To My Liberal Friends

[Philip_P]

qmvsimp:

Please give me any quote from a Republican politician where they referred to a Democrat (or Democrats) as traiters for criticizing the administration.

Well since this thread began with Sen. Durbin’s comments, let’s take an example from that. Here was Karl Rove’s response:
Karl Rove:

Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

As Kevin Drum noted in his blog (I feel a bit embarrassed to be citing a blog, but it’s a fairly moderate and responsible one, which counts for something – anyway, here’s the link: washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006577.php), Rove here has gone beyond merely denigrating Democrats and expressing anger at Durbin’s comments to actually implying that Durbin’s *motivations *were to put American troops in danger. He is, in essence, accusing Durbin of treason. Now, I’m not calling for Rove’s resignation or anything equally silly, but I do put this forward as an example of over the top rhetoric. Durbin’s reference to Nazis was unfortunate, but treason? Surely we have enough faith in America and in democracy that we don’t need to start questioning the patriotism of our political opponents.

 

[thestickman]

Rove here has gone beyond merely denigrating Democrats and expressing anger at Durbin’s comments to actually implying that Durbin’s *motivations *were to put American troops in danger. He is, in essence, accusing Durbin of treason. Now, I’m not calling for Rove’s resignation or anything equally silly, but I do put this forward as an example of over the top rhetoric. Durbin’s reference to Nazis was unfortunate, but treason? Surely we have enough faith in America and in democracy that we don’t need to start questioning the patriotism of our political opponents.

Rove’s comments weren’t over the top. They were 100% accurate. Again, liberals love to exercise their right to free speech–as long as no one ever dares to hold them responsible for the things they say. Rove held Durbin’s feet to the fire for what he said and the left is whining the usual horse-tears.

IMO, if someone deliberately mischaracterizes our troops as Durbin did, they bring the questions about their patriotism upon themselves.

 

[miguel]

Philip P:

…Durbin’s reference to Nazis was unfortunate, but treason?

The word unfortunate downplays what he said. A US Senator has to be more careful than an ordinary mortal. If his words can be construed as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, they will be.

 

[Philip_P]

If you read his actual statement, though, he didn’t actually compare US troops to Nazis. His overall point was that the alleged abuse of prisoners is beneath us as a country…I use unfortunate because his reference to nazis undermines the point he was trying to make. As I’ve stated before, I don’t believe references to Nazis accomplish much (and I have to disagree with you on using it in reference to abortion. Not even in this context does it really fit or accomplish much).

The larger issue I wanted to highlight by citing Rove’s response, though, isn’t whether Durbin should have been more careful in his remarks (we all agree that he spoke inappropriately), but the fact that Rove implies that it was Durbin’s express *intent *to place American soldiers in danger. Not that Durbin’s words may have led to this, but that Durbin *purposely *and actively desires to place our troops in danger. That’s quite a serious charge. It’s one thing for folks like Coulter and Moore to talk like this, but folks at the level of Durbin and Rove ought to be more responsible.

 

[Stu]

Philip P:

If you read his actual statement, though, he didn’t actually compare US troops to Nazis. /QUOTE]

I beg to differ.

“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings”

In other words, if we were left to hear the story without the clarification that these actions were reportedly done in Gitmo we would think they were done by Nazis et al. Therefore, American actions are tantamount to those of Nazis, Soviets, and Pol Pot in his eyes so he is in fact comparing US Troops to them. He certainly is contrasting them.

 

[qmvsimp]

Philip P:

Well since this thread began with Sen. Durbin’s comments, let’s take an example from that. Here was Karl Rove’s response:

As Kevin Drum noted in his blog (I feel a bit embarrassed to be citing a blog, but it’s a fairly moderate and responsible one, which counts for something – anyway, here’s the link: washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006577.php), Rove here has gone beyond merely denigrating Democrats and expressing anger at Durbin’s comments to actually implying that Durbin’s *motivations *were to put American troops in danger. He is, in essence, accusing Durbin of treason. Now, I’m not calling for Rove’s resignation or anything equally silly, but I do put this forward as an example of over the top rhetoric. Durbin’s reference to Nazis was unfortunate, but treason? Surely we have enough faith in America and in democracy that we don’t need to start questioning the patriotism of our political opponents.

