Absolutism, The Far Left, and the Abandonment of Reason

There is something that I have realized this election, more than anything else, and it's bound to piss a lot of people off, but it really needs to be said.

Let me begin by saying that I am about as far left as one gets in terms of my political ideology and my policy beliefs. I've been verbally attacked, criticized, abused, hurt, and almost beaten down because of the liberal and progressive ideals that I hold. And for the longest time, I felt that my ideas above everyone else's, my staunch, unwavering support for far left positions and policies, were the only true way to think and be. In many ways, it's still hard for me to think otherwise, and to think outside of my own emotions and feelings.

I attend Bard College, which, for anyone that knows about it, is arguably the most liberal college in the country, and certainly on the east coast. The Princeton Review ranked it as the #2 most politically liberal college in the country, and with good reason.

When I got to Bard, I thought I would be perfectly at home, because there would be so many people who shared my far left views on things. I was right, to an extent. But I was wrong in anticipating that most would agree with my views. Instead, they prescribe to an even more leftist view. I like to say there's more Commies than Dems. at Bard, and it would probably be true.

Something I soon realized was how closed-minded many of the far leftists that I met were, to the point of attacking me for my views, which in my life I always believed were further left than normal (and I'm from Vermont of all liberal places). There was a childish immaturity that came into any discussion that did not adhere to their opinions and beliefs, to the point of absolutist doctrines and agendas. "My way or the highway" attitudes that we all know so well, and have for the past seven and a half years criticized unendingly.

Since Obama won the nomination, I have been unable to find much of, if any difference with this absolutist doctrine I see from the far left at my college, and the way in which the far left netroots present themselves online. All dealing in absolutes, all dealing in "my way or the highway," "I know better than anyone else" agendas.

There's no middle ground, and no compromise, and the far left netroots are happy with it being that way, even at the expense of actual progress taking place. As long as you hold to (their idea of) "principles," the world is gonna be OK. Kos recently gave a big "fuck you" to anyone that didn't like his refusal to contribute (talk about reasonableness). And then we have the rhetoric that on first read might not sound so bad, but upon maybe a second or third, really starts to come into fruition. One person (rightly) pointed out on a blog that, (and I'm paraphrasing here), "to the right, if you support choice, you're a murderer. If you support the ACLU, you're unpatriotic and hate America. On the left if you don't think FISA is the end of the world you hate the constitution.

It all deals in absolutes. These are rhetorical devices not used simply by the far right, but by the far left that criticize the far right for that very nature. I wonder how anyone thinks they can enact change and spread progressivism when dealing in such strict absolutes. When did absolutism accomplish anything? Especially in the United States, which founded itself on the concept of "checks and balances"? (I can just see the comments deriding me and Obama for eroding such checks and balances). But things don't work in absolutes. The world isn't so black and white, cut and dry. Such reductive ideology is juvenile in its very nature.

It's amazing to me that such hypocrisy exists, where the far-left criticizes the far-right for saying McCain is too liberal (Ann Coulter was outspoken for this talking point), but then goes ahead and criticizes Obama for being too conservative. Or maybe he's just too black. Or too white.

It doesn't help that once-respected bloggers such as Arianna Huffington and (most especially and disgustingly) Glen Greenwald have prescribed to such an absolutist ideology. Compromise just doesn't exist.

Yet it doesn't matter that the constitution itself was written through years of long, hard-fought battles which resulted in scathing compromises for practically every side. No one got everything they wanted. Many of the founding fathers were furious with the result, but through such compromises, real and true progress was made. But to such absolutist netroots, none of that matters. Compromise is unacceptable. Anything less than their idea of what's right is wrong, without question, without a second-thought.

One of the most eye-opening and rational pieces I've ever read was on The Huffington Post, by Bob Cesca (I would encourage you all to read it). He rightly pointed out, quoting a diary from the DailyKos,

Russ Feingold may have been the lone voice standing up to the first Patriot Act, but he voted for the confirmations of John Ashcroft and John Roberts.

Paul Wellstone was a strong liberal voice in the Senate, yet he voted for DOMA and the Patriot Act.

Dennis Kucinich, aside from being on the political fringe, was a lifelong pro-lifer until he decided he wanted to run for president.

Chris Dodd may do quite well on constitutional matters, but he voted for the Iraqi war, the Patriot Act, and is too beholden to the big banks and the hedge funds which he oversees from the Senate Banking Committee.

Talk about hypocrisy from the left concerning Obama's stances and votes. He followed by saying,

You and I could wait a lifetime for a skeleton key presidential nominee to come along who flawlessly interfaces with each of our pet issues, and, consequently, we'd probably die a politically disappointed and overly cynical death.

Honestly, he's right. And so is Obama. We need change. And if he's a "centrist" for his stance on gay rights (for which my gay father and friends cheer him on), and a centrist for his pro-choice and women's rights stance (for which my feminist friends love him), or his stance on energy and the environment (for which my green hippie friends praise him), or his stance on technology and net-neutrality (for which my techie computer geek friends applaud him), then I guess I'll have to consider myself a "centrist" too.