Donald Douglas - On The Left

***

Sunday, September 19, 2010

And God forgive me, but somehow I don't think I'd be bothered to see leftists in these videos. Perhaps they'd take this stuff more seriously if they took the place of folks like Daniel Pearl: - American Power: Leftist Blogger Equates Christine O'Donnell to Taliban Murderers

I'm sorry... But did Dr Douglas just say that there would be an upside of some kind (ANY KIND?!?) to having leftists killed by being beheaded the way Daniel Pearl was, and that such a thing wouldn't bother him? Fellow citizens of the USA being horribly murdered the way terrorists do in fundamentalist countries, and he'd be ok with it? What the fuck is wrong with him, that he could hate his fellow Americans so much, just for having different political beliefs than he does.? (And of course, don't miss the sick puppy of a reader who agrees with him, also at that link.) No, Donald... Chances are slim that God will forgive that, at least until you actually are sorry for thinking/feeling that way, anyway... You can't just say it; you actually have to mean it.

***

Monday, August 9, 2010, 2:49 PM

Unreal, but to be expected from Barack Obama supporters. As I've said many time, Obama really needs to work on his inner city education agenda. These be some illiterate mo-'fukers', yo! - American Power: Michelle Malkin Gets Hate Tweets

Whatever you think of the guy's tweet*, his thoughts no more represent "Barack Obama supporters" than the few racists in the tea party (like the guy with the "niggar" sign, or the one who wrote the rant about the NAACP) represent "the American right."

*Me, I don't approve of calling women whores under very many circumstances... As for whether Malkintent is closed-minded, a racist, or a puppet is more up for grabs, however...

***

SUNDAY, JUNE 04, 2006, 6:08 AM

At Real Clear Politics, John Leo's got a nice reminder of the Democratic Party's difficulties in confronting the terrorist threat. Leo starts his discussion with "The Good Fight," the new book by pro-American liberal Peter Beinart. He then turns to Henry A. Wallace, and the difficulties the Wallace legacy presents for Democrats today. - Donald Douglas - Burkean Reflections: Can the Democrats Fight the War on Terror?

It's interesting that Dr Douglas neglected to give the full title of Peter Beinart's book. It was actually: "The Good Fight: Why Liberals---and Only Liberals---Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again". And the notion that mainstream Democrats would have any problem prosecuting legit war is laughable to anyone who doesn't believe that "the Left" consists of communists and terrorist symps. (and yes, that includes Beinart, apparently.) These cartoon notions that Donald and some of his friends on the right are wont to disseminate are fictions that leave their analysis of contemporary politics sorely lacking.

***

WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2006, 8:25 AM:

It's no surprise that the Google hit for "March 25 Coalition" pulls up the Marxist-Leninist vanguard page for International ANSWER, the American left's main hardline communist organization.

Please contact your Member of Congress at this link if the anti-American activities of these groups bother you. - Burkean Reflections: Should 12 Million Illegal Immigrants Be Granted Immediate Amnesty?

ANSWER has some communist and socialist organizations involved in the coalition, along with rights groups, environmental groups, religious groups, and other social and political groups. While I don't agree with everything every group stands for, I believe it's possible to work together toward a common purpose, even with people with whom you do not agree 100% on every issue. I do not fear people who believe different things than I do, whether they be Republicans, Methodists, Communists, or homosexuals. I understand why folks on the right wish to demonize people with this guilt by association nonsense, but that doesn't make it any less contrived and phony.

Here in America, it's ok to disagree with and dissent from our federal and state government, as well as from one or even both of the major political parties. While it's not mainstream, being a registered member of the American Communist Party (or a Muslim, or a Unitarian, or a Socialist, or a Libertarian, or...) is not anti-American.

