For more on the silliness of calls for "unity", I refer you to Mark Steyn's recent column on the virtues of confrontation.
According to The Sunday Telegraph, on this week's whirlwind tour of the Great Satan, the Prince of Wales "will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam…because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11". His Royal Highness apparently finds the Bush approach to Islam "too confrontational".If the Prince wants to take a few examples of the non-confrontational approach with him to the White House, here's a couple pulled at random from the last week's news: the president of Iran called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". Kofi Annan expressed his "dismay".
Excellent. Struck the perfect non-confrontational tone. Were the Iranian nuclear programme a little more advanced and they'd actually wiped Israel off the map, the secretary-general might have felt obliged to be more confrontational and express his "deep concern".
In Sulawesi, Indonesia, three Christian girls walking home from school were beheaded.
"It is unclear what was behind the attack," reported the BBC, scrupulously non-confrontationally.
In the Australian state of Victoria, reports the Herald Sun, "police are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits". Tough luck for us infidel wife-beaters, but admirably non-confrontational Islam-wise.
The main difficulty the Left faces is that they are afraid to confront anyone or anything because their ideology prevents them from convincing themselves that any position is better than any other. Self-contradictory, I know, which is why they have such a hard time writing coherent policy or getting elected.
MW: I don't have that problem.
There's another issue here, though... and that's the lack of representation of centrists and moderates on both sides. Centrists and moderates are the largest group of people in America. Most people aren't "conservatives" or "liberals"... members of the "Right" or the "Left". They're something in between.
Right now I don't think the majority of the country is too thrilled with our Republican-led Congress and Republican-controlled White House. If they were, approval ratings of both would be higher.
So, to borrow a concept from your other recent "unity" thread, why should the moderate majority continue to put up with a disproportionately powerful and influential extreme minority?
The main difficulty the Left faces is that they are afraid to confront anyone or anything because their ideology prevents them from convincing themselves that any position is better than any other. Self-contradictory, I know, which is why they have such a hard time writing coherent policy or getting elected.
MW: I think you have just nailed precisely the problem at the core of the Left's lack of persuasiveness. Unfortunately, confidence is an attractive leadership characteristic and the Left seem to forget that. BTW, for those who don't know me, I consider myself more left than right. See, there I go suggesting that I could be wrong;)