JTT wrote:Quote:I've been arguing here repetitively enough that the American left should encourage rather than exclude devout, but progressive Christians.
The left has always encouraged people to follow their faith. The right has created the false illusion that the left is against religion. How can people who want all religions to be respected be accused of being against religion?
I think that you've mistaken the left/the liberal position for the evangelical far right, Nimh. Theirs is a world of exclusion, religious and racial intolerance.
That's much too facile a false dichotomy. There's plenty of intolerance going round on all sides, though I'll heartily agree with you that it reaches a particular crescendo among the religious right.
I do regret that in much rhetorics of at least the American left - the Michael Moore / Daily Kos tendency, say - there is a strong tendency to approach the devoutly religious with some suspicion or even ridicule. That wouldn't be a problem in a multi-party system like my country's, where wholly secular and religious parties exist side-by-side on the same (left- or rightwing) end of the political spectre - which I think is a healthy thing. But it's much more of a strategic liability in that darned American two-party system. I think that by making their justified attacks on the likes of Falwell and Robertson into a much wider cause against the appearance of religion in the public space (agitating against 40-year old statues of the bible outside a court house and the like), American liberals risk alienating a devout, but progressive electorate that has a long tradition in the progressive movement (the "guest father" of my father, when he was in the US for a year as a teen, was a radical reverend for example).
This is something I've discussed at length with Lola here, who in principle agrees but then tends to veer into exactly the kind of attitude I'd warn against. But anyway, all that would be way off-topic for this thread altogether, and God knows there's enough threads on it to go round already.
JTT wrote:Quote:
But I do feel very uneasy about seeing Trots, who surely dont really believe a word of it, try to haul the far Left into some opportunistically redefined values along conservative religious lines just to haul in the Muslim vote. I dont want that kind of politics to become the direction for the Left to head in, not even the far Left, as it will fully discredit it.
Since you're only speaking in wide-sweeping generalities, it's hard to address this.
Not quite sure what you mean. Only in wide-sweeping generalities? I'm addressing, quite specifically, the case of the British Respect Unity coalition, on whose ticket Galloway stood when he was elected as MP this month. I've provided intricate detail about the constituents of the Respect coalition and what I consider unpleasant about them and their approach. I've also drawn a specific parallel with the Dutch situation and the opinions of two prominent Greens here. What exactly do you miss in the account that you feel should have been expounded on to justify my opinion?
In response, you ironically come up with platitudes about a "person [who] stands up for honesty and tolerance" - now there's a generalisation. Do you mean Galloway? One can credit Galloway for a lot of things - political effectivity, rhetorical brilliance, unfazed courage in the face of media and political hazing, a perfect ear for what people on the street need to hear, a agile hand in forging the most diverse coalitions - but honesty? Or even
tolerance? What in Galloway's platform, election campaign or past political activities specifically led you to the conclusion that he represents
tolerance?
JTT wrote:But if a person/politician garners support because that person stands up for honesty and tolerance, you can hardly blame them for attracting followers, even those who sit at the other end of the political spectrum.
I think I've been trying to make clear that Galloway's campaign did not just coincidentally attract some radicals from the other end of the political spectrum because he "stood for honesty and tolerance". He represents a segment of the hard left in Britian which has purposefully chosen to, at times radically, change their rhetorics and values especially to bait a specific demographic they saw as being up for grabs. Seizing the opportunity, so to say - Trotskyites like the SWP, which apparently forms the organisational backbone of the Respect coalition, are good at that. I personally think this kind of populist opportunism is unpleasant (and unnecessary in a multi-party system), and I believe that if Galloway's success encourages other leftist groups in Europe to pursue a virulently communalist, borderline anti-semitic campaign, that would be a Bad Thing. And I do consider that a realistic enough possibility, seeing the budding signs of it among some far-left French and Dutch groups.
JTT wrote:While politics may be fairly contained, life isn't. There are many liberals who are vehemently opposed to abortion as abortion, BUT they realize that the issue is more complicated than simply outlawing abortion. People should support things based on rational thought processess, not knee-jerk partyism.
Absolutely. I'm still not entirely sure what your beef was, here. First I'm told that my dislike of Galloway must be based on being "ill-informed" - now, after repeating the sources I base my impression on, I'm still rebuked for putting down someone who stands for "honesty and tolerance" - by someone who so far doesnt showcase any knowledge of the man beyond the fact that he opposed the war and Bush and confronted the Senate (ergo, he must by definition himself be honest and tolerant? Talk about knee-jerk partyism; some kind of fallacy here, presumably tied in with the black-and-white, us vs. them thinking that seems to have many Americans of both conservative and liberal persuasion in its grip.)
