Just wondering if I'm the only one. </sarcasm>
Posts like this one infuriate me. It's not that I object to being called "pro-fascist," (blah blah sticksandstonescakes) it's that I object to such lazy thinking.
Attention Bloggers & Pundits: Unless you are blogging with the hope of becoming the next Tucker Carlson or James Carville (and really -- do you want to cop to that?), why do you insist on digging a trench rather than using your brain? It's possible to hold more than one thought in one's head at a time and, therefore, to hold multi-layered positions on various issues. Some examples:
Views On The War: I opposed the war in Iraq. This does not make me anti-war - I supported the war in Afghanistan and, in fact, think we've devoted far too few resources to it. This also does not mean I don't support the troops -- I actually support sending more troops to Iraq at this time, if we cannot enlist other countries to help. Now that the place is a mess? We must stabilize it. But guess what? I still oppose the fact that we went to war.
I'm just astonished by how many writers seem to be agreeing with a policy that was never explicitly used as the justification for war. Saddam Hussein being out of power is a Good Thing, but that doesn't mean that we should have removed him the way we did, or at the time that we did. If this country is going to have a policy of running around the world deposing dictators and establishing democracies, we should debate that. This war was not debated.
Now, if our country is in danger, then no -- there should be no debate. That was the belief of many, many Americans who supported the war. Is it okay for our government to have one reason for going to war (policy) but gain support for it using another (fear)? Guess what? It's still important to address these issues. Why are pro-Iraq War folks so reluctant to have that discussion?
"Environmentalists/SeniorAdvocates/Teachers opposed Politician Smith's decision: therefore, Politician Smith is anti-environment/Seniors/teachers:" Sheesh. It is the job of advocates for anything to fight for every single thing they can get. They aren't going to get every single thing, but it's their job to try. Therefore, there will be times when they are in opposition to one politician or another -- one, for example, who is trying to balance a budget. At that time, there will be conflict. At other times, not. Taking one fight out of the context of a long record is not intellectually honest.
Look at Howard Dean's position on NAFTA: When he was Governor of Vermont, it was Dean's job to support Vermont. NAFTA was good for Vermont; therefore, he supported it. Now he seeks to hold an office with a much broader constituency, and he is looking at it differently. Guess what? That's responsible.
Abortion:I would never have had one. I would counsel other not to. I am sickened by late-term abortions that occur for any reason other than the health of the mother or viability of the child. Do I support legislation against abortion? No Way. Can I imagine a time when I might? Yes. I know that time would be one in which it wouldn't be possible to find 7 old white Republican males to stand behind the President as he signed it because the legislature would be at least 50% femaile, diverse and multi-colored. I know that time would be one in which every single debate didn't come down to a slippery-slope argument.
There are some absolutes: the sun will rise tomorrow, environmental policy should consider the future, and Tom DeLay is an asshole. There are many, many more issues on which the only intelligent position is fluid, dynamic, and multi-layered.
But there's no room in politics -- or most of the blogosphere -- for that sort of thinking.
(P.S. I do love a good snarky blog: people like TBogg keep me sane. This post is not about that kind of blog but rather about those who purport to be "writers" and "intellectuals" and "pundits" and "analysts" -- and who are no such things.)