The Coalition of the Swilling

"Man-whore", huh. Well, it's a living, I guess.

But man is it illustrative of how the Left tolerates dissent amongst the ranks, eh?

He speaks the truth just once and they rip him apart. Yup, we want them in power. /sarcasm

Ideological fanatics always attack those nearest their ideology because they're the bigger threat.

The Stalinists attacked the Trotskyists. The Nazis attacked the communists, even though they were almost identical -- they're both totalitarian socialists.

The democrats at one time were brutalist to the moderate republicans. Remember Packwood? He had a reputation for being very strong on women's issues. Who helped get him outsted? Women's groups.

It's precisely because of their similarities in position that he was a threat. Packwood, if allowed to stay, would have threatened the purity of the party, allowing some women's rights supporters to be republicans.

Protestants and Catholics were at war for so many centuries, even though their religions are nearly identical to any outsider, precisely because they are almost identical. The early church drove out the Aryans and the gnostics because to admit that these minor variances on the religion were legitimate would rob them of their own power.

This is why liberal fanatics attack Chris Matthews. If a high profile liberal were to be somewhat reasonable some of the time, this would be a threat to the liberal catechism. Some of the people in the liberal camp might be swayed and rob them of their power. Thus, he must be destroyed.

This is the pathetic state that the democratic party has been reduced to.

There is no one as dangerous as a reformer/compromiser.

It's the dimwitted school-yard riposte gone Lord-of-the-Flies, when all else fails they form a circular firing-squad.

The early church drove out the Aryans and the gnostics because to admit that these minor variances on the religion were legitimate would rob them of their own power.

Well, those of us on the inside also think that it had something to do with Aryanism being false and Christianity true. =) In other words, the variance was neither minor nor legitimate. And that early in the game, disunity on big things would have devolved the Church into small isolated sects, and the given mission of the Church - "Go and make disciples of all men" - would have failed. Nobody could have agreed who, exactly, we were being disciples of.

Aryanism was at one point the majority view, and there was a lot of debate in early councils about it. If it was simply a matter of consolidating power ("Just pick one, already") we would all be closet Unitarians (the closest Aryan equivalent today, IIRC), just as today, it would simply be easier to approve of society instead of calling it to reform. Those sects that have gone this route are emptying at alarming speeds.

I think the Matthews case is more of a case of feeling betrayed - "He said what??!?? @%&@^*~! We'll fix his wagon!" I don't think the Left fears that people will consider Matthews' words positively. That would involve having some awareness that they were, in fact, wrong to begin with, which is not a hallmark of the species.

In all this there's an irony - the party of "I'd rather be right than president" is now so chained to regaining Congress and the White House that "right" is no longer important. It's the same lesson as the churches today need to see: serve truth first, and influence comes naturally, because the truth is influential. Serve truth first, and you will naturally seek reasons for your belief, and learn to explain it with skill - and debate is influential. Serve truth first, and you can admit more easily when you're wrong and change your mind - and that's good for everybody.

On the other hand, whenever any movement goes off the rails, it stops talking about reasons and starts talking about feelings, which demand legitimacy as is. "How dare you question my _______?" is the rallying cry. But this offers no answer and serves no truth. It serves self.

Sorry about the mini-essay, guys. As the saying goes, I didn't have time to write a shorter one.