Warren Dew wrote:
Ian wrote:Throughout history, right-wing organizations have been more likely to coalesce around a common purpose, and are more willing to accept an authority figure from their ranks. Left-wing groups are more likely to descend into infighting and splinter-groups, or not coalesce at all.
Indeed. It's so fortunate that Communism, for example, never coalesced around authority figures, and no one knows the names of would be left wing authoritarians like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, who are mere footnotes in history.
Oh wait, no - history proves that you're egregiously wrong. Left wing groups almost always tend towards deifying their leaders. The way Democrats worship Obama is a good example.
I wasn't talking about how one side deifies leaders more than another; good examples can be shown on both sides. I meant that groups on the left are more likely to challenge each other rather than merge under a common tent. Consider Trotsky or Tito. Explain why China and the USSR went from being allies to targeting each other with missiles, despite being leftist nations with common adversaries. Review the Spanish civil war. Too many examples to list.
Seriously, look through history! This is a near-constant, at least over the last 150 years since modern leftist thought emerged. It's why reading your post set off an alarm bell in my head. You're just plain wrong. Leftists are the ones who splinter, and I meant that as a criticism of Democrats as much as any other left-of-center group in history. Republicans are very good at remaining cohesive, much better than Democrats; surely nobody who's reviewed the GOP opposition to Obama over the last three years could claim otherwise. For all the talk about the tea party emerging as a faction within the GOP, there's no chance that they'll run their own candidate up against the President on a third party ticket.
If you honestly think Democrats worship Obama, then you're not listening to your own rants about how much Ron Paul on the ticket would suck away the youth vote from Obama. I think there's some truth to that. And this proves that you do understand the idea that liberals might vote elsewhere because of certain issues. Some of Bill Maher's thoughts on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax15XRL1URQ
Democrats don't worship Obama ffs - that's just typical right-wing paranoia. Meanwhile, is there any chance that tea party types won't hold their noses and vote for Mitt "I'm severely conservative - no, really!" Romney? Of course they will. They'll coalesce around him with the common goal of defeating Obama.
Another recent example: what were all those small-government tea party types doing ten years ago when W. Bush sent the deficit skyrocketing? They were toeing the party line and supporting their leader, not to mention helping him get re-elected without any challenge. And why was he the leader in the first place? Ask Al Gore what he thinks of Ralph Nader's campaign.
Warren Dew wrote:
So... shove it, Republican.
Wrong again, as usual. I'm a registered independent.
I know that. But if it quacks like a duck, you call it a duck.