BLOG – WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE LEFT?

A major problem with the left is that many, not all, but many within its ranks tend to short-circuit potentially meaningful dialog by creating and fighting against caricatures of their opponents rather than their real opponents.

by John Tyburski

Copyright © I Need Politics, Tony Alexiou. All rights reserved.

First published at I Need Politics on May 15, 2014

Last week, I examined a political flap in Wisconsin over plans for an independent horror film that will satirize both the Tea Party and the generally polarized politics in this nation. In asking what’s wrong with the right, I suggested that perhaps the right is too sensitive, dishes out but cannot take insults, and suffers from an overabundance of anger-inducing, highly vocal media spokesmen. Now I think it is only fair to look at left and talk about what is wrong on this side. Examining whether actual ideas are right or wrong is for another time. By “wrong,” regardless of whether in describing the right or the left, I mean things that stifle rational, civil dialogue.

A major problem with the left is that many, not all, but many within its ranks tend to short-circuit potentially meaningful dialog by creating and fighting against caricatures of their opponents rather than their real opponents. This is particularly prevalent in conversations among strangers in which it is much easier to make false assumptions about one another. I find that many of my discussions follow this general pattern: someone makes a wholly leftist declaration, I register my disagreement with that declaration in what I think is a polite but direct manner, and the leftist responds by saying things like, “That’s stupid, ridiculous, ignorant,” followed by some obligatory name-calling. You know, the usual stuff, “bigot, homophobe, religious fundamentalist, misogynist, gun-loving cowboy,” etc. Then we often enter into the part of the conversation in which I am told that I need to review the Wikipedia article on logic. It is extremely rare for my opponent to accuse me of an actual logical fallacy, mind you. Nevertheless, this has become a favorite, to accuse the challenger of being stupid and ignorant of the laws of logic.

Don’t get me wrong—I have floated some unsound arguments; I won’t deny it.. But let’s come to an understanding about logic and debate. Disagreeing with an argument is not equivalent to possessing a better understanding of its logic. Being discomforting, distasteful or unpleasant is not a fallacy. For example, I recently challenged someone on their claim that because Nigerian school girls were abducted in the first place, there cannot be any divine providence in the effort to find and rescue them. Their premise is that God, if He exists, will not “put anyone in such distress.” Their conclusion is that God is not involved in the outcome. A major assumption is that God, if He exists, orchestrates all human activities, including the kidnapping of Nigerian school girls. Otherwise, He either does not intervene in any human activities at all or simply does not exist. In fact, this argument presents us with a false choice: we either choose God and His superintendence over all events or no god at all.  False choice is an informal fallacy in logic.

My response to Mr. False Choice was not to harangue him for his fallacy but to counter along the lines of Ravi Zacharias’s moral law argument against the “evil-exists-therefore-god-does-not” argument: If you say there is such a thing is good, you must recognize that there is such a thing as evil. If you recognize that there is such a thing as evil, then you must recognize there is such a thing as a moral law. If you recognize that there is such a thing as a moral law, then you must recognize that there is such a thing as a moral law giver—I call that moral law giver “God.” This earned me some painful verbal stripes. I was told how stupid, silly, flawed, weak, tired, and illogical my argument was. Only once was an actual fallacy attributed to my argument (straw man), an accusation that didn’t hold. All I managed to do was invite a firestorm of scorn for my “flawed logic” from a group that itself had some shortcomings in the logic department.

It’s fine if members of the left have shortcomings because hey, I do too! But to accuse the opposition of these shortcomings while pretending to not share in them is problematic. I presume that my overly brief shot at “God exists” incited much more emotional response than critical examination. And this is to the left’s discredit because emotional response results in unfair and unfounded attacks which are not directed at the speaker but at a caricature of the speaker. Mention God in a positive way and your opposition only sees Jimmy Swaggart standing before them. This stifles meaningful dialog, constitutes an attempt to silence the opposition, and contributes to the polarization of politics in this nation today. I often find myself pleading with my liberal friends to relax and take things down a notch, from “DefCon four” to say maybe one or two. Then, please, dialog with me, not who you imagine me to be. The left could really regain some credibility and listening ears by being less emotional and offensive in public discourse.