Well, at first I nearly stopped reading it. His analysis of liberals' study of Schmidtt seemed to be one of those articles which claims that liberals are the true heirs to the fascist/totalitarian philosophy (as postulated in a book by Jonah Goldberg, all of Ann Coulter's rhetoric or any given episode of Rush Limbaugh's show.) However, I am glad I powered through.
In the end, I agreed with his conclusions about the liberal-conservative dynamic and the legacy of America as a liberal democracy. Liberals are absolutely unwilling to go hammer and tongs after conservatives in a
-for-tat, because the things they value are outside of the conservative "power for powers sake" mentality.
The only thing I would add to his piece would be the finesse with which the modern conservative movement has used the Rovian tactic of turning liberals strengths into weaknesses and also painting liberals with the flaws of conservatives. It is a core tactic they use in their "friend-enemy" dichotomy and also the classic tactic of fascist/totalitarian societies - to hang the blame for all wrongs on "them" and all virtues on "us."
Linear Mode