Now I understand what you meant. You meant that the left’s interpretation of Rove’s remarks were that he was calling Durbin a traiter. An interpretation is not a factual quote.

I interpret Rove’s remarks to say that the left is more interested in attacking the administration in public, then trying to fix things behind the scenes, to the detriment of our troops serving overseas.

I’d be careful about making claims that are interpretations and not facts. State them as they are.

 

[miguel]

Philip P:

If you read his actual statement, though, he didn’t actually compare US troops to Nazis. His overall point was that the alleged abuse of prisoners is beneath us as a country…I use unfortunate because his reference to nazis undermines the point he was trying to make. As I’ve stated before, I don’t believe references to Nazis accomplish much (and I have to disagree with you on using it in reference to abortion. Not even in this context does it really fit or accomplish much).

In a way, you’re right. The mass slaughter that followed Roe was much worse. At least the Nazis didn’t dismember people while they were alive.
Philip P:

The larger issue I wanted to highlight by citing Rove’s response, though, isn’t whether Durbin should have been more careful in his remarks (we all agree that he spoke inappropriately), but the fact that Rove implies that it was Durbin’s express *intent *to place American soldiers in danger. Not that Durbin’s words may have led to this, but that Durbin *purposely *and actively desires to place our troops in danger. That’s quite a serious charge. It’s one thing for folks like Coulter and Moore to talk like this, but folks at the level of Durbin and Rove ought to be more responsible.

And Durbin’s insinuation that Bush’s POW policies compare to the worst mass murderers of history isn’t a serious charge? That’s what you call a whopper. No one but Durbin knows what his intent was. But whatever his intent, Rove pointed out that those words are now fueling enemy propaganda.

 

[Philip_P]

qmvsimp:

Now I understand what you meant. You meant that the left’s interpretation of Rove’s remarks were that he was calling Durbin a traiter. An interpretation is not a factual quote.

I interpret Rove’s remarks to say that the left is more interested in attacking the administration in public, then trying to fix things behind the scenes, to the detriment of our troops serving overseas.

Precisely my point…that such rhetoric does far more damage than it accomplishes. Durbin, raising the issue of prisoner abuse, crossed a line and left himself open to charges that he was calling American troops Nazis. Rove, in responding, left himself open to charges that Republicans believe their critics are committing treason. And I ask, what has this gotten us? Are we any closer to taking action to clear our military of charges of torture, and making sure that further incidents never occur? Has the administration come any closer to establishing credibility with anyone who is not already on board with them? No.

The only thing this whole spat has accomplished is further polarize the American electorate. Instead of seriously considering candidates, platforms, and policies, this simply encouraged voters to pick one party as “good” and one as “evil” and vote based on that. It promotes lazy, dangerous voting that ultimately rewards demagogues over responsible public servants.

 

[Philip_P]

miguel:

In a way, you’re right. The mass slaughter that followed Roe was much worse. At least the Nazis didn’t dismember people while they were alive.

The Nazis were engaged in a targeted, systematic campaign of genocide. The same cannot be said of abortion (which group of people is being targeted? Who is coordinating this campaign?). It is a separate and specific evil.

If you approach abortion by comparing it to the Nazis, what will this accomplish? Either it will undermine your argument by making people dismiss it, since the historical comparison is slight. Or it will cause those who most need to hear the message to harden their hearts. A women considering an abortion needs to be encouraged to choose life, not called a Nazi.

So no, not even in regards to abortion do I see Nazi comparisons as being appropriate. We instinctively reach for Nazis as an example of somethng that is undeniably evil, but there are plenty of other evils besides Nazism. No need to undermine an important message by using faulty arguments.

 

[Richardols]

Philip P:

If you approach abortion by comparing it to the Nazis, what will this accomplish? Either it will undermine your argument by making people dismiss it, since the historical comparison is slight. Or it will cause those who most need to hear the message to harden their hearts. A women considering an abortion needs to be encouraged to choose life, not called a Nazi.

