Barely know Andrew Sullivan from Adam, so I take from strictly your tone - you disagree with him about something.

However, then I must disagree with you about something you asserted, that is both false and offensive: "The philosophy that underlies Democrat thinking is socialism. And only the looniest of leftists can now openly avow it." I am a Democrat in the sense that Reagan, Bush I, Bungle, and the hosts of Repugnants in the Congress and the Courts have convinced me that Repugnants don't support meritocracy. Else all of THEM, at least, would have died of embarrassment by now. Had any of those cited risen to the level of minimal humanity, I suppose I might still be a Republican. As to socialism, if, reluctantly, it must be, then perhaps at least we get to seize all the rich SOBs' stolen lucre and we'll be relieved of the burden of further enriching them.

Can anyone figure out what this guy is trying to say? Perhaps English is not his first language...

I know his type. He's working for Rove. Scabs like him are burrowing into every People's group, to poison the wells and muddy the streams!

John: I appreciate that Repugnants and neocons have so distorted the English language that when that language is used in its normal form, it appears to them incomprehensible.
So, short words, simple, direct thoughts:

1. I gather, without interest, that the author of the post disagrees with Andrew Sullivan about something. Who cares what? Surely, this much you follow?

2. In support of the attack upon Sullivan, the author tosses in an observation, quoted in my post: "The philosophy that underlies Democrat thinking is socialism. And only the looniest of leftists can now openly avow it." Ok, so far?

3. Since the theme is disagreement, I express my disagreement with the author:
The "left" may not be socialist at all, given the "right"'s refusal to present any argument to
support that charge. The "left", at least in my
case, is simply unwilling to accept the "right"'s tendency to reward mediocrity - or worse - and to believe it is their "right" to be rewarded for being "right". Tain't so.
You may not agree, but surely you follow the argument?

4. In pursuit of the "left"'s agenda, were we to
find ourselves unfortunately embracing socialism, there would be one silver lining to that cloud: we would then get to see if ANY Repugnant - oooops - "right" person could survive
without either wealth they did not earn, or the same safety net from the Government which they currently decry. After all, that is what socialism does - redistribute wealth - isn't it? And the first move *I* would promote in that new paradigm, would be to seize the unearned wealth accrued by those 7500 families, and end the Corporate Welfare which has largely created that wealth.

5. I lied about short words, and may have mislead about simple ideas.

Lucy, m'dear, if you post this sort of paranoid scribble on the Web, people can Google it, and you will kiss any chance of future employment out the window. Or have you already joined the ranks of the "discouraged?"

This poor fellow is obviously a Libertarian whose mental balance has been destroyed by the internal contradictions of his creed. He should be treated with tact and pity, not baited like some animal in a cage.

Not at all discouraged - I retired a few years early, due to some fortuitous timing in the stock market - and I "got mine". The problem is, since I don't see any examples of worth-while Repugnants, I just cannot bring myself to vote for any of the creepuscles. Leaves me a Dem for life, in all probability, since I don't see on the horizon any effort by the Repugnants to rid themselves of the plague they have invited upon themselves - the plague of heartless inhumanity, with only sanctimonious (and ill-interpreted) "Christianity" for cover. Really don't like them, since I feel betrayed by the very existence of such.

Mr Gwinn,

If you are disputing the general argument "The philosophy that underlies Democrat thinking is socialism", then you need to present a general counter-argument. The particular argument that you personally don't happen to be a socialist is not relevant. Nor is the fact that leftists find Republicans mediocre--that is not evidence as to any underlying philosophy.

You've made no argument, just expressed peevishness. I will have to take your words as evidence that my statement is correct.

And I must say you have a unique sort of socialism in mind, that would remove the "safety net." I don't think I've heard that one before...

John-John: do not propose to remove the safety net, but rather to revel in the recourse to said net by those who currently decry same - IFF socialism should indeed seize us.

