Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Extreme-Left Democrats

27 Comments

Are pushing Middle America away:

“It always strikes me as funny that the folks on TV call Republicans ‘extreme,’ and pretty much ignore that Democrats have left no room for people like me in my own party,” said Yvonne, a Youngstown native who did not want to give her last name.

To Yvonne, who has lived all of her 30-plus years in that eastern Ohio city, being a Democrat is like listing your religion, the part of town where you grew up, and the school you attended.

“It’s a part of my identity,” she said, adding after a pause: “Or was.”

When Ryan made his announcement last week, the national press offered no questions or headline-grabbing adjectives — just praise.

That was an interesting departure from the media reaction when then-candidate Cory Gardner, a Colorado congressman running for U.S. Senate last year, changed from support to non-support of “personhood.”

“Bombshell,” “extremist” and “cheap election-year stunt” were the words in some of the milder headlines.

Gardner moved to the center. Ryan moved to the left wing.

Ryan was praised. Gardner was hammered.

Now think about that for a moment: One politician moved to his party’s wing, not its center, and it was as if a tree fell in a forest — with no one listening. Another politician moved to his party’s center, and hair collectively caught fire.

Apparently, “extremism” is only bad when it’s in favor of liberty and limited government.

27 thoughts on “Extreme-Left Democrats”

      1. I agree that the examples don’t affect the point, but if someone is going to use examples to make a point, they might as well have good examples!

        1. “I agree that the examples don’t affect the point,….”

          Well then they are basically a waste of everyone’s time.

      2. It also isn’t clear to me exactly what kind of conversation you want to have, if the examples needn’t support the general point. Imagine I made the following argument: “George W. Bush was a bigot. For example, out of thousands upon thousands of hires, he never hired an African-American, ever.”

        You’d respond “Your example completely incorrect!”

        Suppose I replied “Well, my specific example regarding hiring might be wrong, but that doesn’t logically affect my general point about him being a bigot.”

        What sort of response would I receive here?

        1. “What sort of response would I receive here?”

          What about Barack Obama, whose campaign staff is as white as the background on this web page?

  2. “Apparently, ‘extremism’ is only bad when it’s in favor of liberty and limited government.”

    Indeed. And for that reason I am a proud “extremist” for liberty! As I often say, if you attempted to poke me in the eyes a hundred times, I would resist you one hundred times. You and your goons might overpower me and force me to submit to getting my eyes poked, but I would never concede your right to do so–not for “the good of the people,” “the Common Good,” for the sake of the kids, to help the poor, to help the rich, to help Labor or to help Management, or whatever shibboleth or superstition you would be using to justify your action. A “moderate” like Sidetrack Bob would probably let you poke him in the eyes fifty out of a hundred times–if you justified in the name of the Common Good or whatever snake-oil is his poison.

    1. I have found that most who are in favor of Statism don’t do it out of altruism. They are hedonists who gain from the subjugation of others. They are Plato’s Appetitive Class with a very thin gilding of caring for others.

      2. True, and they”ll try to convince you that giving them even more power and money is for your own good. They simply can’t understand why anyone would disagree. For example, a few years ago, an author of that mindset wondered what was wrong with Kansas? Why did the people there reject their proper subjugation to the state? Why didn’t they realize it was for their own good? Why did they vote against their “self-interest”, as defined by people who believe in taking from people to empower and enrich themselves.

        1. Indeed. What the hell is Sheila Jackson Lee doing on the red carpet for the Grammy? Her district is in Houston. The people on the red carpet are usually journalists or 1 percenter millionaires making more money in a year than 99% of her district makes combined in the same year. She seems to be living large off of her constituents.

  4. Apparently, “extremism” is only bad when it’s in favor of liberty and limited government.

    The linked article is about politicians changing their opinion on whether the government should assert its authority over pregnant women. Isn’t this an example where the media seems to be favoring “liberty and limited government”?

    1. Perhaps in that particular case, but they take an extremist position that there should be absolutely no laws regarding whether or not a woman can kill her unborn child. That’s not the position of the majority of Americans.

      1. That’s not the position of the majority of Americans.

        Right, this is a case where the majority of Americans want less liberty, and a less-limited government.

        2. This is Jim trying to play gotcha. Gosh, sometimes Americans don’t want liberty and freedom, so that gives me an excuse to ram my statist policies up their throats! It’s all the same, see?

          There isn’t a libertarian who believes anybody has a right to take another life. And, whether you like it or not, more Americans are trending towards pro-life. The era of abortion an indicator of women’s rights is over.

          1. The majority of Americans who oppose abortion also oppose a large federal government. I think if you broke the statistic down further, you would find that many Americans opposed to abortion simply believe it should not be paid for by taxpayers or otherwise sanctioned and promoted by the government, but if someone wants to pay their own money to terminate their own pregnancy, then people will do other stupid things too that are perfectly fine to do with their own money.

        3. It is perfectly logical to have small government and oppose abortion. Under even the smallest government philosophies (except anarchy), the government’s role is to punish crimes, such as murder. If you believe abortion to be murder, then it falls under the standard murder laws. To get around that, you have to do weird things like say a fetus is not a human, rather than just a stage of human development.

          1. Or else, please explain to me the logic of laws like being charged with two murders for murdering a pregnant woman? If the fetus is not a human, then how can I be changed with two murders in that case?

  5. It is a good article Rand. I actually read it earlier, but I’m glad you provided it here to counterbalance some of the lies and distortions provided by a few of your commenters.

    1. “It is a good article Rand. I actually read it earlier, but I’m glad you provided it here to counterbalance some of the lies and distortions provided by a few of your commenters.”

      Golly-gosh, Leland, to whom could you possibly be referring?

      1. Let’s just say that if you took two of them, put their names together, you would get something that others might refer to as a “hick”, which to me is an accurate description of both.

  6. “Is that good for Democrats? Probably not, because it forces them deeper into their party’s coastal, urban and academic enclaves, and further out of touch with Middle America.” Back in the 1960s didn’t Mao Zeodong make a comment about the countryside surrounding and overwhelming the cities? He meant in terms of the then Third World drowning the capitalist First World, but the basic idea seems apt here.

Comments are closed.