Just as I was writing the previous post, my good friend Becky sent me a link to Nicholas Kristof’s piece in the New York Times, “Hold the Vitriol.” (reg required, sorry) It’s basically about how the left shouldn’t become as strident as the right was during Clinton.
Well, I guess I’ve had a little too much du Toit lately, because I fired off this response to Becky:
Nice thoughts, on the surface. But I don’t agree that the left needs to be less angry. If anything, we need more anger. We’ve always been the ones to back down, the ones to say, “let’s consider all sides.” Well, look where that got us. When the insane right is out of power, we can afford to be sweet and hug everyone. Until then, well…this is war, and we have to fight it or be snuffed out. Do you know that on weblogs like Dean Esmay’s, they’re talking about what will happen eventually when the Democratic Party doesn’t exist? The left isn’t who made this country polarized – it was the right pushing and pushing and pushing, because they saw they could.
And if he’s saying the left needs to be more religious, that’s bunk. If anything, we should be talking about how religious agnostics are better for religion in general, because we want everyone to be able to practice whatever they want, and we’re not trying to shove the Ten Commandments down other people’s throats.
I probably was too harsh in the moment, but I stand by every word I said there.
UPDATE: I was being mild. Atrios’ comment on the Kristof piece: “Hey, Nick Kristof – blow me.”
The Kristof column strikes me as well-meaning but off the mark. There *is* genuine anger out there, as well there should be. How can we not be angry about spun intelligence, the leak of a covert agent’s name, diplomatic failures in coalition-building, the inability to find Osama, Saddam, and the anthrax terrorist(s)? Not to mention the Patriot Act, the scarily-named “Office of Faith-Based Initiatives,” the horribly offensive “bring ’em on” comment, and on and on? Only a dolt or an arch-conservative (don’t ask me to clarify the difference–not sure I can do it) would not be angry right now. As for Kristof’s comment about the alleged derision of Bush’s religious beliefs, it’s really not his religion that aggravates me. It’s eroding the line of separation between church and state. Sorry Mr. Kristof, you mean well in wishing for civility, but 1) sometimes anger is warranted, and 2) “civility” does not shying away from avoiding powerful, pointed critiques.
Whoops…just realized I made a typo at the end of my comments. I meant to write, “civility does not mean shying away from powerful, pointed critiques.” That’s what happens when you forget to proofread!
Far from being too harsh, I think you were right on target — and Jen, too.
Jen mentions a number of the freedoms we’ve lost since this administration took power. I think it would be staggrering to see a comprehensive list (another example being no powerful photos of Americans fighting and dying, like those that helped turn American opinion against the Viet Nam war). It would have been unthinkable to censor the press like this administration did almost without protest.
I find it hard to believe the changes we’ve seen in the last 3 years — it would be wonderful to see a moment where reason finally triumphs — like in the Army-MacCarthy hearings where the opposing attorney finally confronts Joe MacCarthy and says “Have you no sense of decency, Sir?” And the bubble bursts, and it’s over — like a bad nightmare.
We SHOULD be angry. But we also need to be smarter than them.
Disregarding for a moment the difference between what the left is complaining about now and what the right was complaining about during Clinton, isn’t this guy basically saying, “Do as we say, not as we do?”