The Anti-War Crowd... The Left's Version of the Religious Right?

[Pangloss]

Is the anti-war crowd the left's version of the religious right?

 

- They're particularly zealous about their beliefs

- They don't let reality get in the way of their ideology

- They tend to push a general ideology (in this case liberalism) farther than most people want it to go (i.e. they represent an extreme branch of a larger, more mainstream ideological framework)

 

Legitimate comparison, or Panglossian nonsense?

 

Just to help spur the discussion, here's an amusing article about anti-war activists getting their hair all tussled over Democrats "backing down" on the war funding bill:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070523.htm

[Realitycheck]

I would say that they are more like, "What's the point? Half of the world already hates us. It's not our job to fix every little disagreement in the world. That's the U.N.'s job. War wastes our money, makes us look bad, and kills our troops. Pull out all of the doctrines that you want, but sooner or later, we'll be spending another trillion dollars fixing the mistakes that we made in this campaign."

[ParanoiA]

Legitimate comparison. Maybe it's more of a pacifism movement within the liberal think tank the way that the religious movement has infected the conservatives. Interesting post.

[Dak]

They don't let reality get in the way of their ideology

 

how so?

[Phi for All]

"Anti-War" seems much more specific and focused than "Religious Right". And let's be honest about this, if you're going to label it it should be "Anti-Iraq-War". I'm not sure that same crowd would be against every war, just the ones they feel are unjustified.

 

Religious Right seems more like a platform from which to launch many attacks (abortion, drugs, prostitution, etc.) while the Anti-Iraq-War campaign is just one attack. At this point I don't think you can equate the two.

 

I could easily see an Anti-War platform taking shape from the left, with the idea that corruption from mega-corporations and politicians escalates when we're at war and the country is spending billions that can be "patriotically justified". I personally hate the dichotomy of wanting a strong country but being at the mercy of defense contractors and arms merchants in order to get it. And the dichotomy that we need to be informed of why our country wants to go to war but since we're just civilians they have to keep secrets from us in the name of security.

 

But I would also hate the idea that we should NEVER go to war at all, ever. War can be justified. A leftist platform of opposition to any war would be foolhardy. I think diplomacy should be higher on the list of options, but I want to at least *have* war as an option, even if we never get to that point.

[Pangloss]

how so?

 

Two examples:

 

- War is sometimes necessary, such as when you're invaded or attacked, or helping an ally who has been invaded or attacked; that's the reality of the world

 

- There is also a political reality that the anti-war crowd obtusely ignores; politicians often have to compromise in order to move an agenda forward (something ideological partisans always struggle with)

 

The angst they're experiencing at the moment over the war spending bill (discussed in the article I posted) is a typical example. They're angry because Democrats "caved", when in fact Democrats had no choice. There was no "win" scenario there.

[Pangloss]

"Anti-War" seems much more specific and focused than "Religious Right". And let's be honest about this, if you're going to label it it should be "Anti-Iraq-War". I'm not sure that same crowd would be against every war, just the ones they feel are unjustified.

 

Well let me clarify, then. The specific group I want to talk about in this thread is the anti-war crowd in general. Not the anti-Iraq war crowd.

 

With regard to Iraq specifically, I want to talk about that sector of the anti-Iraq War crowd that opposes the Iraq war on the more general anti-war grounds, not the specifics of the Iraq War that most people find objectionable, such as the lack of WMDs or the failure to avoid civil war, etc.

 

Having clarified that, I still think it's a valid point that the anti-war crowd is a more specific focus group than the religious right. But I don't know that that necessarily invalidates the comparison. I'll have to give it some thought.

 

 

Religious Right seems more like a platform from which to launch many attacks (abortion, drugs, prostitution, etc.) while the Anti-Iraq-War campaign is just one attack. At this point I don't think you can equate the two.

 

Right, or to use my clarification, the religious right is more generalized than the anti-war crowd as well. So I think you're right to point out that the comparison is not 100%. But are there similarities?

[gcol]

The anti-war crowd. That is a very broad church, and getting broader. Almost non-denominational and all-inclusive now. I think it is just a generally left of centre umbrella which includes and welcomes animal rights activists, vegans, and chimp lovers.

 

At least this broad grouping seems at odds with Southern Fundies, so it can't be all bad. If it makes some converts, I'll give it a sly nod of approval if I'm in a surveillance camera blindspot.

[Haezed]

Is the anti-war crowd the left's version of the religious right?

