O’Donnell vs. Coons: Analyzing Extremism

By Selwyn Duke

Unlike for most Americans, the Delaware senatorial primary was not my first introduction to Christine O’Donnell.  I remembered her from as far back as approximately 15 years ago, making appearances on shows such as “Politically Incorrect.”  So when I heard about her supposed “extremist views,” I had to wonder if I was overlooking something.  It’s hard to forget such a pretty face, but did I fail to recollect some strange aspect of her ideology?

So I did a Google search and quickly found criticism of her at the Huffington Compost.  “What better source for getting the dirt, real and imagined, on a Tea Party candidate?” I thought.  Yet I figured I knew what I’d find, and I was right.  Had she ever proclaimed herself a Marxist?  No, that was her opponent, Chris Coons.  Had she ever belonged to a socialist party?  No, that was Barack Obama in the 1990s.  Did she once advocate forced abortions and sterilization?  No, that was the president’s “science czar,” John Holdren.  Had she headed up an organization that promoted “fisting” for 14-year-olds and books featuring sex acts between pre-schoolers?  No, while Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings did do that, O’Donnell’s sin is far different:

She believes in sexual purity.

To be precise, she is a Catholic who embraces the totality of the Church’s teachings on sexuality.  I could elaborate on that, as I’m a devout Catholic myself, but this misses the point.  To wit: The most the left can do when trying to cast O’Donnell as a danger in government is cite something that she believes has nothing to do with government.  She won’t propose the “Self-gratification Control Act” of 2011 anymore than she will mandate that you must attend Mass on Sundays, fast during Lent or believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  (Note that former senator Rick Santorum never did, and, as a devout Catholic who often attends Mass even on weekdays, he presumably believes all O’Donnell does.)  What the left is mischaracterizing as her ideology is actually her theology of the body.

Then, I must say that I tire of how the word “extremism” is bandied about so thoughtlessly.  This isn’t primarily because the label is often misapplied.  It is because it is always misunderstood.

The late Barry Goldwater once said, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”  But to be more precise, extremism that reflects Truth is a virtue.  After all, if you live in a land where everyone believes 2+2=5 and you insist it is 4, you’ll be considered an extremist.  All being an “extremist” means is that your views deviate greatly from those of the mainstream.  It doesn’t mean you’re wrong.

But we don’t talk about wrong, or right, as much as we should in this relativistic culture.  Instead, believing “Man is the measure of all things,” we naturally take the norms of current civilization as the default and any deviation from them as defect (in fairness, all cultures tend to be guilty of this).  But the reality is that while Truth sometimes lies at the center of a culture, other times it occupies the fringes.  Sometimes, like an abolitionist in 1800, an extremist is just someone who is right 50 years too soon.  Or you could say that an extremist may be someone who upholds the wisdom of the ageless despite the folly of the age.

So saying someone is an extremist relates nothing about his rightness.  The problem with Islamic extremists, for instance, isn’t that they’re extreme — any truly religious person is thus viewed in a secular time.  It’s that they’re extremely wrong.  This brings us to O’Donnell’s opponent, Chris Coons.  

Since the left is digging up old O’Donnell quotations, it’s only fair to delve into Coons’ past.  And when we do, we find this interesting bit of extremism: An article he wrote titled “Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist.”  It details how a trip to Kenya that Coons took as a junior in college served as a “catalyst,” completing his transformation from “conservative” to communist.  Yet, while one could elaborate further here as well, as with O’Donnell, this misses the point.  To wit: Marxism has everything to do with government, as it is about transforming it through socialist revolution into something tried and untrue, something that slays the light and visits a dark age of a thousand sorrows upon its victims.  It’s something that killed 100,000,000 people during the 20^th century and every economy it ever touched.  That is a negative extremism if ever there were one, and it should scare the heck out of every one of us.

And what is this supposedly balanced with on O’Donnell’s side?

Oh, yeah, the sexual purity thing.

Of course, Coons’ piece was written 25 years ago when he was 21 and will be excused by some as youthful indiscretion.  But I’ll make two points.  First, the ability to profile properly is always necessary when choosing candidates, as the information you will have on them is always limited and managed.  A politician certainly wouldn’t admit to harboring Marxist passions; thus, in keeping with the maxim “The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior,” the best yardstick we have for measuring Coons is actions and pronouncements taken/made before he had a vested interest in lying about his aims.  (And wouldn’t we instinctively apply this when judging someone with a neo-Nazi or KKK history?  Would we give David Duke the benefit of the doubt many would give Coons?)  Second, when profiling, know this: People who embrace communism but then truly renounce it generally become passionate rightists.  Those who remain leftists usually haven’t renounced anything but honesty about their intentions.     

