In the media, and consequently in our public discussion, there is a chorus of "moderation" that evades responsibility and avoids close attention to the claims and language of political debate. Moderation is certainly a positive value, but in some circumstances, moderation is the wrong stance. For example, when Martin Luther King wrote "Letter From a Birmingham Jail" he noted that our "inescapable network of mutuality" meant that a comfortable moderate position risks creating "dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress." Moderation is often the best approach, but not when it serves as an uncritical default position on matters of social justice.
The moderate often equates left and right as being equally extreme or equally shallow in thinking, but a brief review of the major TV networks will easily demonstrate otherwise. The differences are stark and calculable. Regardless of political perspective, there are basic principles of communication and interpretation that we can apply which reveal much about the differences between political parties. It is obvious that a slogan is not a sufficient replacement for thoughtful, specific thinking when taking a stand on important political issues. Sloganeering, or the repetition of cliche phrases, is an ancient, effective form of rhetorical influence but it cannot take the place of articulated positions arrived at by thinking individuals.
Any individual or party whose argument relies on repeated cliches, or whose rhetoric never passes beyond simplistic sloganeering should be suspect and subject to critical analysis rather than robotic repetition. Such rhetoric is an indication of a weak position; the lack of an articulated argument is camouflaged by emotionally manipulative and inaccurate cliches meant to distract the discussion.
If the left is "as bad" as the right, I'd like to see the same number of examples that can easily be provided of the extremist rhetoric and bad behavior of right-wing zealots. Even if we don't count the
"tea party" parrots and their ugly antics, the lists would be wildly disproportionate. If such lists could be compiled, I would happily and heartily condemn leftists as I do the foamings of the far-right, but I seriously doubt that such an equality of expression exists. For example, there is a clear and significant difference between the rhetoric, intelligence and civility of Bill O'Reilly and Rachael Maddow. Take a look for yourself and ask which one offers the more thoughtful and articulated coverage and demonstrates the most respect for their guests.
Our fashionable moderation has led us to believe that the scale of left and right is absolute, unchanging and that our current perception of the spectrum of debate is accurate. A little reflection on history might cause us to reconsider this skewed perspective. For example, Republican President Richard Nixon, certainly no socialist, was an advocate of health care reform (ironically defeated by Democrats) and he was a proud Keynesian economist. I still remember the relief and gratitude I felt when, as the child of a single mother widowed late, Nixon put a freeze on food prices to keep inflation from spiraling out of control. By today's skewed perspective of left and right, Nixon would be a radical socialist dictator - an absurd assessment.
There are probably dozens of other examples, but Nixon can serve to demonstrate how far to the right America has been dragged since the 1980's. Policies and positions condemned as Leftist extremism today are actually right-of-center positions espoused in the past. Recently we've witnessed a spike in the hysterical fear of socialism and "the radical Left" but who are these socialists and Leftists, and why don't we hear from them if they are in control? Where are the boogeymen we're supposed to fear? Where are "Obama's Shock Troops?" Where is the "totalitarianism" claimed by Republicans and tea-party folks alike? Sounds like untreated paranoia and mob mentality to me.
If the threat of socialism is real, where is the Socialist Party? Yes, we have one, but when is the last time we heard one of their leaders speak? What are their names? Most who fear these boogeymen cannot answer these questions. Some would argue that the Democratic Party is the den of iniquity full of secret socialists, but regular Democrat support of corporatism undermines this silly claim.
If we feel confused today between left and right, and we are tempted to respond with fear to misleading rhetoric, perhaps our dilemma is partly a result of our false assumption that left and right are absolute, fixed points throughout history. For example, John Winthrop's "A Modell of Christian Charity" cited in our last posting describes a type of community (based on Acts 2:42-47) that would be attacked today as "communist" though it was seen as a divine direction in 1630.
There is plentiful evidence that America has drifted further and further to the right over the past several decades, to a point where criminal wars & torture are OK, corporations get the loudest voice & least accountability and the Unions that brought us the merciful limit of the 40-hour work week and the weekend are now weak shadows of their former selves, mistrusted by many workers. We live in a time where the worker trusts his employer more than his government, regardless of what his employer does or how may benefits get taken away over time. Ivan Pavlov & Frederick Taylor couldn't have done it better.
The right's economic model of "laissez-faire" capitalism that trusts big business to do the right thing and regulate itself has been proven completely bankrupt after decades of repeated failure. Contrary to the propaganda that "trickle-down" economics benefit all, the only thing that has trickled down to the American worker is a self-defeating but rabid ideology that has repeatedly failed to live up to its claims.
Posts
