I subscribe via e-mail to updates from the democrat National Committee (dNC), in addition to the Republican counterpart organization and a few right-wing think tanks here and there. I think listening to both sides is part of one’s obligation as a responsible citizen, and besides it’s an educational experience. One thing I’ve noticed, going back to my earliest days of using an e-mail account at home, and it’s an unbroken pattern…
…a right-wing fundraising letter (or request for participation, for signing a petition…whatever) invariably opens with some alarming event, and dire prognostications of where this might lead. It’s almost as if it’s addressed to people who haven’t made up their minds to support conservatives. It may summarize the events crudely, perhaps even inaccurately, but in nearly all cases there’s a foundation for the argument that substantially addresses the question of why I should care.
The messages from Howard Dean, et al, do not do this. Top to bottom, they are saturated with a call-to-arms. The theme never varies, even slightly — I, Morgan Freeberg, am the drop of water that is missing from the waterfall. It’s straight out of Mao Tse-Tung’s speech in 1945 about the Foolish Old Man Who Removed The Mountains. If everybody does their part, and you do yours Mr. Freeberg…we will win!
Not a single word about what’s going to happen once that is achieved. Or, “War in Iraq” aside, what dire calamity will befall us if we fail.
There is a suggestion here, and more than a whiff of it, that conservatism exists in service of other ideals that exist outside of it, whereas liberalism exists only for its own sake (or for some other set of ideals nobody wants to discuss). I’ve opined on this before, how incredibly suspicious I find it that modern-day liberalism shows all this dogged determination to promulgate itself, to impose itself upon echelons of high power in our society — and for no other purpose whatsoever. In other words, once the elections are won, it’s all about quitting. Before those elections are won, it’s all about winning them at any cost.
So I’m finding this bundling of ruminations from left-wing blog Orcinus more than a tad interesting. I’m thinking probably, the author has been watching too many movies and not paying sufficient attention to what happens in real life:
What, really, is eliminationism?
It’s a fairly self-explanatory term: it describes a kind of politics and culture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas for the pursuit of outright elimination of the opposing side, either through complete suppression, exile and ejection, or extermination.
:
Rhetorically, it takes on some distinctive shapes. It always depicts its opposition as simply beyond the pale, and in the end the embodiment of evil itself — unfit for participation in their vision of society, and thus in need of elimination. It often depicts its designated “enemy” as vermin (especially rats and cockroaches) or diseases, and loves to incessantly suggest that its targets are themselves disease carriers…And yes, it’s often voiced as crude “jokes”, the humor of which, when analyzed, is inevitably predicated on a venomous hatred. [bold emphasis mine]
This seems to me an almost perfect description of modern-day liberalism; at least the tactics of it, if not the strategy.
They want us to go away. I’m thinking, by “us,” all the usual targets. Housewives…abstinence education advocates…Christians…climate change skeptics…meat eaters…gun owners…Boy Scouts. Those groups, and many more, I’ve seen exposed to “complete suppression, exile and ejection, or extermination.” “Unfit for participation in their vision of society.” Earlier in the piece, the author further defines eliminationism as something that “cuts the target off from the community support it might normally enjoy and leaves them feeling even more isolated.” Is it possible to jot down a more apt description for what has been done to the Boy Scouts? They were taken to court, the case went all the way up to the Supremes, and when the Boy Scouts won their opponents moved to block their funding from the United Way.
With “dialogue shunned” every single step of the way.
What a classic case of being what one calls others.
The situational difference I find most damning is this: When I have some real passion about an issue that is based on values, and I find out, say, 80% of the population feels the same way, the first thought in my head is what in the world is wrong with the other 20%. I notice a lot of the folks who agree with me on the issue have the same reaction, and when people form their opinions from their values, this is only natural — so long as we’re discussing generalized, baseline values for a civilized society, and not personally-customized nit-picky values. The Left, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be able to count up to any percentage higher than 51. It’s like Howard Dean says, they want to win. And then, I get the impression very often, whether they win by 51-49 or by 90-10, they couldn’t possibly care less which it is. So long as those who disagree with them are properly gelded, it’s all good. They don’t want us to convert, they want us to lose.