The reason why we should fear Coons is the exact reason why leftists fear O’Donnell: In their universe, moral statements are synonymous with policy positions.  If they don’t like salt, fat, tobacco (paging Mayor Bloomberg) or free markets, they play Big Brother and give us a very un-free society.  But traditionalist Americans are different: We don’t think that every supposedly good idea should be legislated.  We understand that government and its coercion aren’t the only forces for controlling man’s behavior; there is also something called society, with its traditions, social codes and persuasion; and something else called individual striving.  We can preach sexual purity while also practicing constitutional purity.  As to this, note that while some snarky leftists have criticized O’Donnell for living in the 1800s, the men who gave us our Constitution lived in the 1700s.  And the norm back then was to have traditional sexual mores.  But guess what they didn’t have?  Marxism.

Speaking of which, that great adherent of Marx, V.I. Lenin, once said, “The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”  Given that we have a government poised to do just this — with steep tax increases and rapid money-printing that will cause inflation — should we really be concerned about a candidate’s views on sexual propriety?  Or should we be more concerned about a candidate who may be harboring Marxist passions?

So all the libertines amongst us should know that Christine O’Donnell will not take their sex toys away.  But Chris Coons may want to take all their toys away.  To vote for him is to play with fire.

       This article first appeared at American Thinker

         © 2010 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

Comments

[Philip France]

Selwyn Duke has hit it out of the park once again. Worth revisiting is his remark that: “Marxism has everything to do with government, as it is about transforming it through socialist revolution into something tried and untrue, something that slays the light and visits a dark age of a thousand sorrows upon its victims. It’s something that killed 100,000,000 people during the 20th century and every economy it ever touched. That is a negative extremism if ever there were one, and it should scare the heck out of every one of us.”.

The modern “liberal” and leftist, including two of which that frequently post at this site have more in common with wicked ideologues like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and Chavez than they do with Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Locke and Tocqueville. In the interest of “diversity”, let us include George Washington Carver, Dr. Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell and legal scholars such as Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the brilliant Professor Ellis Washington.

Instead they parrot the lunatic rantings of a malfeasant press corps that seeks to destroy anything to the right of Sean Penn, whether it is Nixon, Reagan, Thatcher, the Bushes or Romney and Palin. When will they learn?

Woodrow Wilson was a failure. FDR was a failure. LBJ was a failure. Carter was a failure. These men were all fascist elitists. Narcissist-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama is an embarrassment to himself, his family and to his country, So-called “progressive” ideas and ideologies have a proven track record of failure, misery and unnecessary violence and human suffering.

May God bless Christine O’Donnell. I hope that she wins.

[Robert Berger]

Selwyn,your hypocrisy is showing. After all the vicious lies and slander against Obama,you're whining about allegations against Christine O'Donnell.
She sure as heck looks like a right-wing religious fanatic whackball to me. I don't know if the allegations about her supposedly having dabbling in witchcraft are true,but even if they are not,there is absolutely no way I would support a Catholic fanatic anti-choice,sexually repressed loon like her.
Like so many right-wingers, she's a narrow-minded,intolerant and self-righteous jerk and an insifferable busybody who thinks she has the right to pry into other people's bedrooms to make sure they're not doing something she disapproves of.
The last thing America needs is people like her in Washington.I'n not an"anti-christian bigot" as I've been stupidly labeled here. I don't condemn any one merely for being a Christian,of whatever denomination.
What I'm opposed to is religious fanatics getting power.Of whatever religion,Christian or Muslim etc.

[Walt]

Robert,
The last time I checked the US was allegedly a Republic. If so, the First Amendment protects your bedroom from the Christian zealot boogieman you have created in your gray matter. You sir have a phobia, a moralaphobia. You pre-judge vast groups of people based upon the preconception that moored beliefs are a bad thing. Look in the mirror Robert, you are that guy. You peddle your moralaphobic message more passionately than a 1970 Reverend Moon airport evangelist, yet the society you dream of has no historical or logical evidence of success, rather chaos. You are a moralaphobic extremist. Argh, I have about as much chance of getting through, as I do in getting discovered an opera singer by performing an English version of Carmen in the shower.

