By Carter Bundy
It’s said in politics that the extreme right and left often are very similar. With all respect to conventional wisdom, that’s patently false when it comes to substance. For example, the far right’s unwavering support for military action is hardly the same as a pacifist’s position.
Likewise, the far right’s insistence on slashing billionaires’ taxes is a far cry from the far left’s insistence on investing billionaires’ taxes in programs for the poor.
But in an important sense, political polar opposites frequently share something in common: a certainty of their positions that leads them to tear down – by any means – anyone with whom they disagree. Their attacks mirror each other so much as to give life back to the conventional wisdom that the far right and left do, in fact, come full circle.
Progressive posturing
Last year, one of my fellow supporters of Patricia Madrid held up a sign saying “Heather Wilson hates our troops.” I know the protester, and he’s a smart guy, to be sure. And in my humble opinion, his heart is usually in the right place. He even had plenty of info on how Heather had supported tax cuts while voting for budgets that didn’t have adequate body and vehicle armor for the troops.
Here’s the problem: Heather Wilson doesn’t hate our troops. She may pursue incongruous, counterproductive, unwise and insensitive economic and military policies from our point of view, but she doesn’t hate our troops.
Saying Heather hates the troops is not only intellectually dishonest; it undermines the credibility of the left.
Conservative canards
The characterization of those of us who want to end the war in
Far from it, we believe that anyone willing to put himself or herself in the line of fire for our country is owed an extensive exhaustion of every alternative before endangering each’s existence.
Saying that anti-war activists are traitors is not only intellectually dishonest; it undermines the credibility of the right.
Ridiculous religious rows
Those of us who have defended Barack Obama’s speech on race have been roundly criticized for supporting hate speech. A large part of our defense of Obama is that association with someone who negatively and unfairly stereotypes a large group of people doesn’t automatically disqualify one from being president.
But as regular Heath reader and friend Ben points out, would the left be as tolerant if it were a conservative candidate who associated with a hatemonger such as Pat Robertson or Bob Jones? It’s a good question.
The short answer, for many of us, is yes. The fact that John McCain has pandered to and actively sought the political support of the likes of segregationist Bob Jones or Pat Robertson is appalling to me. But do I attribute all of their beliefs to McCain? I haven’t and I won’t. Unfortunately, many on the left have and do.
The right (and occasional right-wingers like Ben) note that Obama’s relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright is closer than McCain’s relationship to Jones and Robertson. Fine, but that cuts both ways: Who is to say that Wright’s spiritual and personal guidance isn’t enough to overwhelm Obama’s dislike for some of Wright’s political views?
Meanwhile, McCain purposefully pursued positively putrid pastors precisely for political patronage. Which is worse?
Don’t spare your own legs
I don’t know, but in the wise words of Ivan Turgenev’s Bazarov in “Fathers and Sons,” “Brother, if you’ve made up your mind to mow down everything – don’t spare your own legs.” Some on the right do exactly that – mercilessly attack Obama but blithely dismiss McCain’s dalliances with the devil.
Consistency counts. If you think Obama shouldn’t be president because of his dealings with Wright, don’t turn around and say McCain’s political dealings with Jones and Robertson aren’t of significance. Likewise, if you think Obama’s incident doesn’t disqualify him, don’t disqualify McCain on that basis.
Hilarious hypocrisy over Hillary
Maybe the most bizarre religious hypocrisy of the year comes from the extreme left, who rightly see unfairness in guilt by association when it comes to Obama. Some of those same people currently claim that Hillary has broken bread with certain Christian Republicans in Washington and that therefore she – and I swear I’m not making this up – is part of a vast right-wing evangelical conspiracy to take over the world. Uh huh.
If those who peddle such frivolous but ferocious allegations aren’t abashed by their attacks after reading Turgenev, maybe they can be goaded by Ghandi: Be the change you wish to see in the world. If you expect the world to treat you and yours with honesty and integrity, do the same.
If Ghandi isn’t your cup of tea, well, even Michael Jackson had a similar take on it: Change starts with the man in the mirror. If those three can’t convince you…
Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in