Monday, February 07, 2005

I am officially giving up on Right Wing Girl. I like the people there, I really do. But I cannot respect somebody who seriously believes this:

...liberals are not patriotic, though they love to say they are, they are treasonous in the most classic, dictionary sense of the word, they would love to see America brought down to the level of, say, Guatamala. They do not love America, they don't want it to do well, and they are actively campaigning for us to lose in Iraq. That is what I mean when I say they are working against our interests.
Can you say "thoughtcrime"? Isn't what defines a political party it's estimation of what the national interest is? Aren't the differences between two political parties going to involve differences in how we view the national interest, by definition? I freely admit that I consider statist philosophies like neoconservatism and modern liberalism to be anti-American in the sense that they have a different vision about where we should go as a nation. But to be a traitor... implies a disregard for the very existence of the nation at a criminal level... and it simultaneously arrests the need for further exploration of our differences. In other words, why should we try to find common ground when you're a traitor and deserve to be hung? Such talk from intelligent people makes me sad; sad that we've lost the ability to find common ground with each other and work towards a common vision. And then RTG says that she's open minded and I see red.

So, it was nice while it lasted, but my experimental socializing with the red staters has come to an end. I still enjoy a lot of the frequent posters there like Tex, Andy, and RTG - but since so much of the blog is political, I can't participate there without reading mindless Republican demagoguery. And frankly Republicans just tend to piss me off with all their flag waving smugness. When they're real people, they're great - but with so much of their identity invested in the cult of Bush, they just end up becoming platform spouters.

Oh well, there's other fish in the blogosphere.

UPDATE: After more discussion I realize that I misunderstood some of the arguments of people there. Apparently they have much more of a problem with people in authority (i.e. representing the U.S.) making what they consider anti-American, subversive, or counterstrategic comments publicly than when a private civilian does so. While I still do not agree with this, I do think that it has more merit. I also understand their position to be that death is not neccessarily the appropriate penalty for these offenders. So, basically they just want to be able to call people who voice certain opinions "traitors". Which is wierd because I would think that if anybody should have a fundamental freedom of conscience, it should be those debating and making our laws and policies. But I apologize for misconstruing anybody's arguments. It was an emotional experience for me to witness people for whom I have respect saying what I considered to be fundamentally unrespectable things.

Read this article
Written on Monday, February 07, 2005