The Left-Right Divide Is Not Bridgeable

Townhall ^ | 03/05/2024 | Dennis Prager

[SeekAndFind]

Millions of Americans, depressed by the ideological divide in America, harbor a wish that something or someone can bridge this divide.

This wish is understandable. But it is fantasy. The divide is unbridgeable. One might as well wish that daily consumption of a hot fudge sundae will lead to weight loss.

To cite a few samples:

How are we to bridge the gap between those who believe men can become women and women can become men and those who don't believe this? Between those who believe men menstruate and those who believe only women menstruate?

How are we to bridge the divide between those who believe "colorblind" is a racist notion and those who believe "colorblind" is the antidote to racism?

How are we to bridge the divide between those who believe Israel is the villain and Hamas is the victim and those who believe Israel is the victim and Hamas, which openly states its dedication to annihilating Israel and its Jewish inhabitants, is the villain, morally indistinguishable from the Nazis?

How are we to bridge the divide between those who believe young children should be brought to drag queen shows and those who believe this sexualization -- and sexual confusion -- of children is morally detestable?

How are we to bridge the divide between those who believe reducing the number of police will reduce violent crime and those who believe reducing the number of police will increase violent crime?

How are we to bridge the divide between those who believe in suppressing free speech if they deem any given speech "hateful" or "misinformation" and those who believe in free speech?

Every one of these positions is mutually contradictory. And this is just a partial list.

Ironically, even those who hold these mutually contradictory positions agree that these positions are unbridgeable. Only the naive (usually meaning non-left liberals) believe otherwise.

I recommend that any American who believes the left-right gap is bridgeable read the comments submitted by New York Times readers to any column that discusses a left or right position. These comments are a superb indicator of what those on the left, including liberals (I often distinguish between liberalism and leftism) believe. To submit a comment to a New York Times article or column, one must be a subscriber to the New York Times. So, virtually all those who comment are on the left, graduated from college and have enough disposable income to subscribe to the New York Times.

This came to my attention again this past week when reading all the most popular comments reacting to a column on "Christian nationalism" written by Ross Douthat, the one New York Times columnist who defends Christian conservatives.

"Christian nationalist" is the latest left-wing smear of conservatives. It joins "sexist," "racist," "homophobic," "Islamophobic," "transphobic," "xenophobic," "fascist" and "threat to our democracy" as the left's way of smearing -- rather than responding to, let alone debating -- those with whom progressives differ.

Douthat wrote an intelligent column explaining four distinctive conservative Christian positions and groups.

The comments rated highest on the list of "Reader Picks" are not only left-wing; they are irrational. Few, if any, actually define "Christian nationalism." They simply declare conservative Christians "Christian nationalists," just as they declare "transphobic" anyone who opposes hormone blockers for minors or opposes men who say they are women competing in women's sports.

These comments also reveal a lack of self-awareness I believe is a defining characteristic of leftism. Nearly every commenter writes that any American who seeks to advance policies rooted in Judeo-Christian values is a Christian nationalist and therefore a "threat to democracy." But if you seek to advance policies or laws rooted in a secular value system, that is perfectly in accord with American democracy.

"We progressives can advance our agenda based on our values, but when our opponents promote their values from a biblical perspective, they threaten democracy." In other words, leftists can bring their values into American life, but conservative Christians (and Orthodox Jews) may not.

As for the lack of self-awareness, the Left never perceives itself as imposing its values. The Left forced as many Americans as possible to get the frequently harmful COVID-19 vaccine. The Left forced young people who were at minimal risk from the virus to get vaccinated and forced children to miss school for nearly two years. But New York Times readers do not see themselves as imposing their values on Americans. In their minds, they never "threaten democracy"; only conservative Christians who wanted open churches and open schools did. And they never explain how, if a majority of the citizenry wants and votes for a particular value (or candidate) deemed conservative, democracy is "threatened." Isn't that the very definition of democracy -- the candidate or policy with the most votes wins?

If you still think the left-right divide is bridgeable, it is only because it is too painful to confront the tragic reality of contemporary American life: Today's left-right divide is at least as great as the North-South divide before and during the Civil War. The only thing that remains the same is that it was the Democratic Party that opposed freedom then, and it is the Democratic Party that opposes freedom today.

[BuchananBrigadeTrumpFan]

So far, Americans, sadly, seem to prefer the right to kill babies over the right to not have the babies they don’t kill corrupted by leftist crazies in their schools.

[ProgressingAmerica]

You seem to be a little bit at war with yourself here.

"if a person believes that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Son of God, how can they share the values of those who explicitly deny that?"

While at post 7 you said:

“rooted in Judeo-Christian values”

There’s no such thing.

Now, first, I have to admit - Prager did a terrible job with this. Life isn't the infinite now. The U.S. in its history is rooted in Judeo-Christian values, while now in 2024, not so much. However, we have to deal with the very real quagmire that:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Christian_Life_and_Character_of_the_Civi/H92keUU_Xy8C?hl=en&gbpv=0

America was founded as it was founded. It really is that simple. If you happen to be a Christian who would give up on that, you should expect to be faced with a certain amount of divine retribution when you reach the end. What I mean is this.

