It may be a stretch to compare “right-wing” as synonymous with authoritarianism in the eyes of the zealots; making this tact hardly reasonable. Most people understand right-wing to imply conservatism, religiously stringent tenets, and fierce fiscal precepts. Authoritarianism is a political process that allows for a few to make decisions for all, in a usually military state. The fact that “right-wing” was used to identify the protesters is not completely false. Extremists must be used in conjunction with Right-Wing, but to separate the protesters completely from such an identification would also be a fail.
“these nazis”, implies you have already identified them in your essay; you had not. There needs to be a distinction between the Nazis of the Third Reich and the new nazis, neo-nazis, that want to use the term to put fear into people by virtue of what Nazis in the past perpetrated. I am sorry about the fate of your relations during that tragic period. We must never forget what can happen when hate is allowed to go on unchecked. However the Neo-nazis, KKK, right-wing extremist etc. are so few in number, lack any “teeth” and only truly attract disenfranchised youth, that their ability to have an impact on our country is most unlikely.
In the second paragraph, you talk about people are more than a group they belong to. Yet you choose to use DNA to distinguish people. This strong and inflammatory wording that does not dovetail with open-mindedness and does quantify people based on biology is a false notion… An Aryan supremacist paradigm that I’m certain you did not intend to use.
The comment on “National Socialism” is also problematic. I can say with some certainty that those tied to hate-groups like the Neo-Nazis, KKK etc. would have a difficult time explaining its meaning. But it does create angst for those who do know the meaning and believe it is a potentiality here in the states. This is simply not true. It is fear-mongering and skews facts to suit the author’s agenda.
While the essay is intended to separate right-wing conservatives from the protesters in Charlottesville, the arguments used are left lacking any substance. The anecdotes are also tit for tat. One does not justify or absolve the other. The story about your family is heart-wrenching but also does not fit into a cogent discussion regarding our present circumstances. It pulls at the reader’s heart strings but lacks relevance to this essay’s purpose.
Stating that socialism always” leads to gulags and concentration camps” is also quite interesting. It isn’t true by any stretch of the imagination! There is no evidence to support that comment. It is again used to distinguish the right from the left to frighten peoples that do not understand the difference between socialism and pseudo-communism from a democratic republic.
Mr. Shepard also asks that we identify domestic terrorist properly. Timothy McVeigh, Ruby Ridge, The Centennial bomber, bombers of abortion clinics, the Una-bomber etc. do not fall into the liberal camp; to name a few.
Hopefully, Mr. Shepard will consider these thoughts. The use of such rhetoric may be politically expedient but just creates more divisiveness. A divide that seems to be growing rather than lessening. Common ground, what is best for the United States, should be the ultimate goal, not attempting to distance oneself from controversial events at any cost. Accepting one’s part and trying to understand the other’s point of view will lead to peace and harmony over acrimonious diatribes.
1 Comment
It may be a stretch to compare “right-wing” as synonymous with authoritarianism in the eyes of the zealots; making this tact hardly reasonable. Most people understand right-wing to imply conservatism, religiously stringent tenets, and fierce fiscal precepts. Authoritarianism is a political process that allows for a few to make decisions for all, in a usually military state. The fact that “right-wing” was used to identify the protesters is not completely false. Extremists must be used in conjunction with Right-Wing, but to separate the protesters completely from such an identification would also be a fail.
“these nazis”, implies you have already identified them in your essay; you had not. There needs to be a distinction between the Nazis of the Third Reich and the new nazis, neo-nazis, that want to use the term to put fear into people by virtue of what Nazis in the past perpetrated. I am sorry about the fate of your relations during that tragic period. We must never forget what can happen when hate is allowed to go on unchecked. However the Neo-nazis, KKK, right-wing extremist etc. are so few in number, lack any “teeth” and only truly attract disenfranchised youth, that their ability to have an impact on our country is most unlikely.
In the second paragraph, you talk about people are more than a group they belong to. Yet you choose to use DNA to distinguish people. This strong and inflammatory wording that does not dovetail with open-mindedness and does quantify people based on biology is a false notion… An Aryan supremacist paradigm that I’m certain you did not intend to use.
The comment on “National Socialism” is also problematic. I can say with some certainty that those tied to hate-groups like the Neo-Nazis, KKK etc. would have a difficult time explaining its meaning. But it does create angst for those who do know the meaning and believe it is a potentiality here in the states. This is simply not true. It is fear-mongering and skews facts to suit the author’s agenda.
While the essay is intended to separate right-wing conservatives from the protesters in Charlottesville, the arguments used are left lacking any substance. The anecdotes are also tit for tat. One does not justify or absolve the other. The story about your family is heart-wrenching but also does not fit into a cogent discussion regarding our present circumstances. It pulls at the reader’s heart strings but lacks relevance to this essay’s purpose.
Stating that socialism always” leads to gulags and concentration camps” is also quite interesting. It isn’t true by any stretch of the imagination! There is no evidence to support that comment. It is again used to distinguish the right from the left to frighten peoples that do not understand the difference between socialism and pseudo-communism from a democratic republic.
Mr. Shepard also asks that we identify domestic terrorist properly. Timothy McVeigh, Ruby Ridge, The Centennial bomber, bombers of abortion clinics, the Una-bomber etc. do not fall into the liberal camp; to name a few.
Hopefully, Mr. Shepard will consider these thoughts. The use of such rhetoric may be politically expedient but just creates more divisiveness. A divide that seems to be growing rather than lessening. Common ground, what is best for the United States, should be the ultimate goal, not attempting to distance oneself from controversial events at any cost. Accepting one’s part and trying to understand the other’s point of view will lead to peace and harmony over acrimonious diatribes.