Linguistic Accountability

I had the opportunity today on our local Vast Right Wing Conspiracy radio station to talk to a local Democratic state representative. My goal, and the point of this post, was to force the Left to be specific when they throw out their usual litany of buzz phrases with which to smear their opponents or to cause good citizens to fear that some Idaho extremists are trying to take over - that is to say the 'far/radical/extreme/fringe right - FREFR' This local state representative had used that term in a previous interview and it is, as I am sure you all (assuming there is any you all there) are familiar is a standard practice for the left to use - whether politicians or the media.

So, I asked this lady what made one eligible to be included in the FREFR or what specifically, in her mind, she included in this threatening group. The first question was - is a person who opposes RoevWade a FREFR. She said no; I then asked what position on abortion would elevate one to FREFR status . She responded that only a Randall Terry would make the cut.

It was my intention to follow up on severa other areas - opposition to homosexual marriage, support for school vouchers; support for Social Security privatization. The list of questions could easily have been expanded.

Now, I know that more worldly political junkies would likely just shrug and say that both sides attempt to smear their enemies with the broadest and most unflattering characterizations that they can get away with. I am sure that is true. But I am a partisan true-believer, and while I would be the first to admit that my side has its share of liars, power hungry charlatans, and vicious unpleasant political operatives, I still believe that it is a much fairer (and rarer) characterization of Pelosi or Kennedy or even the dark inner soul of Hilary (assuming she still knows where it is or cares to consult it) to characterize them as extreme or far left than say James Dobson (whose radicalism extends to a zealot's fanaticism to protect the nuclear family and have healthy, happy relationships).

But, and I extend this offer to my opponents on the Left, quite confident that should they try it, in most cases they would come out the loser, I would ask my fellow VRWC FREFRs to challenge anyone on the left to explain exactly who is in the FREFR they refer to and why they are there. I think that what the Left would discover, unless they practice they well honed skills as dissemblers, that the FREFR is actually centrist values - a principled objection to RvW on legal, moral and political grounds that wants the matter resolved legistlatively and in a way that would settle the matter and which would impose varying limits on abortion but in all probabilty make it available under some reasonable set of circumstances; that opposes homosexual marriage and has some qualms about the honesty with which the homosexual lifestyle is being presented (I might had the heterosexuality is not without its seamier side, but no one I know is defending that side or claiming that it is healthy or enriching to the human soul); that want some open discussion of schools; that want an opportunity to be able to pass on some of the large sums of money they have contributed to social security to their spouses or children.

As I said, the list could usefully be expanded. But I think that if you pushed a Leftist to be specific, said Leftist would, of necessity, be forced to choose between dishonesty or admitting that the FERFR really, when actually defined in terms of policy preferences, includes the majority of Americans.

So, the vast, invisible and probably imaginary army of CCers, next time you have a chance, attempt as well as you can, to ask a Lefty to be specific when he attempts to suggest without saying it that anything short of a lifetime membership in ACT, People for the American Way and NA(bortion)RAL constitutes makes one a FERFR. I think a lot of people will discover just how radically extremist right they really are - just by being normal, decent, well meaning Americans.