God gave us this place for a reason. If you're not going to defend one of God's gifts, there's going to be hell to pay for that. It's kind of like, what the heck is it with people of the Jewish faith who do not defend Israel? It's mind boggling.

[TheDon]

[Paal Gulli]

In a political context, “Left” and “Right” are meaningless terms.

First of all, “Left” and “Right” originally was used to denote stance on a single issue (whether King Louis XVI would have unlimited veto power over France’s new democratically-elected legislative assembly). Modern politics is far too complex, far too fractured, to be represented in any meaningful sense as a simple linear construct.

Secondly, as used in a modern context, it always was destined to be either an over-simplification, or to be demagogued to death. And the latter is where it has been proved most useful. Anything the Left wants to vilify, they invariably term “far-Right,” with no regard for its true political orientation.

For example, they frequently try to proclaim Hitler “far-Right,” despite the fact his organization used the term “socialist” in its self-appointed title. The claim is literally meaningless but all the little Marxists in the “Amen!” section eat it up.

[imardmd1]

It has never been "Right vs Left" -- a miscasting of identifying language. Rather, it is, and always has been "Truth vs Lies" from the very beginning of time.

Trying to compromise the two always, always results in a loss of integrity for the compromiser.

[suthener]

I thought I was pretty clear; “I’m not going to get into a days long theological debate (seriously, I’m not),”. I respectfully answered your question, Olog-hai. Obviously I’m not going to change your mind, and you are not going to change mine.

[M Kehoe]

Bttt.

5.56mm

[Rummyfan]

Millions of Americans, depressed by the ideological divide in America, harbor a wish that something or someone can bridge this divide.

This wish is understandable. But it is fantasy. The divide is unbridgeable. One might as well wish that daily consumption of a hot fudge sundae will lead to weight loss.

It's as impossible of the long-discussed two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians.

[Freest Republican]

That’s quite the hypothetical!

I’m going to ignore that right wing extremists don’t say that- (I came to find out today, they are only 2% of the population nominally-making much of the anti jew material even more ridiculous)

We are not the party of cultural Marxism pitting old v young, black v white, rich v poor, gay v straight magnifying differences etc....designed purposely to destroy the multi-cultural west.

It’s simple, peace and prosperity or war and impoverishment.

It’s simple and irrefutable. From river to sea aka war doesn’t happen with MAGA energy policy.

[cgbg]

My point is that “moderates” think everything is divisible, can be compromised, can be worked out, etc.

The left’s demands are getting wackier and wackier where you either submit to them or you fight them.

Illegal invaders is another example.

Zero is the only correct number.

There is no deal to be made.

[2nd Amendment]

I think if the divide between Israel and Hamas can be bridged, then the Democrat -Republican divide can be bridged.

[Rummyfan]

To submit a comment to a New York Times article or column, one must be a subscriber to the New York Times. So, virtually all those who comment are on the left, graduated from college and have enough disposable income to subscribe to the New York Times.

Some of us just subscribe for the crossword. I never actually bother to read any Times articles. It long ago became unreadable, with even the sports section going full political.

[Rummyfan]

The only thing that remains the same is that it was the Democratic Party that opposed freedom then, and it is the Democratic Party that opposes freedom today.

Amen Amen Amen!

[Freest Republican]

Or vote with your own two feet and flee them which is what much of the country is doing.

The Dems are going to have a choice-either reconcile their immense losses since 2010 or become less and less relevant.

They’ve managed to use shenanigans to avoid this for a while but it will not go on forever.

[Rummyfan]

That is why I opposed any Presidential debates this year. There is nothing to debate. There is nothing to discuss.

Indeed. And the debates are simply media representatives of the Dem Party playing gotcha with any and all Republicans.

[BobL]

For our side, it’s either defeat or war...and far too many think there’s some type of ‘middle ground’ - for example, letting a Democrat win because the Republican isn’t ‘pure’ enough for them. That type of idiocy just brings DEFEAT that much closer.

[Bob Wills is still the king]

There are more than 2 Americas now, depending on your politics, sex, race, religion, and region. I’m probably leaving some out.

[T.B. Yoits]

The Left is an over-represented minority.

The more you comply with their insane demands, the more insane their demands will get.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” - H.L. Mencken

[Olog-hai]

I wouldn’t try to provoke you into a long debate. Take care . . .

[GOPJ]

Millions of Americans, depressed by the ideological divide in America, harbor a wish that something or someone can bridge this divide.

It's possible the above is NOT true - nothing more than wishful thinking by democrats.

If it was true that millions felt this way then there wouldn't be a divide like the one we have.

Besides our legal system is based on an adversarial approach - both sides make their best arguments about being 'right' and the jury decides. It works. Our political system works better when both sides make their best arguments. AND let citizens decide. I don't want us 'all to get along' when that's always portrayed as 'being liberal'... again.