 

- They're particularly zealous about their beliefs

- They don't let reality get in the way of their ideology

- They tend to push a general ideology (in this case liberalism) farther than most people want it to go (i.e. they represent an extreme branch of a larger, more mainstream ideological framework)

 

Legitimate comparison, or Panglossian nonsense?

 

Just to help spur the discussion, here's an amusing article about anti-war activists getting their hair all tussled over Democrats "backing down" on the war funding bill:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070523.htm

 

Excellent point. To this the list I would add:

 

- They are more apt to villify those with whom they disagree than to acknowledge a good faith difference of opinion.

[GutZ]

Yeah definitely the world is full of crazy people whether they lean to left or the right. It's just easier to make fun/point out the mistakes of the right-wingers types because they are seen as passionless demons.

 

How do you hate someone who zealously want to stop a war vs someone who zealously want to start a war.

 

It should be a balance and this why I hate partisanship but that's another topic.

[bascule]

War is sometimes necessary

 

So by "anti-war" crowd, are you talking about people who are opposed to war in general, or opposed to the Iraq war

 

There is also a political reality that the anti-war crowd obtusely ignores; politicians often have to compromise in order to move an agenda forward (something ideological partisans always struggle with)

 

I think Bush is the largest offender there, and the group you're slamming is largely frustrated with him

[ParanoiA]

Excellent point. To this the list I would add:

 

- They are more apt to villify those with whom they disagree than to acknowledge a good faith difference of opinion.

 

Nice one.

[Pangloss]

So by "anti-war" crowd, are you talking about people who are opposed to war in general, or opposed to the Iraq war

 

Right.

 

 

I think Bush is the largest offender there, and the group you're slamming is largely frustrated with him

 

The largest of what? Recent transgressors? Certainly that. But this is a group that has been vocal and active ever since Vietnam. I don't think they give a fig about Bush one way or the other. They hate Billary every bit as much as they hate George. They're left-wingers, but they're not Democrats.

[foodchain]

Maybe a chunk of the anti-war crowd simply hates the idea of war. Now, not to say I agree or disagree, but an "organized" gathering of humans killing each other probably is not everyone’s cup of tea. The reason I would hate on say the anti-war crowd is that its easy to simply be against something in life, I know I share in this fault on some levels also, but its a whole different issue to be able to solve such problems. Example, there is an anti-nuke crowd, but for what its worth I praise such technology as I would guess we would be on WW6 by now if not for such items.

 

I think it boils down to nature and nurture really, and the human condition, which far be it from me to simply say we have all kinds of unknown variables in that equation towards understanding, yet this does not preclude the seemingly endless amount of idiots that want to get on a soapbox and start a religion for instance.

 

So to simply hate on the anti war crowd, well sure its possible, but in a world less the perfectly objective, what progression does that make?

[Realitycheck]

Fear is the root of all undoing, whether you're talking about fear of other cultures, fear of other countries, fear of disease, fear of women, etc., etc., and especially fear of the unkown, most notably fear of unknown futures, and this is what drives the world. So we position and manipulate and so on and so on and where does it ever get us? Our actions are transparent and they adjust, over and over. I always say, "Why couldn't we be more like Switzerland?"

 

Yesterday, I went back to being an atheist, in case you didn't know. Thank you SF.

[bascule]

Right.

 

The largest of what? Recent transgressors? Certainly that. But this is a group that has been vocal and active ever since Vietnam. I don't think they give a fig about Bush one way or the other. They hate Billary every bit as much as they hate George. They're left-wingers, but they're not Democrats.

 

Wow, we largely agree. Sweet.

[Pangloss]

So to simply hate on the anti war crowd, well sure its possible, but in a world less the perfectly objective, what progression does that make?

 

I'm not "hating on" the anti-war crowd, I'm pointing out their similarity to another group. The "progrssion" THAT makes is that it goes to consistency. If we determine that the groups are similar, then we have to be consistent in holding them responsible for their behavior.

[Pangloss]

Fear is the root of all undoing, whether you're talking about fear of other cultures, fear of other countries, fear of disease, fear of women, etc., etc., and especially fear of the unkown, most notably fear of unknown futures, and this is what drives the world. So we position and manipulate and so on and so on and where does it ever get us? Our actions are transparent and they adjust, over and over. I always say, "Why couldn't we be more like Switzerland?"

 

Yadayadayada.

 

In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

 

Witty sayings and fanciful slogans don't a case make.

[Realitycheck]

Yadayadayada. .

 

Don't make me pull out my fine details. You wouldn't like it if I pulled out my fine details. Heil me!