The same is true of people who call abortion “murder.” Murder is a specific crime in every state, and abortion is not legally murder anywhere.

What talking like that does is to allow the speaker to feel morally superior to another and nothing more. A Street counselor shouldn’t shout “murderess!” at the women approaching an abortion clinic, and other people in civil discourse shouldn’t use the term at all if the aim is to change hearts and not to harden hearts…

The point is, “What are you seeking to do?”

 

[qmvsimp]

Philip P:

Precisely my point…that such rhetoric does far more damage than it accomplishes. Durbin, raising the issue of prisoner abuse, crossed a line and left himself open to charges that he was calling American troops Nazis. Rove, in responding, left himself open to charges that Republicans believe their critics are committing treason. And I ask, what has this gotten us? Are we any closer to taking action to clear our military of charges of torture, and making sure that further incidents never occur? Has the administration come any closer to establishing credibility with anyone who is not already on board with them? No.

There are certainly fringe on both sides. But the Demo leaders (Dean, Pelosi & Reid) have been brutal in their attacks on the administration. Their first priority is tearing down Bush politically. If that means it hurts our troops overseas, so be it. Rove was correct in pointing out the consequences of making extreme comparisons to further a political agenda with regards to our war on terror.

You can’t just dodge every punch, you must counter-punch every now and then. Note the important difference: Durbin’s comparisons were fallacious, Rove’s were accurate.

 

[Philip_P]

But only those who are already on Rove’s side found his comments accurate. I found them ridiculous; many on the left (and I’m pretty centrist, so there’s a lot too my left) found them to be far worse than simply ridiculous.

Does Karl Rove really believe that Democrats are traitors? Do conservatives honestly believe that liberals are evil? I sincerely hope not (and if this were a liberal site, I’d be saying the same about conseratives).

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

Does Karl Rove really believe that Democrats are traitors?

Dunno. Maybe someone in the press with one day dare to ask.

Do conservatives honestly believe that liberals are evil?

Hmmmm…most probably aren’t evil people and are unaware or uneducated about the evils of liberalism. I do, sincerely believe liberalism as it’s practice in the western world to be evil to it’s core. I submit the legalization of abortion, the push for legalizing gay marriages to be the tip of the iceberg of what liberals hope to shove down our throats. In Canada now it’s against the law for a priest to speak out about the sinfulness of homosexual acts. Let’s not forget removing the word God from our schools and so on.

These are just a few examples of why I believe liberalism is evil.

 

[miguel]

Philip P:

The Nazis were engaged in a targeted, systematic campaign of genocide. The same cannot be said of abortion (which group of people is being targeted? Who is coordinating this campaign?). It is a separate and specific evil.

Mass murder doesn’t have to take the form of genocide to be called mass murder.

Before the slaughter of Jews commenced, the Nazi government deliberately changed the law to refer to them as subhumans.

Before the slaughter of preborn babies commenced, the US Supreme Court did the exact same thing by decreeing that they were not persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment (i.e., no person can be deprived of life…without due process of law).

As a result, both groups, for different reasons, were unjustly denied the longstanding western principle of equal protection under the law, and the door was opened to mass murder…pretty striking similarity if you ask me.
Philip P:

If you approach abortion by comparing it to the Nazis, what will this accomplish? Either it will undermine your argument by making people dismiss it, since the historical comparison is slight. Or it will cause those who most need to hear the message to harden their hearts. A women considering an abortion needs to be encouraged to choose life, not called a Nazi.

Certainly one woman having an abortion doesn’t compare to a regime that murdered millions. And no one I know would ever call a woman in that position a Nazi. The comparison has to be made one regime to another. Evil government policy comes from evil government officials and their supporters. In a just society, all are entitled to equal protection under the law. Didn’t you make this point Phillip? How does that happen if governments don’t enforce it? And why would they do that unless we insist on it with our vote? I wonder if God is going to ask us all the very same questions some day.

