Rewriting History to Support an Argument

A fellow blogger at DownWithTyranny! has taken it upon himself to create a revisionist history of conservatism in America in a post titled: "Where Does It End?-- Confusing Dissent With Violence". I am certainly not one to say that conservative agendas are always correct (probably not any more often than liberal ones).

"If it can’t win the hearts and minds of the majority, it has always sought extra-legal means to arrive at the simple, easy to understand “order” that they strive for. Unable to persuade through logic and the exchange of ideas in civil discourse, the right wing mindset is given to the violent tantrums of an unsophisticated child."

Why do I take issue with this statement? There is truth in what is said here, if you break down what is being said. However, you can also find plenty of instances of liberals who acted much the same in similar circumstances. Perhaps this is a statement that applies to people as a whole, and not just conservatives.

Let me flash back a few years to when conservatives had control of the presidency and congress. This is a video of conservatives peacefully protesting an anti-war rally and being met with violence. (Caution: offensive language)

My point? Not that one side is right and the other wrong, but that both sides have members who ignore our basic right of freedom of speech when it is something they disagree with. Both sides should reject any member who feels that it is ok to trample another person's right to respectfully disagree.

He goes further to state:

"If there has been a political assassination to be had in our history, it has been done to carry out some twisted righty agenda."

A generalization that is patently false. Take, for example, Sirhan Sirhan (assassinated Robert Kennedy), or Leon Czolgosz (assassinated President McKinley), who were certainly not members of any right-wing agenda. It is completely unsubstantiated accusations like this that truly concern me about the state of politics today.

It is certainly worth noting that the author appears to take great pleasure in lumping the present day conservatives in with any historical right-wing party. In effect, he is saying that there is lumping current conservatives in with historical racists, segregationists and slave-owners. The problem is that even the terms conservative and liberal, or right and left are generic terms that can mean almost anything depending on context. Also, while a person may hold to certain right-wing ideas, they may also adhere to left-wing ideas at the same time. The average modern conservative likely has more in common with the liberals of a century ago. Labels are great when someone wants to make divisions sound simple and well-defined, but they are rarely as clear as they might initially seem.

To give him credit, this blogger probably thinks he is making some point that will improve matters in this country. He even made some good points in his blog regarding health care. The problem is that he also made false generalizations that will only offend, which can only lead to further polarization. If he really wants to change minds rather than polarize this country further, he needs to phrase things in a way that will be heard.