- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The author's thesis makes the dangerous assumption that either side of the aisle thinks it can take something positive from the other. A simple experiment, no doubt engaged in by many readers here, seems to disprove this.
On headier days, I like to cruise over to the right-wing blogs a bit. Powerline. Drudge. God help me, even LGF.
I try to look for something, anything in the positions taken (both by the punditry/bloggers and the general rabble) that I could consider rational. Anything that isn't a base appeal to the emotions of conservatives. Anything that smacks of self-examination or self-criticism. It's nonexistant.
The problem I have with this article is that it suggests that the Malkins and Savages of this world actually have something to offer besides blind partisan garbage designed to inflate their paychecks. The right-wing of American politics, in its present form, is simply devoid of rationality and logic. It's a hyper-reactive, frightened, angry strain of ideology - and we've all seen the consequences. Simply put, why should I even try to see eye-to-eye with the people who espouse this crap? Trying to agree with Limbaugh on anything would be worse than futile, because of what Limbaugh and his audience are.
When the right wing in American politics stops using fear and emotion as the only means of spurring political action/opinion, I'll start to treat them like something other than a sick joke.
Powerline and LGF - this is the right wing base. Read the comments sections. Tell me there is any reason - any at all - to consider the political opinions of these people valid. It's all I can do to avoid throwing up on the keyboard.
