But Ward Churchill's views, as wrongheaded and otherworldy as they seem to me, are entitled to a presumption of good faith. They are, to my mind, looney tunes, but Churchill, like Sullivan and I, is entitled to a presumpion that has views are expressed in good faith and are what he truly believes. They do not express racial, gender or other forms of hatred.

It is one thing to give everyone the right to be wrong, quite another to say that they should not be roundly criticized for saying it. The extreme of this is the root position of the Left that there is no right and wrong, and this leads to non-support for the country's foreign policy and, at this time, support for the troops.

Indeed I have been criticized roundly for stating that, at some point and some level, the individuals rights must be subordinate to the groups rights, and the individual must excercise responsibility in excercising their rights.

But I think it is done dishonestly and in denial of the fact that the "hate" they hear from the left is in reality hatred of policies and actions, not of people.

Hatred of policies and actions by people who have, over the past six years,  lied the country into a war, wiretappped citizens, gutted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. People who support searching you and arresting you without warrants or charges. People who want to grab you off the street out of a public demonstration if you oppose them. People who will deny you the right to a defence lawyer, and who have done their best to eliminate habeas corpus so they can lock you up and throw the key away forever, and torture you for fun if you complain about it. People who have destroyed America's reputation and moral stature in the world. People who have bankrupted America in the process.

Is there hatred from the left and the extreme left?

Yes. Of course. Is it justified? Yes. Of course. Is there anger at the people who've done these things? Yes. Of course.

Is it hatred of people? Emphatically NO.

The medium is the message. But is a message of hatred of the actions and policies of certain people, not of the people themselves. The actions and the policies are real and important and serious and deadly and disgusting. The people who carry them out don't deserve the time and energy it would take to hate them.

rethugs disparage the patritism and label treasonous any discourse they disagree with; name dems who do that (and provide links).

rethugs make whole campaigns out of lies (see swiftboating) against Max Cleland, Tammy Duckworth, hell even john mccain, show examples of dems who do that.

Too often, the Right, and to a lesser extent, the Left, questions motives, patriotism and honor. Don't get me wrong, sometimes it is merited.

rethugs

disparage the patritism and label treasonous any discourse they disagree with; name dems who do that

Too often, the Right, and to a lesser extent, the Left, questions motives, patriotism and honor.

That particular formulation tilts the table against rightwingers.  Yes, rightwingers are more prone to impugn an adversary's patriotism and honor.  But I don't think it's true that leftwingers are any less fond of ad hominem than rightwingers.  Case in point: this blog.  

wumhenry, halperin is an idiot, as is harris. they only have partly redeemed themselves in their book. hardly ad hominem when the designation is justified by the actions/writings of the party involved.

actually, in halperin's case, idiot works to his benefit. it gives some sense that, in a way, he's not totally responsible for his repugnant, lazy writings over the past 8 years or so, he's just too stupid to know any better. he can be forgiven.

ad hominem would be "transparently opportunistic sleaze", feeding off of the republican talking points memos, rather than doing the heavy lifting of a real journalist.

there, do we all feel better now?

how's this: when someone consistently, in defiance of all rational analysis of the supportable facts, makes incredibly bad decisions, adversely impacting entire nations and populations, and fails to learn from their mistakes, or even recognize they've made any, it is legitimate to label them an "idiot".

AND has anyone ever thought that we on the left have plenty of reason to be furious after six years of abuse from the right? And has it dawned on anyone that the right takes delight in labeling our very righteous anger as hatred?

I've also been following Sullivans journey from the darkness, but by golly, even when throwing a line to the left he gets a little dig in about the hateful far-left.

...nice to see the Nobel committee is finally honoring a retard.

Actually, Ace, some Americans still "give a rat's ass" what the Europeans think.

We call them "liberals". See also, "slow learners".
Posted by: Gabriel Malor on October 12, 2006 06:44 PM