I need to clarify what I mean by leftists, as the word and the movement can sometimes get tangled. When I say leftist, I am speaking of the “red diaper baby” radicals of the 1960s. When I say liberal, I mean those that are not radical and/or reactionary.
I am an arch-conservative Republican, but have no truck with the latest iteration of the Republican Party. Dubya is not a conservative Republican to me, and his policies and politics show that. Nor is McCain, for that matter. Obama remains something of a cipher to me, largely because there is not enough history behind him and, beyond the beautiful rhetoric, I have been unable to really seize onto anything of substance.
Why do I find the radical Left (capital “L”) contemptible? Because they represent the worst excesses of an elitist intelligentsia that is completely divorced from any sort of objective reality. I used Susan Sontag as an example for a reason. I would include Ward Churchill, Gore Vidal and even Janeane Garofalo in there as well. From the PC movement to the politics of identity, you smell the strong odor of Soviet groupthink and intellectual fascism. Those who control the language do control the culture, and these people have done everything in their power to stifle dissent and debate and impose a monolithic mindset that demands conformity at the risk of ostracism, or worse.
So we’re clear: I would turn to the other end of the spectrum and include Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh also. The Far Right is not immune from the same sort of moral infantilism, it just smells differently.
I find Iran dangerous solely because of the volatility of the region. Iran’s president is bent on provocation and with Israel’s history of hair trigger responses, you run the very real risk of a rapid escalation that moves beyond any one player’s ability to control things.
