> In any case, at minimum, what is primarily required of nominal
> progressives in relation to a progressive third party is a commitment
> by to the Hippocratic oath: first do no harm.
An interesting comment, this. First, the quoting of the Hippocratic Oath suggests, perhaps, that John considers the Green Party to be a patient with some sort of illness, perhaps. <g>
Be that as it may, I note the expression "nominal progressives," clearly indicating that people who criticize his preferred political course only call themselves progressives, but are really wolves (or some other species, I'm not sure what) in sheeps' clothing. Then there is the qualification of the GP by him as "progressive" (no "nominal" involved here), as though that, unlike the "nominal progressives' " progressivity, were a noncontroversial fact. Actually, of course, there is a debate in progressive (Left) circles about just how progressive the GP is, and in what respects, but presumably anyone who criticizes the GP's progressivity is only a "nominal progressive."
And finally, there is the implication that criticism of a party by a writer such as Doug "harms" it, as well as the assumption that no one who is a progressive, or even a "nominal" progressive, should "harm" a party by writing criticisms of it.
This is, to me, the really disquieting thing about the quoted sentence, because it suggests to me that, were John and the not inconsiderable number of political activists who think the way he does to get into power over me, for example, by taking control of the U.S. government, and I were to write any criticism of them, they would be likely to consider me a "harmer of the government." I would hope that they would not then go on to defend themselves against this harm by using the power of the government to silence me and other critics.
This is how the totalitarian impulse arises among left groups -- a feeling of insecurity, or lack of confidence in one's ability to hold one's own in debate (as indicated by John's withdrawal, or at least threatened withdrawal, from the list), leading to a self-pitying sense that one is being "harmed" by criticism, and then to a violent impulse to lash out at one's tormenters.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Belinda: Ay, but you know we must return good for evil. Lady Brute: That may be a mistake in the translation.
-- Sir John Vanbrugh: The Provok’d Wife (1697), I.i.