Orcinus talks about “eliminationism”; that situation with our leftists seems to me to be about as fitting a definition as can be found in modern times.
Incidentally, I learned about Orcinus’ rant by way of a wonderful and insightful essay on selective outrage by Confederate Yankee; and I learned of that essay by way of Rick.
“Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people.” – Larry Elder
Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes.
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
[...] at Cassy. Share This Article With Others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can [...]
Excellent piece of work!
As I roll it over in my brain, so many of the liberal, uh progressive behaviors, mindsets and talking points slot into place it is uncanny!
I wonder what the Eliminationists will say about this?
That is really a spectacular piece of work, Cassie! It is a demonstration of one of the things I believe *thinking* women are especially good at, which is *analysis*.
The articulate description, and dissection of, and ideological- philosophical approach to, politics as part of greater existence, as opposed to politics as a TOOL with which to strike down enemies, and slay then completely, so that their troublesome ethics are no longer buzzing irritatingly around disturbing ones licentious “immediate gratification”.
Excellent post.
In the Wiki definition: “Politics is one kind of process by which groups of people make decisions…”
So real politics is about making decisions, finding trade-offs, working with other groups.
That means liberal-eliminationism is not a form of politics, but rather a species of army ant.
I just sat and read all of Orcinus’ comments, and I find it so interesting how both the Right and the Left clearly see the other side’s faults. I read your Boy Scout example with a nodding head, and then read Orcinus and saw all the nodding heads in his comments (bolstered by anti-Rush, anti-guns, anti-Bush stuff.)
No real insight here on my part; just I’m always interested in reading Left Wing echo chambers and seeing the things they take for granted. And realizing how differently they see the world from how I see it.
Funny how both sides think the other side is Eliminationist.
My deepest, sincerest, most humiliated apology to Morgan Freeburg, whose name I see, now, is under the post…and a hearty compliment on the Bullshit article…What a mind-tickler that was to read! WOW!
Quite alright, Mr. David. I was noticing when you view these things from the main page it tells you who wrote them, but once you click into the discussion thread it doesn’t anymore. And of course there is our hostess’ grinning visage in the masthead. And the place is named after her, and there’s the matter that she’s much prettier than I am.
Perfectly understandable on your part.
I don’t know why the names disappear like that. Whether that’s a problem that has to be fixed is a call she’ll have to make.
>>Funny how both sides think the other side is Eliminationist.
Isn’t that interesting? Reminds me of that Star Trek episode where the Enterprise crew and a bunch of Klingons find themselves stuck on a ship, unable to escape, and armed with nothing but swords – and the ability to resuscitate after being killed. Turned out that their fighting was being staged by an alien race that fed off of their hatred.
But having said that, I do think that a semantic analysis of, say, Hannity/Savage/Coulter/Limbaugh vs. – oh, let’s see, what would be a fair comparison to those folks? Al Franken? Ted Rall? Mark Morford? Whoever – short of some hardcore Stalinist talking about lining up the bosses against the wall, I don’t think you’d find as much violent imagery/fantasy in liberal writings and commentary. Remember, we’re the namby-pamby Kumbaya folks who want to get along with everybody, right? (And who get ridiculed for that kind of attitude, I might add.)
I’ve seen a lot of conservatives wanting to get rid of people not like them — in fiction.
I wonder how the balance works once you deal only with reality. Can the stereotype survive if we eliminate Archie Bunker, Col. Flagg, Darth Vader, your Klingons…etc. etc. etc. And then there’s that pesky reality stuff, like the hush-Rush law. Not fiction.
[...] They’re jokes used by Ann Coulter, or they’re All In The Family re-runs. Quoting Skip Mendler, commenter #8, on the original post over at Cassy’s place: Reminds me of that Star Trek episode where the Enterprise crew and a bunch of Klingons find [...]