[John]

Robert, no you're not an anti-Christian bigot. Christians are just fine with you as long as they don't express any opinions whatsoever. Guess what? I don't want secular fanatics in gubmint. What's it to ya?

[Philip France]

Here! Here! Well-said, Walt!

Self-loathing and childish psychopaths like Robert have every right to post here, just as you and I. However, to opine at a weblog where EVERY other person visiting (and whose proprietor has singled him out in a specific article condemning his views) knows you to be daft is a clear sign of mental disorder.

I am sure that fanatical Christians like you and me pray that Robert may experience a spiritual revival and awakening. Like a certain percentage of our populace, the need is grave and dire.

[Robert Berger]

Christians are alright with me as long as they don't express any opinions whatsoever? That's ridiculous.
I believe absolutely in free speech for every one,period. Christians have just as much right as any one else to express their opinions,and no one could ever accuse me of wanting to silence any one for any reason.
It's the AGENDA of so many Christians that I and other liberals are opposed to. That's because these fanatical social conservatives are a menace to society. In their self-righteous zeal,they think that they will make society for "moral" by making everything they disapprove of illegal.But this would only lead to a repressive theocracy.

[Dan]

Now whos hypocrisy is showing mr hamburger?

If anyone here is a fanatic, its you. And every single one of your posts is proof of this. Everything bad about obama is a "vicious lie" and anyone who has the guts to wear their Christianity on their sleeve is a zealot.

No doubt the type of Christianity you love is obamas type. Which only lends strength to your love affair with him. The type of Christian whos faith is a weekend hobby at best. Ya, thats the kind of Christian you like. A watered down coward who bows at your feet to win your vote.

Like Walt said. You just have an irrational fear of a religious boogieman. And the real oppressors are people like you. Throwing out accusations ripe with hyperbole left and right but taking oh so much offense when anything, even truth, is thrown your way.

Seriously, why do you even bother coming here and reading these articles if each and every single one earns a reaction as violent as water hitting hot oil? You don't even come here to discuss or even debate. You come here to get angry, scream and rant. Do yourself and everyone else a favor and stick to the Dailykos, Media Matters and commenting on the young turks youtube channel.

[Prisoner of Socialism]

Robert,

Maybe you should consider moving to my home country, the Netherlands. It’s ruled by atheists, liberals and socialists. And like the rest of Europe overrun by Muslims. It must be heaven on earth for people like you…

[Shaun]

Excellent idea Dutchman. What a great educational experience that would be.

[Dave]

Robert Berger says
"right wing religious fanatic whackball"-----"fanatic (there it is again) anti choice sexually repressed loon"-----"self righteous jerk"

Only one solution to this. Immediately award this most deserving gentleman the award for presenting us with today's "ad hominem attack extraordinaire."

Lenin is surely applauding .

Now, continue on with polite debate.

[David A]

Mr. Berger

You "don't condemn any one (sic) merely for being a Christian," but you don't mind maligning them for having their own "audacity of hope" to believe that a True Christian has the right and privilege of representing the American people, simply because they live by their professed convictions. Your position is fallacious and dangerous to liberty, as you have embraced the coattails of the ultra-liberal left. There is nowhere for you to go, but down.

[adam]

I don't see anything about O'Donnell to like.

The sad part is Castle from what i understand voted conservative 55% of the time which sad to say for some this make him Obama which is extremism although he is more of a moderate.

How can any conservative label someone who filed a sex discrimination lawsuit of 6 million dollars for being let go from a job.

That is socialism at it's finest. If you are a woman or a minority you can't be let go from your job. So she is a marxist as well as she feels a s a woman she is entitled to a job no matter who she preforms. And she has played the woman card like Obama plays being black (only half) so.

The fact that she claims to be religious why isn't she married.
I believe God wants intimacy for the purpose of bringing life into the world so why isn't she married.

Nothing about her says she practices what she preaches.

The extremist by the way usually are phonies anyway.

And also some religious people are marxist as well. I hate to say it but many religious men don't believe in property rights and they think the church or the synagogue should replace the family.

I say this as someone Jewish. Most Rabbi's in positions and I am talking Orthodox don't really respect property rights whether it comes to marriage or business.

So there is nothing about O'Donnell to suggest she isn't a marxist as well. In fact her lawsuit suggests she thinks she is entitled to a job. If that isn't marxism I don't know what is. And she lied in this lawsuit as well claiming she had a degree she did not have.

