we just won a major victory over
*Duck Dynasty---being exposed as a judgmental homophobe is hardly a win.* On Friday, January 17, 2014 9:22:25 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > January 16, 2014 > > *The Myth of the Middle Ground* > > *By* *Robert Oscar Lopez*<http://www.americanthinker.com/robert_oscar_lopez/> > > Are moderation and compromise good things? It's worth pondering. > > No matter what your pet conservative issue is, there are always people > eager to tell you to sit down with the other side, "build bridges," "open a > dialogue," "listen," and "not demonize." The people who say this usually > state their pleas in vague terms. More often than not they are trying to > placate friends or co-workers who find something about conservatism > unappetizing, or else they simply don't know very much on a specific topic > and would rather not get "caught in the weeds" between two debaters who > are well-informed. > > There are countless examples I could cite, but let me choose two specific > ones, both people I like and admire: Jonah Goldberg and Bernard > Goldberg. They are bright and illuminating writers, but their recent > statements on the need for civility exemplify the unproductive nature of > calling for "all sides" to calm down and be less combative. Jonah Goldberg > writes this in the increasingly moderate *National Review > Online*<http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367296/myths-ditch-2014-jonah-goldberg>, > > as his goalposts for 2014: > > So I have small suggestions for New Year's resolutions for both the Right > and the Left in 2014. For liberals, maybe you should try to accept the fact > that you're not the non-conformists you think you are. And for > conservatives, perhaps you should consider that you're not necessarily the > irrefutable voice of "normal" Americans. > > There are some problems here. I live around many liberals and they don't > actually consider themselves "non-conformists." They see themselves as > *conforming* to liberal orthodoxy; the problem is that they see > non-liberal thought as abnormal, dangerous, and too "out there." > > I am one of those "conservatives" he mentions, yet I've never thought of > myself as the irrefutable voice of "normal" people -- I've been painfully > aware, as are many readers of *American Thinker*, that the shifting mores > of our nation have actually left me living at the fringes with other people > who have humane standards about the sanctity of life, sexual integrity, and > the right of children to be raised by a mom and a dad, speaking to a > mainstream defined by Miley Cyrus, Perez Hilton, and the Kardashian sisters. > > A similar nebulousness is creeping into Bill O'Reilly's efforts not to be > too divisive or one-sided. As I wrote about > recently<http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/life_on_glaads_blacklist.html>, > > on O'Reilly's show, Bernard Goldberg actually agreed with GLAAD and felt > that Phil Robertson should have been suspended from the A&E network over > Robertson's comments on homosexuality. > > Continuing in the same vein, on January 7, Goldberg and O'Reilly had a > chat about "Political hatred on the > rise<http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#/v/3025094713001>." > Once > upon a time, the author of > *Bias*<http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-Exposes-Media-Distort/dp/0060520841> > talked > about the problems with newsrooms excluding viewpoints outside the > homogeneity of journalistic thought. Now Goldberg longs for the past, when > some viewpoints could be banished from polite society: > > Look, during the Great Depression, there was a lot of bad stuff going on, > but we were united. During World War II, we were united because we had > faith in our institutions. Now, because of Vietnam and Watergate, who > trusts Congress? [...] Who trusts the mainstream media? [...] Compromise > now is tantamount to sellout, a crime against humanity [...] They're afraid > to compromise, they're afraid to be seen as sellouts. [...] Now, > knuckleheads who couldn't get a letter to the editor published years ago, > they go on the web[.] > > I can't transcribe the entire six minutes, because it's even vaguer than > the New Year's resolution put forward by Jonah Goldberg. Bernard Goldberg > seems to be getting a little too comfy in his sconce at Fox News. He > dismisses those "knuckleheads who couldn't get a letter to the editor > published" -- those "knuckleheads" being the excluded conservatives in > whose name Goldberg ostensibly wrote *Bias *as an exposé. > > Never mind the historiography of the good old days when Roosevelt and the > Democrats could intern Japanese-Americans and redesign the entire > government without a second thought, like Bill O'Reilly's nostalgia for the > halcyon years of the Vietnam War, when people merely rioted in hundreds of > cities over their differences. > > On issues that matter, people disagree. They argue. When has it not been > that way? > > Bernard Goldberg's golden destination is "compromise." > > Combine Jonah's and Bernard's calls for a new year of civility and > compromise, and what do you get? As far as I can tell, the worst of all > possible worlds, pace Pangloss. You get social conservatives bowing their > heads and being humble while the left mows over them with apocalyptic > social engineering schemes. All the while, pot-smoking pseudo-libertarians > who idolize S.E. Cupp offer a toast to the collapse of society. > > It is always helpful to brush up on our recollection of