Being I'm thinking of sending something to them soon, though I hope it doesn't become the disaster my experience with BrooWaha subsequently turned out to be.
Political creature that I am, I wanted to see what passes for politically insightful writing at Blog Critics......I'm not impressed so far. I took a look at an article written by "a political independent thinker who wants the opinions and voice of Middle America to be heard", named Nathan Wilkinson who has a blog he calls The Middle American Voice. Wilkinson believes he writes "independent commentary on news and events from and for Middle America". I'm not quite sure what that is.
I don't want this post to become an ad hominem attack on Mr. Wilkinson, but I have serious problems with his philosophy. Like a proverbial political Buddhist of sorts, he believes that rather than choose between the Right or the Left, we should travel some Middle Way .
From his blog:
This blog is meant for the middle, so who are the middle? The middle is most commonly defined as neither political progressive or conservative. They are politically independent thinkers that are not tied to a political party and ideals. This does not mean they do not share some of those political ideals, but prefer not to be boxed into a certain way of seeing the world. The Left and the Right all have venues of getting there [sic] voice heard. What makes their voice so misleading is often times the Left and Right try to mask their message as a "middle" message. What also happens is that both sides play to the middle, only to go back to their corners after the elections are over. A blog for the middle by the middle, is one of many ways that our middle voice can continued to be heard continuously.
Wrongly classified as independent thinkers, these "middlers" actually expose their inability to come to a decision on the important issues in life. Contrary to what they would have us believe, there is usually no middle ground.
Where is this middle way vis รก vis abortion, for example?
The pro life stance on the issue of abortion is quite clear. The fetus is a human being. That this is scientifically provable should be obvious. We -the pro lifers- maintain that abortion is the taking of innocent human life and therefore, immoral. We maintain that no one has the "right" to kill an innocent human being. Period.
The, so-called, pro-choice groups maintain that the woman has the right to abort the fetus with no restrictions or interference from anyone.
What is the precious middle way between these two positions? There is none.
Just as Rush Limbaugh believes that all of his views are Conservative, Mr. Wilkinson likewise believes that any view he may have is in the Middle. Rather than see the middle as politically independent thinking that isn't tied to any political party and ideals, I see the middle for what it is; a lack of any real or consistent philosophy as well as an inability to think logically and coherently.
The choice may be difficult at times, but each of us must choose between the Right and the Left, between the right and the wrong, between the moral and immoral.
"I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."
6 comments:
Mr. Simms- I am extremely happy that you have read my article on BlogCritics.org and though it is not the NYT or the WSJ it is still nice to be published and have articles that reach a larger audience.
I believe that you misrepresent my position of being in the "middle." As you duly noted in your quote from my site about the middle misses several points, the first is, "This does not mean they do not share some of those political ideals, but prefer not to be boxed into a certain way of seeing the world." That means a person can still be politically in the middle and still have a pro life stance.
The second is "Being politically left or right may make some of us politically in the middle, but the middle voice and this blog is not contained by politics." This part you left out. So not only does the middle mean shedding the labels of Left and Right, but also financially. Often times the richer a person is the easier it is to get their voice heard. We in the middle do not have that luxury.
Third, to your issue specifically on abortion. I rarely deal with social issues on my blog, however I would be more then happy to debate the issue with you.
Finally, the idea that everything I say is the "middle." It really is, because I look at everything without ideological glasses on. I talk to people, get a feel for what is really going on, and try to best portray what people around me are thinking. That is contrary to being told what to say by political parties.
I believe your broader point of "if you don't stand for anything, then you stand for nothing." is a good one and I would agree. The people of the "Middle America" make and stand on their choices everyday. These often tough choices need to be heard by those in Washington and my blog brings that voice. I hope that in the future you continue reading my blog and enjoy it.
Nathan W.
Hello Nathan,
Thanks for dropping by.
If you are "pro-choice" then I will be happy to take you up on the offer to debate.....it would be silly for us to debate if we are both "pro-life".
I'll send an email to you using the contact information from your blog.
Robert
It really is, because I look at everything without ideological glasses on.
So, your entire perspective is an ad hominem claim that folks who don't agree with you are looking at things with "ideological" glasses on. (It is inherently "against the man" because it is a claim about the other side, rather than the opposing view.)
Lovely. Yet another version of "you only say that because your momma told you to," but with fancy clothing.
Wow, such vehemence over a simple blog, particularly when the point of it seems to be completely missed by the attackers, who clearly see themselves as "better than" Nathan!
I think perhaps "middle man" is simply a misnomer, and that the blog is meant to represent those who are independent thinkers, not beholden to either a Republican or Democratic agenda.
As Nathan pointed out, not being Left or Right, Republican or Democrat, doesn't make you indecisive nor lacking political ideals.... it simply means your stance on EACH issue is independent of the next.
I am that person he is talking about and consider myself to be extremely ideological and strong in my stances on different issues, however, they just don't happen to all be of a conservative or liberal tract. For me, each issue may or may not be independent of the next and I may side with the Republican party on one, while siding on the Democratic party on another. This doesn't make me stand for nothing. It makes me an intellect who makes up my own mind on each issue for myself, rather than mindlessly plodding along and voting and thinking as I'm told to by a party.
People who vote on candidates or issues based solely on R or D are like cattle being led to slaughter - doing what they are told and not what they may actually believe. I maintain that people who vote like that are actually the people who stand for nothing because most people I meet who are like this don't even know what the issues are, or anything about the candidates! They just look for the R or D as their guiding factor. Really? Is that how we want our country run? Isn't that why we are in the pickle we are in today in this country?
How about we all get smart and start reading up and making our own minds on each person and issue and standing strong on THOSE decisions. Perhaps then our country can start progressing again. And perhaps Nathan simply needs to rename his blog "The Independent Man" instead of the "middle" man.
Wow, such vehemence over a simple blog, particularly when the point of it seems to be completely missed by the attackers, who clearly see themselves as "better than" Nathan!
If that's your take-away, you not only missed the point, you're in an entirely different game.
Perhaps you should try reading what is actually said, without the strong emotional reaction you've both shown, and apply some of that clear-eyed reasoning you're bragging about.
Thus far, all you've demonstrated is a knee-jerk reaction that has more to do with your self images (by the traditional tract of denigrating others) than with any unusual way of thinking about politics.
People who vote on candidates or issues based solely on R or D are like cattle being led to slaughter - doing what they are told and not what they may actually believe.
I could never vote for anyone who is a member of a political party which supports abortion the way the Democratic party does. If there's a D next to your name, you support the killing of innocent human beings in the womb. The Republicans are far from perfect,but there are not beholden to the culture of death.
Unfortunately, we often have no other option other than voting Republican. It's not because we love Republicans.
The idea that anyone votes the way they are told and not according to their beliefs is absurd.
They just look for the R or D as their guiding factor. Really? Is that how we want our country run? Isn't that why we are in the pickle we are in today in this country?
No, our country is in this "pickle" because far too many people vote their self-interests without regard to morality.
Post a Comment