General argument: the thing that IS the Democrat's essence need be no further explained than all those who oppose mediocrity and worse; who tire of the anti-science and false religiosity of the "right"; who wish to be rid of all who attempt or intend to prevent us from behaving as we wish, so long as no other person is specifically injured by that behavior; and who believe that the only govenrment secret that is protected by ethic or Constitution, is such a secret as would rend the very Earth, as opposed to merely the political careers and freedom from incarceration, of every Repugnant officeholder since Eisenhower. Those are the unifying principals of "the left", since we are pretty much reduced to an/the opposition party to the fascism of the Repugnants.

John Weidner:

My bad! No disrespect intended in the "John-John" address of my previous post: I used that as a marker for a subsequent full-name edit; then I read the preview uncritically, and posted without even noticing that tag. OOOPS! My mediocrity seems to have surfaced.

'Those are the unifying principals of "the left"'. In other words, you are nihilists, you believe in nothing.

But in fact, that's not the case. Every once in a while we see leftists for something. And since those somethings invariably involve the enlargement of government power, or attacks on those institutions that interpose themselves between individuals and the state, it is clear that the animating belief is socialism (though it is probably not consciously avowed).

John Weidner: YOUR take - that opposing the bad, is believing in nothing. Hardly the same thing, actually; for belief in, and support for, the good inheres in that opposition to the bad.

Unfortunately, before we can build anew, we must remove the fetid carcass of the Repugnancy which pervades our nation; and so, our first cause is to eliminate, to destroy, that edifice of mediocrity (and worse) which has been fortified to thwart our righteous cause.

*MY* take - that you will do anything necessary to evade, avoid, and deny, the essential nature of the Repugnant animal: evil unleashed, and incarnated individually in elected/selected officeholders, collectively in the dismal and corrupt Party whence these individuals spring.

As to what we "left"ists would supply, to replace that corruption? Almost ANYTHING would be better, but a few starters would be the incarceration of any person or persons attempting to deny the vote to any citizen, or to deny the open counting of that vote - and recounting, should that be prudent; the use of RICO to undo Halliburton, EXXon, the NRA, and most of the media goliaths, followed by the seizure of the assets of those entities shown to have voted controlling interest in violation of national interests (as defined by me, of course); 100% estate tax on everything above, say, $5m - no, make that 110%, just to be sure we provide jobs for the lawyers that the IRS is pink-slipping to avoid doing any enforcement of estate tax law; actual enforcement of the "interlocking directorates" doctrine for our Corporations; and, having removed some of the impediments to construction, how about letting people do what they wish, so long as it harms no other specific individual? Why should we endure silly laws enabling censors? Who cares what the gender may be, of two adults who choose to marry?
It may be provident to ensure that each is aware of the blood-borne diseases to which the other is subject, but beyond that, why should I - or the State - care? I might - MIGHT - even listen to argument that polygamy is not a bad thing; but I would resist even the argument that concealed-carry should be hidden from local (or other) law enforcement.

Of course, this is barely a sketch of the idea, and somewhat deliberately provocative - but there are things the "left" is for.

That's a socialist program. So why did you find it offensive when I called you "socialists?"

John Weidner: where is the socialism in incarcerating criminals? Is it in the definition of the crime(s)? Well, theft is pretty generally recognized as a crime in every civilized society, so prosecution under RICO statutes would hardly qualify as a "socialist program" - would it?

Seizure of assets gained from criminal enterprise is a well-established policy and practice in RICO (and other) prosecutions, so that notion would hardly warrant the charge of a "socialist program" - would it?

Prosecution of those attempting to disenfranchise qualified citizens would certainly not qualify as a "socialist program" - since the franchise per se is nonpartisan - would it?

I cannot *SEE* socialist implications in allowing any two consenting adults to marry, with full rights accorded - but perhaps I am missing something? Removing the State from its role as putative guardian of our moral character might be many unthinkable things, but it would not be a "socialist program" - would it?

What's left upon which this charge of a "socialist program" could be based?