Aristotle's ideal > of a "mean" between two extremes -- not in order to apply this model to > every debate in life, but rather, to understand the limits of its > applicability to things that matter in our lives. Consider this paragraph > from Stanford University's page on Aristotelian > ethics<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/> > : > > [E]thical virtue is a condition intermediate between two other states, one > involving excess, and the other deficiency (1106a26-b28). [...] The > courageous person, for example, judges that some dangers are worth facing > and others not, and experiences fear to a degree that is appropriate to his > circumstances. He lies between the coward, who flees every danger and > experiences excessive fear, and the rash person, who judges every danger > worth facing and experiences little or no fear. Aristotle [...] is careful > to add, however, that *the mean is to be determined in a way that takes > into account the particular circumstances of the individual*(1106a36-b7). > [...] Finding the mean in any given situation is not a > mechanical or thoughtless procedure, but requires a full and detailed > acquaintance with the circumstances. > > Please note a few things here. First, just because Aristotle says > something doesn't make it right. He disagreed with many bright minds, > including Plato and Socrates. > > Second, as this Stanford summary points out, the "mean" isn't a strict > halfway point. If I am looking for the best place between Buffalo, New > York and Baffin Island to build a home, it doesn't follow that I should > build at precisely the middle. Maybe Toronto is best, even though it is > only two hours north of Buffalo and days' traveling from Baffin Island, > because the lake-effect snow isn't fatal there, and everywhere else between > the two points is uninhabitable tundra. > > The specifics matter. I am not very involved in the debate on immigration > or health care, but I am heavily involved in debates on LGBT issues, > because the latter are the issues on which I offer the most new > information. The reality is that I've been open to hearing the left's > point of view on gay issues for decades. > > At the university where I teach, I've tried to open up discussion and > organize forums. I've always come to the debate from a position of > compromise: yes to civil unions, but not to > marriage<http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-quick-summary-of-who-edits-english.html>; > > yes to foster care, but not to > adoption<http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/2014/01/what-about-theyre-better-off-with-gays.html>. > No > faculty at my university has been willing to engage in discussion -- > *none*. Outside the university, pro-gay journalists lied and said I > belonged to organizations I was not part > of<http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/2013/12/la-joie-de-vivre-19-true-or-false-2013.html>; > > then I was decried as "anti-equality" and "anti-gay," among other choice > insults, by a long list of gay publications and organizations: *OnTopMag*, > *TowleRoad*, *EqualityMatters*, *Bilerico*, *FrontiersLA*, *The New Civil > Rights Movement*, and so on and so on. Google my name and you're likely > to believe from these blogging savages that I am the new Rasputin. > > Neither I nor the other side is guilty of immoderation. We disagree; > that's all. As far as I am concerned, I am right and they are wrong. > > My position on gay issues has been that children cannot be treated like > commodities and that "gay rights" cannot imply the right to acquire and > control children like chattel. I base these beliefs not on far-fetched > extremism, but rather on the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the > Child, UNICEF's statements on adoptions, the Thirteenth Amendment to the > United States Constitution, and a long history of literature attesting to > the importance of heritage, lineage, and patrimony. But I suppose I am one > of Bernard Goldberg's "knuckleheads," seeing as none of the following > publications has yet been willing to consider my point of view: *Mother > Jones*, *Salon*, *San Diego Union-Tribune*, *Houston Chronicle*, *Orange > County Register*, *Chicago Tribune*, *New York Times*, *Los Angeles Times*, > *Washington Post*, *Washington Times*, *Washington Examiner*, *Wall > Street Journal*, *New York Post*, *Atlantic Monthly*, *The Nation*, and > quite a few more. I submitted letters to the editor to all of these with > no luck. > > Keep in mind that we just won a major victory over *Duck Dynasty* not > because of a wishy-washy peacemaker trying to build bridges with gays, but > rather because of the outspoken Phil Robertson refusing to back down, > temper himself, or apologize. On things that matter, there isn't really a > middle ground, because life is too complex to reduce to a one-dimensional > line between two poles. > > Defend yourself. Defend your beliefs -- once you've given them a lot of > thought and feel strongly about them. Fight. That's what you should do > this year and every year following. > > *Robert Oscar Lopez edits English Manif > <http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/>. * > > > *Page Printed from: > http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2014/01/the_myth_of_the_middle_ground.html > > <http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2014/01/the_myth_of_the_middle_ground.html>*at > January 16, 2014 - 05:50:56 PM CST > > > __._,_.___ > > > > > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