[John]

Adam,

You said 'I don't see anything about O'Donnell to like.'

Let's see, she'd vote to repeal Obamacare. She'd vote against cap & tax. She wouldn't raise taxes. She'd go by the Constitution. She's pro-life. She'd protect the institution of marriage. I could go on. But I suppose you'd rather support the 'bearded marxist.'

You did say one thing that was correct - 'If that isn't marxism I don't know what is.'

You're right. You have no idea what marxism is.

What a maroon.

[Dan]

Wow. So much ignorance, and so many straw men. Where to begin?

"How can any conservative label someone who filed a sex discrimination lawsuit of 6 million dollars for being let go from a job.

That is socialism at it's finest. If you are a woman or a minority you can't be let go from your job."

Getting fired from a job because of a persons sex is
#1 Against the law #2 Unethical in the first place.
I don't know the specifics of the case. And I really doubt you do either.

"The fact that she claims to be religious why isn't she married.
I believe God wants intimacy for the purpose of bringing life into the world so why isn't she married.

Nothing about her says she practices what she preaches."

Nice straw man. Point to me in the bible where it says something to the effect of "You are nothing more than a baby factory, and you must be married and attempting to pump out babies, love is irrelevant, otherwise you are a sinner."

You have manufactured a standard, that she doesn't hold, and hold her accountable to it. Fail.

"And also some religious people are marxist as well. I hate to say it but many religious men don't believe in property rights and they think the church or the synagogue should replace the family.

I say this as someone Jewish. Most Rabbi's in positions and I am talking Orthodox don't really respect property rights whether it comes to marriage or business."

Another strawman. #1 Haven't heard of that problem. #2 Sounds like a Jewish problem, not a religious, or specifically in O'donnells case a christian one.
Which is why we have the constitution, bill of rights, and other laws in general.

"So there is nothing about O'Donnell to suggest she isn't a marxist as well." Yes, there is. Tons of it.

"In fact her lawsuit suggests she thinks she is entitled to a job." No, she doesnt. You need to read about the specifics of the case from a place other than the DailyLie errrr Kos

"If that isn't marxism I don't know what is."
No, you don't.

"And she lied in this lawsuit as well claiming she had a degree she did not have." No, she didn't.

[jbailey]

Man, this is lively, to say the least. Trying to make up my mind if Berger is kin to that politician who continually shouts, yells, throwing hands in the air, and seemingly is unable to discuss matters in a calm, level headed, reasonable way. If a young lady is not married, it doesn't necessarily mean she is a lesbian...nor does it mean we should enquire as to what kind of birth control pills she uses...if any. It is her business. I like her and it seems her presentations are down to earth and her responses are heart felt and real. To admit that she skirted into the occult as a teenager, probably means she was looking for friendship and a togetherness that drew a few together as a small group to pal around with. I doubt she lingered there very long. However, to visit a country such as Kenya, and become "persauded" that Marxism is the light of the world...raises many questions. Even to the simple minded, easily persauded, such influences dabble into the realms of fanaticism...requiring extensive thought, evaluating systems, concluding that collectivism, redistribution of wealth, etc. is the way to go.
Kenya is not the example of prosperity, and is highly socialistic and communistic in nature...flavored with Muslim indoctrination. Once the fanatical element of these forces come to bare, to the extent of defining them in a "Bearded Marxist"...they may be hard to let go, and may linger in the recesses of the mind. Obama himself may fall exactly into this category. His Muslim influence was strong, his mother an atheist socialist, his grandparents communist friendly and leaning, his education completely left wing, his associates even radical...are we then surprised at his direction in leading. We truly have a choice to make in the coming weeks and months ahead. Survival and revival of the free enterprise capitalist system...or go down the path of socialist hell where we all lose. We are treading in dangerous waters, and if we are not extremely careful, we will drown sure as hell.
Let us not get bogged down with petty crap, or become distracted at the propaganda tactics of the Axelrods. We are faced with very serious problems, not the least of which are the goals of leadership that wants to spend us into socialism.
Should we be concerned or distraught at how a young unmarried lady achieves her composure in the privacy of her home...and too, the bearded marxist might have lost his collective tendency. Who knows. My bet would be on the young lady.

[S. Wesley Mcgranor]

'Extremism' - is the difference from incomplete character vs. an active personality. It is regarding compromise vs. principle.