***

FRIDAY, MAY 05, 2006, 6:39 PM

In this recent commentary piece, Dobbs targets the growing influence of the radical left among the variety of interest group advocates found in the illegal immigration movement. Dobbs argues that the mainstream press has been "coopted" by pro-illegal immigration activists, seen particularly in the neutral nominalism of their reporting on the protests. According to Dobbs: "USA Today headlined today's demonstrations and boycott 'On Immigration's Front Lines.' The New York Times headlines its story 'With Calls for Boycott by Immigrants, Employers Gird for Unknown.' The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times are both calling their coverage 'The Immigration Debate.'"

Dobbs indicates that the front group International ANSWER, a Marxist-Leninist vanguard organization, emerged as a major proponent of a national boycott, and he notes that it was no surprise that the activists had scheduled the protests for May 1st, as that day is the world's recognized annual day of international worker solidarity. Here's a longer passage from the article:

Some illegal immigration and open borders activists in the Hispanic community are deeply concerned about the involvement of the left-wing radical group. But others, like Juan Jose Gutierrez, whom I've interviewed a number of times over the past several months, manages to be both director of Latino Movement USA and a representative of ANSWER.

As Gutierrez told us on my show, "The time has come...where we need to stand up and make a statement. We need to do what the American people did when they pulled away from the British crown. And I am sure that back in those days many people were concerned that was radical action."

Just how significant is the impact of leftists within the illegal immigration movement? It is no accident that they chose May 1 as their day of demonstration and boycott. It is the worldwide day of commemorative demonstrations by various socialist, communist, and even anarchic organizations.

Supporters of the boycott have made no secret of their determination to try to shut down schools, businesses and entire cities. Much of Los Angeles' Seventh Street produce market, which supplies thousands of local restaurants and markets, is closed today. Many meat-packing companies like Cargill and Tyson are also closing many of their plants.

Anyone who has spent any time around a college campus recently knows that the contemporary left is marked by a wide array of radical groups and front coalitions -- from animal rights groups, anti-globalization protesters, environmental activists, and antiwar organizations. The strident anti-Americanism at the heart of the recent illegal imimigration protests was evident early on, and such sentiment is only partially disguised by the more recent attempts to hoist the American flag above the crowded streets of America this past May 1. It's unfortunate that the anti-American message of the radical groups will likely overshadow the more moderate views of some immigration reform advocates, and thereby hinder efforts toward compromise on border security, guest workers, and legalization. - Burkean Reflections: Lou Dobbs on How Leftist Radicals Have Taken Over the Illegal Immigration Movement

For the record, I often agree with Dobbs (and Douglas, assuming he's agreeing with Dobbs, which is hard to tell, sometimes) where immigration is concerned. Where I part company with both of them however, is believing that those who take another view on immigration are radicals.

Yes, there are socialist overtones to any worker's movement protesting on May Day, and no, I'm sure that that was no accident. As I've said to Donald many times, a good number of the groups that make up the ANSWER coalition are communist or socialist, and they definitely try to push their own ideas at the protests they organize with speeches and leaflets and yes, by choosing a particular day in which to hold the protest when that is possible. My contention however, is that few of the anti-war or open borders protesters are listening to the talk of voting in the latest Communist Party of America candidate or freeing the Cuban Five, or whatever... They're there to oppose the war or support keeping the borders open, and couldn't care less about the babble that doesn't involve the issue that brought them there.

Political and social causes can make for some uneasy alliances sometimes. If I think American involvement in a war is wrong, I have no issue standing with others who also want to end US involvement in that war, whether they're rightwing spendthrifts who think it's a waste of US capital, libertarians who think we shouldn't be policing other countries, pacifist religious groups who oppose all violence everywhere, or communists who see war as imperialist exercises of bourgeoisie power of the invader over the invaded country's proletariat. It doesn't much matter to me that that rightwing spendthrift opposes my views on just about everything else, that the libertarian also wants to do away with the government education system in the US, that some of those pacifist religious groups also oppose all abortion, or that the communist theory of economics and politics is largely failed bullshit. People work together where they can for the outcome they all seek.

