Comments on: Left2Right

By: cube

cube — Sun, 12 Dec 2004 00:11:20 +0000

why is it named left to right. why not right to left? i think this is baised against jews

By: abb1

abb1 — Wed, 08 Dec 2004 09:40:24 +0000

Although we have chosen the subtitle “How can the Left get through to the Right?”, our view is that the way to get through to people is to listen to them and be willing to learn from them. There are people on the Right I can listen to and learn from. But they are all Democrats, conservative Democrats. There is absolutely no chance to get through to Republicans, they are nuts; it’s hopeless.

By: Ry parsons

Ry parsons — Wed, 08 Dec 2004 07:16:31 +0000

Brian Wetherson, No, it isn’t just the one post. It was the bulk. I pulled my quote from the second or third post down. If it’s dialogue that’s desired don’t write conservatives are jerks’ type posts. Simple. Your reply here is the mirror image of something that one of the LEft2Right folk posted—not being able to take criticism of ones ideas. That’s the fatal flaw of L2R right now. It makes claims that are false, and calling them on it brings cries of ‘not getting it’ or ‘being harsh’. Also note: some of those complaining are asking that the snarky condescension and unexplained assumptions presented as facts be removed so that the mission of building the bridge can take place.

By: nick

nick — Wed, 08 Dec 2004 00:33:00 +0000

Let’s accept it: the conservative responses on that site suggest that they do not want to be ‘reached out’ towards. They want to rule, be kowtowed towards, and obeyed.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 22:13:55 +0000

In most countries the “bridge” between left and right looks like a Parliament – its the arena where ideas are debated back and forth. Whats wrong with that system? Nothing at all. It’s just that it presumes that both parties are capable of formulating a set of guiding principles based on more than “We’re just like the other guys, only somewhat slightly less so.” Until such time as the Democratic Party decides to start standing for something other than its own existence (and I’m not holding my breath), we’ll have to make do with the alternatives.

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 21:58:20 +0000

Brian: the problem is the shape the bridge appears to be taking. The American left has failed to persuade not just because of the content and framing of the message (which this site does appear to be focusing on, which is good) but also because of the delivery of the message. The best messages in the world conveyed in the tones and language of the top 5-6 articles on left2right aren’t going to be persuasive to the vast majority of people, even among those who style themselves intelligent liberals, much less the ‘right’ they are trying to bridge to.

By: Giles

Giles — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 21:07:52 +0000

“a bridge would look like” In most countries the “bridge” between left and right looks like a Parliament – its the arena where ideas are debated back and forth. Whats wrong with that system?

By: BigMacAttack

BigMacAttack — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 20:50:19 +0000

Brian Weatherson, No of course not. So tommorow we can expect a thoughtful follow-up from Jeff McMahan, maybe titled, Sorry SUV drivers WTF was I saying and WTF does that reveal about me? or Not.

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 20:18:45 +0000

I agree that the McMahon post wasn’t the best thing to have on the front page the day the site went public. But I think many of the critics here are applying an unfair standard. The point of the blog is to work out what a bridge would look like – it isn’t necessarily to be that bridge from day one. Of course instantiation is one way to show how a bridge should look – but it’s hardly the only way.

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:56:51 +0000

I’m glad I’m not the only one who found this almost a sad caricature of liberal intellectual elitism. I hate to use that phrase, because it is so loaded, but this is exactly the kind of boring lefty moralist/intellectual ‘we’re so much better than you, why can’t you understand that?’ prattle that drives conservatives and many centrists out of their skulls. I want the left to win; I really do. But if this is the best writing we can come up with as a ‘bridge’ we’re in deep trouble.

By: ry

ry — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:20:50 +0000

Having read the mission statement here and having used the link via Volohk COnspiracy I find Left2Right rather odd. If, as the mission statement says, there’s an attempt to listen to conservatives I find it rather failing. The first data point on terrorism post is a classic example. LEcturing conservatives that liberals are more intellectually honest is BOUND to win them over, ce? It positively DRIPS with, on the left, commonly held assumptions without explaining them, and though they’re commonly held on the left they are rather controversial(ex: WOT creating more terrorists. Fact? How, do terrorist orgs publish order of battle reports or organizational charts like the US, PLA, and other nations? That’s an assumption or a point of view, and not a fact(if it is a fact, show us the primary source material this is gleaned from.)). The Crooked Timber Crew should really mention something to Left2Right about how it’s failing its stated goal of bridging the gap by becoming yet another site to say ‘conservatives aren’t honest and just don’t get it do they?’

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:12:05 +0000

Serious question: why would you want to build those bridges (from Left to Right)? Presumably it is an attempt to rekindle the fires of the Democratic Party’s embrace of aggressive anti-Communism in the 1960s. Which is, obviously, in part responsible for the extraordinary strength of social-democratic politics in the USA today.

By: gavin mcnett

gavin mcnett — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 18:06:39 +0000

Not so impressed. There’s quite a bit of good thinking there, but it’s often naive and behind the curve. Contrast with Berube, an academic on top of the issues, or Laura Rozen, a specialist policy wonk. The site needs verve and engagement. I hope it lives up to its potential.

By: Giles

Giles — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:56:00 +0000

Self Describing themselves as “really smart” – check. Patronizing tone – check. Seething bitchiness emanating from writing – check. Seen this before – check. I think they might better be left2themselves

By: Joe O

Joe O — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:43:37 +0000

Bigmacattack is right they are way off from their mission statement. Their way of reaching out to the right is to sincerly explain why we hate them. Like that is going to change people’s minds.