Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Comments on Jonathon Rauch's Piece posted at HughHewitt.com

Comments on the Jonathan Rauch piece linked at HughHewitt.com

On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a hero’s welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around.”

I have a couple of problems with this piece. First, not all religious conservatives are abortion clinic bombers. And second, embracing the true radicals into either party is a strategy that will, in the end, erode social peace not promote it.

True religious conservatives no more embrace the potential harm that abortion clinic bombers may cause workers in those clinics, than they embrace the carnage that routinely takes place inside. Additionally, the actions of these nut cases is not embraced by the mainstream pro-life crowd. And lastly, when exactly was the last abortion clinic bombing?

Michael Moore and his proven falsehoods are being accepted as truth by the “moderates” within the Democrat Party, and subsequently moving the moderate position even farther to the left. Counter to the rejection that abortion clinic bombers receive from the mainstream elements of the Republican Party, the acquiescence of the moderates within the Democrat Party to the Michael Moores and Howard Deans has virtually handed control over to the radical elements within the party. While this may be better for the “social peace,” is doesn’t bode well for future Democrat Party success, and may in the end lend legitimacy to the violent radical elements as frustration at their eroding support grows.

I think Jonathan is on thin ground here, for this country is not in need of violent change via radical elements, it is in dire need of improved political discourse based on reason, compromise, and common sense. None of which has been shown by Michael Moore and his ilk.

4 comments:

Cap'n Billy said...

The very fact that the Democratic Party embraces such as M. Moore and H. Dean is just one of many factors that disqualify that once-great political party from any say in the governance of this country. Another indication is the disgraceful behavior of some of their more prominent members in the Rice hearings. They can't be relegated to their well-deserved obscurity too soon for me. The sooner that happens the sooner a more responsible opposition party will emerge.

Teflon said...

Major-

Great point re: the Left's adoption of Michael Moore and its disastrous impact on the party.

Embracing the radicals didn't much work for The Weimar Republic either, as I recall.

Nice blog--I'm linking to you.

Anonymous said...

loved the content of your site. Please feel free to visit mine at lucid dream

Anonymous said...

http://tramadol-sqllt.blogspot.com/
Good Luck!

Site Visits
Blog Roll