The only line that needs drawing involves methods and tactics, not beliefs. While I support the anti-war cause (depending on the war, anyway), I do not support these black bloc assholes who commit violence and vandalism claiming they're doing so in the name of the peace movement. Just as mainstream anti-abortion groups oppose those radical few who shoot doctors and bomb clinics, mainstream anti-war protesters and groups oppose these few idiots who in my view, are using anti-war and anti-globalization protests as an excuse to smash windows and burn things.

Judging any group based on their worst behaving (or worst thinking, according to Dobbs and Douglas) individual members is foolish, and is often the way political / social / religious / racial / ??? bigotry gets it's start.

***

TUESDAY, MAY 02, 2006, 11:36 AM
(Initial quote from a Shelby Steele piece in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal. There was no working link.)

Anti-Americanism, whether in Europe or on the American left, works by the mechanism of white guilt. It stigmatizes America with all the imperialistic and racist ugliness of the white Western past so that America becomes a kind of straw man, a construct of Western sin. (The Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons were the focus of such stigmatization campaigns.) Once the stigma is in place, one need only be anti-American in order to be "good," in order to have an automatic moral legitimacy and power in relation to America. (People as seemingly disparate as President Jacques Chirac and the Rev. Al Sharpton are devoted pursuers of the moral high ground to be had in anti-Americanism.) This formula is the most dependable source of power for today's international left. Virtue and power by mere anti-Americanism. And it is all the more appealing since, unlike real virtues, it requires no sacrifice or effort--only outrage at every slight echo of the imperialist past.

This is an intriguing hypothesis. I recall the intense anti-American sentiment in 2003 during the build-up to the Iraq deployment, both domestically and around the world. Recent antiwar protests reveal not just opposition to war per se, but to neoimperialist wars, particularly in the Middle East, with the region's petroleum resources. The anti-imperial stance lends credibility to the opposition of those who are pretty pacifist in any case, and who abhor the use of force in all circumstances, much less to protect national interests. -- Burkean Reflections: Shelby Steele on How White Guilt Affects U.S. Military Policy

***

FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 2006, 10:44 PM

For me, while the attacks on New York and Washington were surprising, shocking, and deeply saddening, it has been my initial ignorance of, and now my growing edification toward, the radical political left in the U.S. that has influenced this Burkean blog project. No other single topic or object of analysis in my entire career as a political scientist has worried me as has contemporary anti-Americanism. I have learned about the complex nature of the radical left in this country, and its ties to, for example, transnational movements to deligitimize the nation-state and the principle of national sovereignty, the world's anti-globalization forces, and pro-Palestian organizations bent on the destruction of Israel. Some American antiwar activists and organizations have known ties with Islamic terrorists (attorney and terrorist legal defender Lynne Stewart, who was recently convicted in New York of abetting Islamist terrorist organizations, comes to mind). In writing this, I realize either how naive or deluded I must sound, depending on whom might read this post. As I become more skilled at blogging, I'll be adding the relevant links to the sources for my ideas and claims. But make no mistake: I'm not some crackpot, paleoconservative out to reverse the gains of the civil rights movement, send women back to the kitchen, or abolish the right to an abortion. I'm a pragmatist who voted for President Clinton in both 1992 and 1996, and Al Gore in 2000. I backed G.W. Bush in 2004 though, and I often wish we didn't have the 22nd Amendment so that he could serve another term and continue the overseas battle against the Islamo-fascists, thus protecting the American homeland. -- Burkean Reflections: Inaugural Post

Right from the start, it's a war against "the radical left." I can appreciate the anti-terrorist sentiments. I can even more or less understand the anti-communist bit, though it seems mighty retro, to me... But--as with the war on Islamist terrorism becoming a war on the Muslim faith--everyone to the left of Professor Douglas politically becomes a radical anti-American Stalinist. Converts are often the scariest of true believers.