 

[miguel]

Richardols:

The same is true of people who call abortion “murder.” Murder is a specific crime in every state, and abortion is not legally murder anywhere.

It is morally murder. And as you know, whatever the states legally called it went out the window after Roe.

Richardols:

What talking like that does is to allow the speaker to feel morally superior to another and nothing more. A Street counselor shouldn’t shout “murderess!” at the women approaching an abortion clinic, and other people in civil discourse shouldn’t use the term at all if the aim is to change hearts and not to harden hearts…

The point is, “What are you seeking to do?”

Good point. When it comes to changing hearts, prayer works better than all this hot air.

 

[Philip_P]

miguel:

Mass murder doesn’t have to take the form of genocide to be called mass murder.

Before the slaughter of Jews commenced, the Nazi government deliberately changed the law to refer to them as subhumans.

Before the slaughter of preborn babies commenced, the US Supreme Court did the exact same thing by decreeing that they were not persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment (i.e., no person can be deprived of life…without due process of law).

As a result, both groups, for different reasons, were unjustly denied the longstanding western principle of equal protection under the law, and the door was opened to mass murder…pretty striking similarity if you ask me.
Certainly one woman having an abortion doesn’t compare to a regime that murdered millions. And no one I know would ever call a woman in that position a Nazi. The comparison has to be made one regime to another. Evil government policy comes from evil government officials and their supporters. In a just society, all are entitled to equal protection under the law. Didn’t you make this point Phillip? How does that happen if governments don’t enforce it? And why would they do that unless we insist on it with our vote? I wonder if God is going to ask us all the very same questions some day.

Miguel, I’m not for abortion. I do believe it to be a violation of justice, and contrary to the ideal of equal protection under the law. But the comparison to Nazis does not hold. The unborn are not a “group” in the way that Jews, or Catholics, or Communists, or Royalists, or any other group that has ever been targeted by government extermination campaigns are. And the government is not forcing people to have abortions. Not even the most pro-choice politician has ever suggested that women be required to abort.

Is your point simply that Nazis were evil and abortion is a grave evil? Fine, I agree, but throwing Nazis into the mix just muddies the waters in a counterproductive manner.

At some point I’d like to start another thread on this - i.e. a discussion on approaches to abortion. Right now, though, I’m headed off on a long weekend, so it’ll have to wait.

 

[miguel]

Philip P:

The unborn are not a “group” in the way that Jews, or Catholics, or Communists, or Royalists, or any other group that has ever been targeted by government extermination campaigns are.

Do we really have to define this explicitly? Members of a group share some sort of commonality. In this case, an obvious thing is humanity. Half are boys. Half are girls. They are all within the first 9 months of life. None of them are protected by law from being murdered. This is discrimination against a particular group. One second before birth, fair game. One second later, legal murder.

Whether the government targets you, or let’s someone else do it, doesn’t really make a whole lot of difference. Either way, the government is morally culpable…in the first instance by commission, in the second by omission.

 

[miguel]

Philip P:

…The unborn are not a “group” in the way that Jews, or Catholics, or Communists, or Royalists, or any other group that has ever been targeted by government extermination campaigns are…

Communists were targeted by government extermination campaigns? You’re kidding right? Even Durbin doesn’t think that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P}

The unborn are not a “group” in the way that Jews, or Catholics, or Communists, or Royalists, or any other group that has ever been targeted by government extermination campaigns are.

Please explain your rationalle.

Jews are identified by their ethnicity (anyone who has read the Wansee Protocol can see that.) Catholics, Communists and Royalists were identified by their beliefs. Some people have been targeted for other reasons – for example socio-economic status.

The unborn DO constitute an identifiable group, they ARE dehumanized, and they ARE being killed in the tens of millions.

They ARE a group “in the way that Jews, or Catholics, or Communists, or Royalists, or any other group that has ever been targeted by government extermination campaigns are.”

 

[Richardols]

miguel:

Communists were targeted by government extermination campaigns?

Yes. During World War II by the Germans via the infamous “Commissar Order.”