home

People of Good Faith: An Acknowledgment

I, as do many, hurl words of invective at many I disagree with, too often. But those words are not meant to question the good faith of those who disagree with me in good faith and fairly. Republicans have a different world view and ideology than I, but this does not mean their expressions are not made in good faith. 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. But not always.

Today, Andrew Sullivan acknowledges this and his excesses in the past:

I have indeed come to see that many, many liberals are indeed my brothers and my sisters. And increasing numbers of conservatives as well, thank God. For some on the far left, Bush could never have done any right, ever. I'm not going to exculpate the hate-filled parts of the far-left. But many, many others on the left were right about these people in power; and I was wrong. I threw some smug invective their way and, in retrospect, I am ashamed of it. Sure, I recognized my error before the last election, but that doesn't excuse it. Sure, some of it was just misunderstanding each other, in a climate of great fear, and some of it was just my arrogance that I was right. But that doesn't excuse it all either. My book is an attempt to rescue something from the wreckage - an atonement of sorts - and to move forward.

I welcome Andrew's acknowledgment and regret. But I have one bone to pick.

Andrew refers to the "hate-filled" parts of the Extreme Left. I think that is more myth than reality. Take Ward Churchill, a man whose views I largely despise. 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. They indict the United States in ways that seem utterly wrong to me. But that does not mean they are not held in good faith and expressed with good intentions.

Rick Santorum is a terrible Senator in my opinion. Some views he espouses seem from outer space. But I think Santorum is a good American. Sam Brownback, as extreme a Republican Senator as you can find, is not a bad man because of this. He is merely a bad Senator.

There are things that are done, this year's Tennessee Senate race is an example of repugnant unscrupulousness, from both Corker and Ford, that demand condemnation. Why? Because they deliberately appealed to our basest instincts. But that does not describe most of our disagreements.

I am glad Andrew Sullivan offered his regrets. I hope to be as honest and humble in my own language in the future.

< Advertisers Blacklist Air America Radio | New Scooter Libby Filings >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Individual vs Group (1.00 / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 06:09:47 PM EST
    Big Tent writes:

    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.

    Shorter - Democracy requires responsibility.

    "Hate-Filled" (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:03:40 PM EST
    Many people, not just Sullivan, "refer to the "hate-filled" parts of the Extreme Left". Some comment here often, and most times when they do so it is a strawman claim of the left "hating Bush", etc. and an ad hominem attack on people who do in fact "hate".

    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.

    If we become concerned with not offending the sensibilities of the most offensive, incivil and cowardly people in the world, the people who are shredding the constitution, destroying the US, and quite possibly the world... then we've lost all of that to them.

    xx (1.00 / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 05:14:00 PM EST
    edger - Can you link us proof that citizens have been wiretapped without a court order?

    Parent
    RE: (none / 0) (#2)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:18:35 PM EST
      How is that any different, except in length, than when the religious right says it "hates the sin not the sinner?"  

       I think both Far Left and Right are  disingenuous and untruthful when  making such claims. It is the triumph of passion over reason that exemplifies extemists on both sides and it is simply way too obvious that it is personal for the denials to fool anyone.

    How is it different? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    How is it different form "hating the sin, not the sinner"?

    It's not.

    too obvious that it is personal for the denials to fool anyone.

    Read the first paragraph again. Then re-read the rest. It was written about comments like yours.

    Parent

    right wing hate is mainstream (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sailor on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:28:01 PM EST
    malkin, coulter, lamebaugh, o'reilly ... all spew their hate in national mainstream media ... name anyone on the left that does that? (By 'does that' I mean call for the deaths of people who disagree with 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.

    I'm not gonna apologise for comments made on some blog I've never heard of by a blogger I never heard of, but rethug hate is mainstream.

    Gotta love it (none / 0) (#5)
    by Patrick on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    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

    The spirit of brotherhood.  
    Gotta love it.  Nuff said.  

    Whole Lotta love... :-) (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:47:19 PM EST
    rethugs

    Touche, Patrick. I do use that, probably too much. Thanks for the poke...

    I also make every effort to address and criticize things that have been done by people I refer to as rethugs. I don't claim perfection by any means, but I also don't think claiming imperfection excuses things people do.

    Parent

    question-begging formulation (none / 0) (#7)
    by wumhenry on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 04:34:12 PM EST
    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.  

    xx (1.00 / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 06:12:11 PM EST
    wumhenry - The Left doesn't question patroitism because it is their actions/positions that are in question.

