Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
I guess none of these people would be considered 'left-wing.'
Yeah, no such thing as left-wing terrorism. No such things as whackos on the left-wing. No such thing as left-wing militias.
 |
You're reaching quite a bit here. Bill Ayers and Van Jones are front and center for your defense? Both were idea guys during their supposed radicalized years. Ayers was radical, what, 40 years ago? Jones was hardly radical at all. His inclusion is based on a talking point of Beck's where he twisted an interview with Jones and took several quotes out of context to slander the guy. I'll agree he is a leftist, but he spent most of his career working for the poor and disadvantaged. Jones' was the subject of a character assassination.
The inclusion of religious leaders Wright and Farrakhan is very strange. Farrakhan is a fascist, not a leftist. The only reason that anyone would include him on the left is because of the color of his skin and the segment of the population his fascist shtick promotes. Farrakhan is actually the right's problem, and proof that rightest extremism does come in all shapes, forms and colors. I'm still not sure how you can include Wright either. He really has nothing to do with any active political movement. I'll give you the black liberation theology, but that is more cultural than it is political. It's not like anyone on the left embraces Wright and seeks him out for policy advice. Not like the right does with the likes of Falwell, Graham, Hagee, Haggard, Dobson and Rekers. I consider Wright more like Phelps, who promotes a social agenda from the pulpit but is not overtly political or radical in any way.
It is also interesting how you decide to include Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion Nacional Puertorriquena, a pro-Puerto Rican nationalist group, on your list of American leftist organizations. The FALN was certainly active in the United States, 30+ years ago, but they were anti-establishment more than anything. You do realize this group attacked both conservative and liberal political establishments? They didn't care about a particular political ideology, they cared about what they saw as the liberation of their homeland. Seriously, attributing their actions to the American liberal perspective would be like attributing the actions of the Front de Liberation du Quebec to the Canadian liberals.
I think you're really reaching to find connections. I mean, you're presenting stuff that happened 40 years ago as proof of current activity and then mistaking certain social positions and causes with leftist ideology. I appreciate you trying to show some balance in the debate, but I think you've done the opposite, going to extremes and showing illogical links to make your point. It was a good effort, but I still don't see the same number of connections to radicalism and violent groups on the left as I do on the right.
The mood has certainly changed in the United States, and it is tense when Republicans are not the party of power. The left is more open and respectful of individual rights and has displayed that pretty consistently through Obama's term. Can you imagine what would have happened if someone showed up at an anti-Bush or anti-war demonstration with an assault rifle? I don't think that person would have been free to walk the crowd.