Frank Reichert wrote to Robert Goodman,
> A few days ago libertarian friend John Pachak here in NYC told me of a
> trend he'd noticed in the USA extending from the 1960s or possibly even
the
> 1950s. He said the camps of "left" and "right" (and maybe other
opposing
> camps as well) used to be more willing to listen to each other (i.e. of
the
> opposite camp), to treat each other as sincere and with some important
> concerns and facts on their side, and that that no longer seems to be
the
> case. He sees the camps as having drawn increasingly away from each
other
> and inward to the extent that they now look at each other with complete
> distrust, not just honest good-faith disagreement.
Do you remember the hostility generated in the Goldwater campaign in the
mid-1960s? I would suggest much civility was involved on the socialist
side
against Goldwater, although I would suggest that the Goldwater campaign was
far more civil than Johnson's was at the time.
I do not recall a time when the left was civil. Certainly when I was in
college - early 1980s - the liberals' idea of a debate was to call anyone
who disagreed with them "racist, sexist, homophobe." Usually all three at
once, regardless of the topic. And when a conservative or even moderate
speaker came in (e.g. then-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an old-fashioned
liberal Democrat), their tactic was to shout down the speaker or threaten
violence to get the speaker to cancel (e.g. the South African ambassador)
and to call that "free speech."
And then there is the notion that many have today that there is no left or
right at least in terms of defining which side really comes down on the
side
of limited government any more. Probably the last major Administration to
even give lip service to that ideal was Ronald Reagan during his first term
in
office. It is difficult to differentiate even how it might be possible to
ascertain whether a John Kerry administration would have differed a great
deal
from the fascist regime we currently have in place (and growing
exponentially)
today.
But that's a separate issue.
Perhaps, but I think you do your argument a disservice by engaging in the
same label slinging of fascist. That is an attempt to silence discussion,
not promote it. I do not agree with all or even most of Bush's policies, but
to call him fascist is more than a bit overboard. As for a President Kerry,
I think we can safely say that our taxes would be higher and business
regulations even worse. We might well have withdrawn from Iraq, with the
probable result being a resurgence of al-Qaeda and another attack on U.S.
soil.
> I'm a little younger than he is, and I can't say whether that's really
the
> case, or whether we're just prone (for some reason) to view the past as
a
> time of greater civility of discourse.
I'm a little younger than you and while the popular thing to say now is how
much worse things are, I recall the invective hurled in Reagan's direction
when he confronted the liberals' precious Soviet Union or backed tax cuts or
changes in policy. I think things now are exactly where they were two
decades ago ito incivility. I think the left acted the same towards the
right during Clinton's administration too. I don't buy this idea of a
change. I know a lot of people do, but I think it's because the leftist
media promotes the idea that there's greater incivility as a further way of
attacking Bush.
Regards,
Doug
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
Libnw@immosys.com
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
