>sent to another list, from a poster who sees himself as libertarian leaning
>conservative. he gave it the subject heading.
>
>http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/horowitz.html
>
>
>What he's saying here is basically the same thing that he always says:
>anyone who is even slightly left, say a vegetarian pacifist democrat, is
>really a stalinist. What is the proof of this? David Horowitz used to be a
>stalinist, or maybe it was maoist, and so he would know. qed. Moderate
>progressivism is just a big front or cover for these raging pathological
>lunatics. If someone counters this argument, to Horowitz, by pointing out
>a right wing or capitalist atrocity causing hundreds of thousands of
>deaths, his retort is that you are trying to censor him, and indeed the
>calm language you are using is really a front as well because as soon as
>the binds of society hypothetically were lifted, you would be shooting him
>in front of a firing squad with your khmer rouge buddies. This is what he
>said to us at his book talk when we mentioned East Timor. (because if you
>are in the 10-15% most 'left' side of society, just look at what has
>happened historically is so many countries that were in great turmoil
>during various wars of the 20th century. You would be one of them if you
>had been there). So don't go and even associate with any people who are
>slightly into progress who use the deceptive terms of 'civil rights', or
>'justice' or 'peace', because it's on a steep road of no return.
heh. i know. i couldn't help but think of freudian psychotherapy. you're fucked either way.
i was curious tho if you and others agreed with his characterization of the left critique of hillary. i see it as quite a bit more sophisticated than he presented it. but hell, i don't give a bat's eyelash about mainstream politics and so the clinton's "betrayal's" don't phase me a great deal. wotevA.
at any rate, because of my job i've had to subscribe to lists where there are libertarians and cons and i'm finding it just fascinating how often "the left" or the "dems" or the "liberals" are trotted out as the definitive evil against which cons/libertarians define themselves. i don't know why this is news to me. i guess i hadn't paid much attention before. but it was so striking to notice that the rhetoric invovles an incessant harping on the evils that liberals do. i don't see it among liberals/leftys so much, but i started to wonder if i just couldn't see it and that maybe we spend a lot of time defining ourselves against the evil cons/libertarians. i know we do in a certain way: we accuse each other of not being radical leftists and suggest that our claims are really bourg lib, etc. but that's not quite the same thing as this/
oh beats me, blathering. but curious what others thought about this phenom. what is it about conservatives who want to perpetually seek out the evil liberals/lefties. why do rush and other commentators spend so fucking much time looking for evidence of how evil lefties are? do we do the same?
okay, end blabbering mindlessly now. hope some of the conservative watchers on the list could tell me more from their more "objective" and "systematic" observations.
kelley