*REVELATION - IT MUST BE THE ESTATE TAX THINGY!*
That is one point on which you would be (no pun) DEAD wrong! Those who earn would have full benefit, however accorded in current or proposed tax law, of their earnings. The only thing is, there would then be a limit on how much could pass beyond the death of that earner and his/her spouse. Think about that proposition: there would be inherent incentive to use wealth, rather than merely amass it. There would be removed the severe handicap under which our system currently labors, of supporting those useless scions of deceased merit, our aristocracy of inherited wealth. There would be removed from our corporate structure, the burden of inept management and boards, imposed by the "old-boy" network postings of incompetent relatives of deceased creators of wealth. There would be added to our labor pool, all those whose grandfathers $5m had run out. Utopia? Yeah, *I* think so. But it isn't a "socialist program" - is it?

Gwinn, you are fooling yourself.

Defining your political enemies as criminals, then imprisoning them and giving their assets to the state. Sweeping interventions in the marketplace and confis cations of personal wealth. Attacks on traditional morality and institutions...Lenin would have called you Mini-me

John Weidner:

The only delusions suffered here are yours: that you can fling charges without substance, and by the mere act of flinging, inflict mortal wounds upon arguments which you choose not to address directly.

Note that I anticipated your claim that the "socialist program" aspect of your view of use of RICO (and other conspiracy-based prosecutions) would lie in the definition of the crimes; but, since theft, bribery, obstructing justice, etc., are already recognized crimes, we on the left are not engaging a "socialist program" in our aim to imprision your criminals -or, if we are, how so?

Reversion to the State of assets derived from criminal enterprise are commonplace under RICO and other statutory approaches to criminal conspiracy, so again, if we leftists are engaging a "socialist program" therein, how so?

Sweeping interventions in the marketplace? Again, only in the sense of undoing that criminal enterprise, of enforcing the doctrine of barring interlocking directorates, of banning collusion and other fraudulent practice - why, in light of your rush to defend traditional morality, I would have thought you would be delighted by such evidence that we are not so far apart. However, aside from your framing, there is no hint here of "socialist program"; or if there is, how so?

Aside from wondering what interest the State has in the gender(s) of two consenting adults who wish to marry, I must have sleepwritten the chapter in which I undertook attacks on traditional morality and institutions; for I cannot recall, nor find in the posting, any such. But, if you provide substantial basis for that State interest, or for the role of the State as guardian of our morality, I would even consider withdrawing that point. On the other hand, you have taken great care to avoid advancing any argument beyond the decree that the left is founded in a "socialist program", so I again wonder - how so?

Oh - it comes down to the estate tax again?

Oh - I see you couldn't even rebut THAT, nor depict it as a "socialist program"?

Calling something criminal doesn't make seizures of wealth any less socialist. Mao defined being a "landlord" as criminal, and killed about 10 million of them, and took their stuff. This was no less socialist because of the gloss of "criminal prosecution."

Marriage is a public institution; it involves giving public and governmental support and recognition to those who promise to live up to its forms. It is designed to promot stable families. Gay Marriage is an attack on the traditional form of marriage, because it says that marriage is just whatever this year's fad is, and because it recognizes those who are not likely to produce families.

Why is that socialist? Because socialists have consistently tried to destroy those institutions, such as the family, that come between the individual and the state.

John Weidner:

Why is it difficult to accept the nature - current and ongoing - of the thefts, corrupt practices, fraud, bribery - with which this administration - oh, and every Repugnant State government in the nation - is already embroiled? Those are certainly crimes, even in the dim Repugnant lexicon. What MIGHT be unusual is the determination to pursue RICO - based upon the appearance of conspiracy, and the likelihood of provable conspiracy - to seize assets from that group of criminals. As they fall, their corporate buddies become visible, and viable, targets for the 2nd round of prosecutions - all without having changed any glimmer of meaning in the law nor in the application of the law. Since we can already see the Enron-Lay-Bungle connections, and there is some $20B of loose cash unaccounted for in Iraq alone, Delay is already indicted, Frist should soon be, and Bob Ney, and we can confidently predict that Halliburton and Cheney are not, after all, quite divorced - the potential is enormous.

