BCT Editorial – 8/4/06

This page was last updated on August 5, 2006.

Lost ground; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 4, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“From Washington, D.C., to the Middle East, the center is not holding as politics is going to extremes.”

[RWC] How can you compare political “extremism” in the U.S. to that in the Middle East? As much as I disagree with liberals regardless of how far left they are, I haven’t seen any of them strap bombs on their kids and send them off to kill conservatives.

You’ll note the editorial provides no examples of what it means by “the center” or “extremes.” If you’ve been reading Times editorials, though, you know they promote the belief that liberalism represents “the center.” In other words, liberals tend to be portrayed as “centrists” or “moderates.” You should note that even with a 90%+ rating from Americans for Democratic Action, a politician will be labeled a “moderate.”

Here’s an example. In an editorial referring to then Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, the author wrote, “While he is conservative, he doesn’t seem to be extreme.” The obvious interpretation is that while most conservatives are “extreme,” John Roberts was an exception.

Further, editorials routinely label conservatives or conservative organizations as “conservative”, “rock-sold conservative”, “steadfast conservative”, “rigidly conservative”, et cetera. There’s nothing wrong with that except editorials rarely label liberals in a similar fashion.

The other case in which editorials use conservative is when they try to convince us a liberal really isn’t as liberal as his record says he is. For example, John Doe is a “conservative” Democrat or Democrat John Doe is a “moderate” who leans “conservative” on some issues, like abortion.

In the last 19 months, the only organization or person I’ve seen a Times editorial label as “liberal” was MoveOn.org. In the vast majority of cases, liberal appears only in general terms, such as “liberals want to do this or that.”

“Jon Meacham, author of ‘American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation,’ points out that extremism may be to the 21st century what totalitarianism was to the 20th century. ‘Extremism is a powerful alliance of fear and certitude; complexity and humility are its natural foes,’ he wrote.

“The reasonable middle, those people who say, ‘Yes, but ...,’ is losing ground to those who pursue political, ideological and religious agendas with a certitude that is of frightening and dangerous proportions.”

[RWC] Note the editorial gives no examples of what it calls “pursu[ing] political, ideological and religious agendas with a certitude that is of frightening and dangerous proportions.”

It appears the editorial’s definition of extremism is to believe in a set of principles and be willing to stand up for those principles. What good is belief in a principle if you’re willing to sacrifice that principle for the illusion of political peace?

“This has happened before, and the nation and the world were able to regain their balance - but only after paying a terrible price. The American Civil War is a good example of this.”

[RWC] I’m not sure what the editorial author meant when he wrote, “The American Civil War is a good example of this.” Was he trying to say a little slavery would have been OK?

“The awful question facing us now, though, is whether we have reached the tipping point from which there is no going back.”

[RWC] For what it’s worth, I believe the U.S. would not exist if so-called “moderates” had their way. For example, we would not have had the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and we would have appeased Hirohito, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, et cetera.