XTreme blogging

Joe Klein wrote a post where he listed what he considers the characteristics of an extremist lefty.

believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world.
--believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism.
--believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature.
--tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan.
--doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history.
--believes American society is fundamentally unfair (as opposed to having unfair aspects that need improvement).
--believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society.
--believes that America isn’t really a democracy.
--believes that corporations are fundamentally evil.
--believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world.
--is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources.
--dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage.
--regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives.

It's the talk of the lefty blogosphere today, and some folks are just answering each item and whether or not they agree with it, but when I read this, and the comments on his thread, it just struck me again how rarely people with opposing political viewpoints listen to each other. I actually think Klein *is* describing an extremist lefty, but he's also describing someone who, statistically speaking, doesn't exist.

And anyone who thinks this is what the garden variety liberal believes has the most simplistic, shallow and ungenerous reading of the general liberal view.

I'm setting aside the whole issue of civility for the moment, because that's really not about what a person believes or what policies they support, but their method of communication, which is secondary in my opinion to the idea that is being communicated (and I know that some people read a swear word and immediately discount the speaker/writer, but I think that attitude is immature, and I think that because when I was an immature teenager, I was very anti-swearing and thought poorly of anyone who casually peppered their speech with vulgarities, but then I grew up and started trying to listen to what people are saying, and not necessarily how they are saying it.)

I have conservative family members, and I trust that they make their arguments in good faith - not because Fox News or George Bush believes it, but because they do. And then I can discuss their beliefs, and try to communicate how and why I believe differently. I have to listen to them, and they have to listen to me, and we have to trust that the one person is operating honestly and not just there to automatically contradict the other. This works well on a one to one basis, and I think it has been successful at bringing out the inner liberal of some of those family members. I distinctly remember having a discussion about abortion with Loki's grandmother before she passed away, and her view was wise and pro-choice - not what one would expect from someone who grew up believing "FDR" was a curse word.

On a large scale, that kind of listening and give and take seems to be mostly impossible. Here we have Klein, ostensibly a moderate/centrist/Democrat, who has clearly internalized the right-wing's bad faith and shallow arguments about what liberals believe. Personally, I'm curious about how he came to believe that this is what liberals think (if, in fact, he isn't weaseling away from that entirely with his "extremist lefty" label), and whether he is willing to listen to the people who are trying to tell him that, no, that's not what they believe. (So far, it looks bad on the latter, with his snarky update about what the readers are saying.)

FWIW, here's my take on his list:

believes the United States is a fundamentally negative force in the world.

Fundamentally, no. I do believe that the United States is just as capable as any other nation of being a negative force in the world, but I don't think it is inherent to the US, I think it has a lot more to do with the policies of the people who are leading the US.

--believes that American imperialism is the primary cause of Islamic radicalism.

No. I think the primary causes of Islamic radicalism are poverty, fear, ignorance...the usual drivers. Do I think the US has contributed to the increase of radicalism? Yes, as has Britain.

--believes that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not an individual case of monumental stupidity, but a consequence of America’s fundamental imperialistic nature.

I think it was a big heaping chunk of column A and a little bit of column B.

--tends to blame America for the failures of others—i.e. the failure of our NATO allies to fulfill their responsibilities in Afghanistan.

No.

-doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history.

In human history? I'm not sure about that. Actually, the idea of a carefully regulated and progressively taxed capitalism makes me positive giddy with excitement. The problem is that I don't think we're there yet, particularly on the carefully regulated and progressively taxed front.

--believes American society is fundamentally unfair (as opposed to having unfair aspects that need improvement).

I believe life is fundamentally unfair, and American society at least acknowledges that and has some policies in place to reduce some of those fundamental unfairnesses. Can we improve in that arena? Yep.

-believes that eternal problems like crime and poverty are the primarily the fault of society.

Primarily? No. But American policies can help reduce crime and poverty, or they can increase them. Actually, that's not even American, that's true across the board, in every nation.

--believes that America isn’t really a democracy.

Well, it's actually a republic, but yes, I believe that U.S. government is a democratic system.

--believes that corporations are fundamentally evil.

Again with the fundamentally. No, I don't believe that corporations are fundamentally evil.

--believes in a corporate conspiracy that controls the world.

No, I don't believe in a corporate conspiracy.

--is intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources.

No, good ideas are good ideas.

--dismissively mocks people of faith, especially those who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

--regularly uses harsh, vulgar, intolerant language to attack moderates or conservatives.

These last two I'm going to address together. People who use their faith as a shield to protect them from criticism for their political beliefs should not be excused from the debate because they are arguing from their faith. I have had debates in a number of forums where someone will come forward with the faith card and then I know there is little point in continuing, because they will refuse to listen to anything reasonable - they believe, and they will believe regardless of any facts to the contrary. They are somehow excused from their frankly reprehensible attempts to disallow women the right to control over their own reproductive systems or for gay people to pair bond, because they beliiiieeeeeve! Sometimes, mockery is all I have left in my repertoire after that.

And I should add that moderates and conservatives are often dismissive and mocking towards those they view as liberal, on any number of fronts, regardless of whether the liberal is a person of faith. So this is silly to attach to extreme lefties, because everyone on every political side does the same thing. (And that goes for the language, although, IMO, nothing is quite as reprehensible as communicating an abominable idea using genteel and mannered langage - like the Nazis did when coming up with their final solution. No curse words there, just sensible people discussing what to them were sensible solutions.)