Why, we could take any court from any decade of more than a century, and convict Bush and Cheney of treason, along with dozens of other high crimes and misdemeanors, in the effort to sell the control of our ports to those whom this adminstration names as our enemies - so mere ordinary crimes should not give pause.

So, again, HOW IS THAT A "socialist program"?

Far from attacking marriage, we on the left are generally seeking to expand and enhance it, through recognition that not every person, certainly not every couple, are cookie-cutter replicas of some paleolithic ideal. There is no great urgency to foster reproduction, since the extermination of the sabre-tooth, at least; nearly half of all continuing heterosexual marriages remain deliberately childless. Moreover, stability is not generally the outcome of your beloved heterosexual unions - half or more end in divorce. We on the left prefer to restrain the government to allay the threat that it may represent, rather than merely buffering ourselves from it with institutions, so there is no incentive for the inferred attack on this institution.

So, again, aside from your fantasies, HOW IS THAT a "socialist program"?

Why are you so shy about admitting you are a socialist? I can understand how some people might be squeamish—there are those little matters like the hundred-million or so killed, grinding poverty, secret police, whole realms of concentration camps...

But you are not one of those girly-men. You are rough and tough. You are clearly eager to start rounding up us capitalist oppressors and shipping us off on a long march to nowhere. So go for it! (Especially since you Bolshies are out of power, and will be for a long long time. So your loopy RICO fantasies can be indulged to your heart's content, with no need to collide with reality.)

John Weidner:

IFF I were a socialist, I would proudly so proclaim, just to differentiate myself from that seething morass of ignorance and ineptitude that currently rules our nation; I am not a socialist, not even a little bit. I AM somewhat liberal, socially, in that I find no harm in differences of attitude, appearance, or behavior, 'mongst my neighbors; and I am fiscally so conservative that I would wring every stolen dime from those found to have engaged in fraud, theft, bribery, etc. - you, know, the staples of the Repugnant regime. I don't even own a credit card, because I believe one pays, or one waits to have the means to pay.
Enough about me - let's look at YOU, as evidenced in your posting:

Just wanted to get you indelibly committed to the "attack the other side" mode, wherein you can no longer even deny the undeniable: your people are corrupt tyrants, evading reality and accountability for their actions in the guise of "we'll square it all up just as soon as we get rid of all our opposition"; and you don't even bother any longer to deny it.

Well, guess what?
You have just defined yourself, fascist; and not even a well-rehearsed rant, given the false equation of "socialist" and "long march"es, "secret police" and open prosecution of what even now is publicly recognized fraud, theft, and corruption; your absolute inability to respond to the arguments concerning your "morality"; and your continued defense of the indefensible - those zany neocon oppressors.

I have not proposed any action that seems to warrant any of your attacks, but perhaps I view the words with an author's bias. However, even an author's bias cannot, surely, prevent you from seeing that you have indulged precisely the tactics for which Sullivan is excoriated: "So all that's left for Sullivan is to attack the other side. Attack without any alternative plan. It's pathetic, and it's really the dilemma of the entire "left.""

Hard to believe that the "right" cannot muster either evidentiary argument, or overarching principal, to refute any single one of the arguments offered - or are you just practicing your keyboard, without any intellectual involvement?

Gwinn, I've been pulling your leg.

As for defending myself, my almost 5 years of blogging are an extended exposition and defense of my beliefs. It's all there if you are interested...

John Weidner:

OK, now my "left" leg is noticeably longer than my "right" leg.

Satisfied?

No need to defend yourself - no one is attacking YOU (only every precept or tenet that you hold dear). I have sampled a few of your postings, since I stumbled across this one to which I have taken exception. I am not greatly impressed, but not especially moved to attack you, either - your rants about "vile hypocrits" notwithstanding. However, I do wonder if this is not a Coulterish cop-out: "I was only joking", used to allay suspicion that one had been DEAD serious in every one of the inflammatory, hateful accusations?

Or, did I simply choose one approach against which *you* cannot "make a case"?

I guess that could happen, given that you are stuck with Bungle, the Repugnants, endless scandals and corruption, public preachments of a morality that seem violated daily by most of the preachers - stuck with the indefensible?