A Call for an End to Political Timidity

The debate in the United States has become increasingly frustrating as the Right voluntarily gives up one key speaker after another simply because they say things that are offensive to the Left. These are people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Pamela Geller, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and others. Perhaps the better way to say it is that these in their pursuit to focus on the deep details of current events to say things that are less concerned about offending people than about advancing the debate.

The fact is that debate is not the Left as a whole vs. the Right as a whole. It is a debate of each individual point of argument. Very few of these points of argument contain much middle ground which often makes me scratch my head over the term moderate. If there are 100 main debate points where the truth lies either on the Left or on the Right, one can go with one side on one point and the other on another point. The concept of moderate however is often conveyed as being somewhere in the middle of ideology as a whole.

Each voice, not matter where they are in ideology, engages in debate on each point one by one; and even if an individual voice is wrong or offensive much of the time, it does not prevent them from being accurate on a given point. Many seem to be quick to cut off a voice if that voice has in some way given offense. Many right of center run from those named above and have written them off. The fact is that if you talk a lot (especially unscripted), are consistently interesting, want to spark controversial debate and are confident in your opinions - you will offend people from time to time. Those named above may have said offensive things and at times smack of arrogance, but the important thing is they are willing to stick their neck out and push the envelope to get people to think. They are also masterful at articulating the issues.

As we have seen in politics, the most destructive force has been the RINO. The RINO has blurred lines, clouded the water, tarnished the GOP brand and taken the motivation to even vote away from many people. In the public debate, there does not have to be party affiliation. However, most people see the public debate as only having two sides. There are, however, at least three groups: the purists on each side and then this big lump in the middle. The debate that occurs in the middle often lacks clarity, effectiveness and progress. Topics go on and on, back and forth with listeners and readers losing attention rapidly.

It is often those voices clearly on each side that ever make advancement in the public debate. When a story, or topic grows legs, or takes wings it is often originating from one or other of the purist's camps. People like Ann Coulter and Pamela Geller frequently cause a major stir when they speak out. They do not hold their punches and instead of worrying about being offensive, they sometimes go out of their way to be offensive. They will discuss things that need to be discussed, but others are two fearful to address.

In summary, the public debate will not be won while debaters are hostage to timidity, fear of offending and middle of the road messages. Some are taking the lead with boldness and clarity. If they happen to go too far, perhaps a reprimand is in order. However, to throw them away is to risk being trapped in the middle or worst to allow the public debate to be lost to the other side. One of the problems I had with the Bush Administration was their affinity for winning a political battle without winning the public debate. They would use all the tools at their disposal to get their agenda advanced - everything except participating in and winning the public debate.

In voting, it is better to vote out the RINOs and lose, than keep voting them in just to win. In the public debate, it is better to risk offense and win the debate than to be too moderate and lose the clarity necessary to capture attention. It is better to convince the people of what is right than to cater to them when they are wrong.

The Stockholm Syndrome of the Left

In my memory this is the craziest season of remembrance of the attacks on 9/11 2001. All along the Left has acted in ways one can only shake their head in disbelief, but lately their Stockholm Syndrome has been raised to a fevered pitch. There are two reasons to explain their behavior: sympathy with Islamic radicals or Stockholm Syndrome. I have given them the benefit of the doubt. Stockholm syndrome has been defined by Wikipedia as " paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims..."

Nothing points to evidence of skewed thinking on the left as the full court press of the media to defend and encourage the building of the Islamic community center near Ground Zero. Obama and the media have tried to frame this as a religious freedom issue. I have not heard anybody of substance claim that Muslims have less right to build a mosque than Christians have to build a church. Yet that is the framed argument of the Left.

Obama said his comments reflected the right to build the community center, not the wisdom of it. The vocal victims and the those on the Right have only been focused on that latter point - the wisdom of building it in the shadow of Ground Zero. It is a huge insult to the death site of those found there and the burial site of those never found. The building of this proposed center has an upper floor where Ground Zero can be seen. How many radical Muslims will go to the top of that building and overlook the site with joy in their hearts at their greatest victory over the Great Satan? Somehow the media can find all those people in the South and at Tea Party rallies that are racist bigots, yet in their view all of Islam in the US is pure from any such hatred and bigotry?

History tells us of the consistent practice by Islam of planting victory flags in places where they have defeated their enemies. See a photo collage and a good write-up on this here. I have not heard anyone from the mainstream media even present the perspective of how the loved ones of victims might feel - except of course the one or two that for whatever reason think it is a great idea.

Then the media descended on this loony pastor in Florida that wanted to burn a Koran. There was story after story from one perspective after another: how loony he is (given), how offensive to Muslims this would be, how it puts people in danger (not sure how they align that with their 'religion of peace' mantra). The mainstream media left out burning of Bibles and crosses in Gaza in 2007. They failed to discuss the Muslim Taliban's destruction of the ancient Buddhist statues. The missed the Muslim destruction of churches in Egypt, Indonesia, India, Kosovo, Nigeria and many other places.

Apparently the pastor has decided not to burn the Koran. I think that is a good idea. We should respect the beliefs and views of others no matter how much we disagree with them. The destruction of that which others view as sacred is particularly ugly. What I think the pastor should have done instead was to take a collage of pictures of the 9/11 terrorists and burn it saying it signifies these 19 pieces of crap are burning in hell to this day. I would be particularly interested to hear the views of "moderate Muslims" on where they think the souls of the 19 terrorists do reside. Has anybody asked the Imam who wants to build the community center what he thinks of this?

In the face of all this madness, there are many, many of us still out here remembering with great respect, grief, anger and loyalty those people who fell on this day nine years ago. We will never forget.