PC Talk Back 1/27/05

An old friend of mine asked me in an e-mail to defend some of my beliefs that I had outlined in an earlier e-mail exchange. Here is the fruits of that labor. I'm reprinting here because I think it truly covers what PC is all about and where I stand in the political spectrum...and I've been sick all day so this is all I had the energy to write ; )

Dear (Reader)

First, I'm flattered you'd compare me to Molly Ivins but I'm not that far to the left. Let us remember, despite the myriad amount of issues I have with the Bush Administration, I still voted for him because I thought Kerry would be so much worse.

Ann Coulter? I love Ann Coulter but I also love black metal and chocolate covered peanut butter, none of which are good for you. If you want to read some reasonable conservative thinking, check out charles Krauthammer or Bill Kristol. Somewhere in the archives of my site and the 411 site there is a review of Ann Coulters last book in which I compare her contributions to political discourse to the contributions of Hall and Nash to WCW circa 1996. Needless to say, as much as I'm willing to read her columns for the laughs they bring me, it is impossible for me to take her seriously. Then there's Sean Hannity ::::shudder::::::he's even worse.

I'm glad you liked the Dimebag Darrell piece. I put a lot of hard work into that. However, I think you are associating racism and elitism with conservatism which is why you keep assuming I'd come from a collectivist philosophy. Let me attempt to clarify a few things.

My politics are mostly green, as I believe I stated in the first e-mail. The ugly truth of the matter is that neither party represents green values. Democrats have two goals, to expand the role of government, if not the size of government, which is collectivism (or communism as you keep saying) and to solidify their own power base. Democrats espouse a liberal philosophical agenda for their own protection. You cannot judge them or take something away from them if in the social sphere of your civilization, anything goes. Frankly, there is no reasonable defense for social relativism or liberalism. In the end it is a philosophy that only hurts the weakest amongst us. Iran is a collectivist society and any reading their literature would show you that it's citizens chafe against the Ayatollah rigid vision of how a society should behave.

Now conservatives on the other hand are Laissez Faire social darwinists. Their core belief is that capitalism should go unchecked and that the only governing force in a society should be the marketplace. I have no tolerance for this shortsighted philosophy either because in practice what Conservatives seem to believe is that where the marketplace creates poverty and dooms an entire portion of ones society, those with money will build walls thick and high enough to protect them from the rabble. With the advent of the internet, that is not only untrue but impossible. However, that doesn't stop the hardcore conservatives from continuing to preach from that gospel.

So then what's left eh? What stops me from voting green as I did in 2000 and has pushed me squarely into the GOP's arms in 2004 is national security. I firmly believe that a strong, slightly insane defense policy is the only weapon that keeps our enemies at bay. Make no mistake about it, if we were to adopt a pacifist stance like France or Japan our enemies would be on shores faster than you could say oops. Do not be lulled into believing we are safe because we seem to making nice with Russia and China. The fact of the matter is that their powers that be are looking for chinks in are armor and if we are not careful, we will in fact expose ourselves. So, despite some of economic interests not being met, I'm stuck with Conservatism because they seem to be the only folks who truly understand the dangers that are out there.

And don't hand me that it's our fault because we've created worldwide poverty which breeds terrorism etc. The matter is far more complicated than that. I offer you the Blood Bankers by James S, Henry. Before you go about laying the woes of the world at our doorstep, I would suggest you read that book. It by no absolves us guilt, but it does lay out the blame everywhere it belongs.

On gay marriage. My issue with gay marriage has less to do with how it affects children in a myopic and specific way but how it affects society at large. Raising gay marriage or any alternative lifestyle to the level of what has been western society's norm for untold years seeks to rip apart our social framework. In short, it's the slippery slope, which I know liberals laugh at when conservatives bring this up but hear me out. Society's that function reasonably well do with an overall social philosophy that may not work for everyone but sets a standard that none the less, everyone must follow. In America, it's Judeo-Christian philosophy. Be mindful here that I am not talking about religion in the organized sense but rather I am referring to a guiding philosophy that separates acceptable behavior from unacceptable behavior. When you start expanding the definition of social norms, such as marriage, which has a specific purpose mind you, you open your society to chaos. You cannot condemn one man for his nuttiness but then accept another man for his when you have to basic structure for defining nuttiness in the first place. I'm sure there are wonderful gay parents and gay couples who want nothing more than to live their life in peace and to each man or woman, I have no issue with that. But in the broader scope of maintaining ones civilization, you must consider the larger impact of widening the definitions of social norms. I ask you this, if it's all relative and it's all good, what social norms should guide us, Western European Liberalism, Saudi Arabian Wahhabism or American Judeo-Christian philosophy? One might say that you live and let live but as you can see from reading the news, the Wahhabists believe their social norms are righteous and seek to put them on us. The Western Europeans think they are advanced and evolved and wish desperately that we'd catch up. Societal maintenance is not as simple as Live and let live and you must consider the many levels of the argument before deciding which belief works for you.

On Israel, it is a fact that Saddam Hussein was financially supporting a myriad of terrorist organizations that were employing suicide bombers against that country. It is on the record that one of Hussein's objectives was to eliminate Israel from the planet by any means necessary. Hussein had already been reprimanded once for having rockets that could reach Israel in the face of UN resolutions specifically saying any rockets had to be less than that distance. Please understand that if we had not pursued the course against Iraq that we have, the sanctions must assuredly would have come down and given enough time, Hussein would have gone to war against Israel either directly or by proxy. My issue is not that we went in to Iraq, my issue is that we seemed to have done it thinking it would be bloodless. I suggest you to The Secret History of the Iraq War by Yossef Bodansky for further clarification.

As a matter of fairness, I too listen to Air America. I actually really like Randy Rhodes but I absolutely cannot stand Franken. Besides, he's on against Rush I have my loyalties
: )

I think this just about covers everything from your last e-mail. Being that it is 1:00am I hope it was coherent. I hope to chat with you again.

Mark