of what the heavy-handed social cons plan to force everyone in the United States to do?
My response to John is to point out how his rhetorical challenge questions would be quickly and passionately answered if Red State didn't have such a strict commenting policy. Even Red State commenters managed to add to the list of heavy-handed tactics on the right...
The Firefly fans I know who're left leaning tie their anti-authority perspective to a few, selective, issues, often just one, abortion. The other two are drugs and LGBT rights.
...and...
I tried reaching out to a liberal recently about his fascist Uberlord in the white house, and all I got was talking points about vaginal probes and gummint intrusion in his bedroom. What an idiot.
And the heavy-handed, Alec-coordinated tactics of republican governors are just more isolated exceptions of Government oppression? Which brings me to the question of how State government oppression is any less bad than Federal government oppression?
As to the Tea Party, it they had come out declaring the costly war in Iraq a huge mistake and welcoming those who said that, things might have been different. Likewise for the unseemly subsidies being given to gas, oil, agriculture and other large corporations. Maybe even advocating cutting the military budget (gasp). It was clear from the beginning the Tea Party was just a tool for trying to ensure the newly elected Democratic president served only one term.
At this point I, personally, do not fear the Tea Party but it has wasted, and is wasting, more money than it saves. Just think of all the good the Koch and corporate money could have done if focused on stimulating the economy instead of extreme candidates.
Finally, let's discuss what I see as the real issue; who do we trust to "...plant their maker hooks in the gigantic sandworm of the centralized State and drive it around...". Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, George W. Bush's presidency was clearly an example of unrestrained government spending, up to and including fighting an unnecessary war. While I don't agree with everything President Obama has done or is doing, I am glad he isn't another George W. The Left has the advantage of being able to say so, the Right has the burden of trying to convince people Obama is as bad, if not worse. I haven't seen many people suggesting Romney would have been better. It is difficult to separate partisan spin and campaigning from true feelings. Who really thought Obama's 1961 birth announcements in the local newspapers involved a clever conspiracy versus those who simply remained in doubt because it might hurt Obama's chances for getting re-elected?
Red State contributors obviously say things they think with help their side, just as Daily Kos contributors do for their side. However, Daily Kos tends towards just complaining and correcting the record as they see it whereas Red State contributors, at times, appear to be inciting real government change while declaring themselves the true conservatives. The old conservatives who don't want to change too much, too fast are called RINOs.
Interesting times.
Your turn, please try to be polite...