    Parent
    Next time show work (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 04:47:52 PM EST
    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.  
    Got links? When have any of authors of this blog made ad hominem attacks?


    example (none / 0) (#9)
    by wumhenry on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 05:05:38 PM EST
    When I said this blog is a case in point, I wasn't thinking only of TL's commentary, but if you find it hard to believe that she resorts to ad hominem, you either haven't read much of her stuff or you don't know what "ad hominem" means. I didn't have to look far for an example; this is
    lifted from the front-page leadin for today's article entitled "Your Liberal Media":
    Not only is Halperin a disgrace, he is apparently an idiot as well.



    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 06:20:56 PM EST
    I stand by that.

    Halerin's opinions, idiotic as they are, are not remarkable

    The fact that he is In the media is.

    I wonder why I bother writing these posts.


    Parent

    Ad hominem (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 05:16:04 PM EST
    Latin

    1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.  
    2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.


    When have any of authors of this blog made ad hominem attacks?

    Sailor, that is one of the craziest challenges I've ever seen here.  

    Sift through some of these, you'll find plenty of what you look for.

    Parent

    hmmmmmmmmmmmmm (none / 0) (#15)
    by cpinva on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 06:32:40 PM EST
    jim, which cave in torabora have you been living in?

    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".

    hmmmmmmm, i think i just described our sitting president, but i could be wrong.

    Far-Left? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Kewalo on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 08:59:31 PM EST
    This is all very good and well, but will someone please tell me where all those hate-filled, far-leftwingers are? Who is considered far-left? I've heard Howard Dean called far-left for God's sake.

    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.

    I've really been dealing with outrage overload for quite a while and it's probably a good thing that I won't be going to DC. I have a tendency to hold grudges and this wouldn't be a good thing for building a consensus.

    I know a few... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 09:54:09 PM EST
    This is all very good and well, but will someone please tell me where all those hate-filled, far-leftwingers are?

    Let's start with Markos "Screw Them" Moulitsas.

    And I'm sure it will only take a few minutes looking around here.

    Parent

    That's funny (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 10:16:28 PM EST
    I bet you have no idea what kos' stances are on the issues do you?

    Cuz if you did, you were never have written that comment.

    Parent

    S.O.P. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 11:02:58 PM EST
    You choose not to address my argument and respond with an ad hominem "Oh, you're just ignorant."

    Kewalo asked for some examples of "hate-filled, far-leftwingers." So I gave him some. If you think that either Kos or the DU crowd do not fulfill his (or her) criteria, feel free to tell us why.

    Parent

    feel free to tell us why... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 11:14:58 PM EST
    You made no argument. Your post was entirely ad hominem.

    You made an accusation about Markos. You claim to be a constitutional liar, sorry, I mean lawyer, so you (should) know the onus and obligation is on you. Then again, maybe you're just full of crap.

    Feel free to back it up.

    Parent

    Thanks Edger (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Kewalo on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 11:35:57 PM EST
    Actually that's one of the funniest things I've read and shows the lack of thoughtfulness from the poster on the right.

    Kos! OMG! That's funny. I wonder if the poster is aware that Ko's has been pushing Jon Tester for senate in MT. Not exactly a far-left candidate.

    But what the poster doesn't realize is he makes my point exactly! If anyone on the right would think Kos is far-left then, believe me, none of us would be exempt from that charge. How easy someone can just point to any of us on the left and call us far-left. Go to DU, oops must be far-left. HAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh and proving my point.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 11:46:52 PM EST
    As I said, it is obvious Gabriel knows nothing of kos' actual positions.

    The 3 of us do and thus realize the ridiculousness of Gabriel's comment.

    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 09:55:19 AM EST
    Wow, I misunderstood your objection. You were objecting to the idea that Kos was far-left. I guess that, in your mind, that's worse than being labeled "hate-filled."

    So, the point would be that one doesn't even have to go to the far left to find hatred among Democrats. Great.

    Parent

    Heh? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 10:20:00 AM EST
    You know Gabriel, putting words in other peoples mouths is never going to work. Bush and the gop and company have been doing it for years.

    Look where it's got them.

    But keep trying though. You're helping to bury them.

    I said once before that you'r a good man, Gabriel - I just wasn't sure what for. Now I know.

    Try not to get stuck in the tar pit with them though, huh? ;-) I think you have potential, and I want you to leave the dark side before it's too late.

    There is still time for you to pretend you were onto them the whole time. Only a few days though. Make the most of them.

    Parent

    Whatever Gabriel (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 10:58:56 AM EST
    You look extremly foolish now.

    Parent
    Gabriel (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 11:48:14 PM EST
    res ipsa loquitor.

    You r comment proves your ignorance. See, I DO KNOW kos' positions.

    Parent

    I know a few, too... 'right' here (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 10:13:56 PM EST
    ...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