Sullivan: Bi-Polar Nation (Free Republic, which is sometimes just as outrageous . . as DU)

The Sunday Times via andrewsullivan.com ^ | 11/09/03 | Andrew Sullivan

[Pokey78]

America, Divided

I was searching around for a metaphor for what life is actually like as a politically interested person in the U.S. right now, and I'm not sure I've come up with anything that accurately conveys it. The term "polarization" seems a little too anti-septic. "Bi-polar" suggests serial ups and downs, whereas America's divisions are deep and simultaneous. The "red-blue" split - between blue coastal elites and red Middle America - has become an almost meaningless cliche; and it misses the fact that there are plenty of blue-style voters in red America and vice-versa. Evoking the deep divides of the Vietnam war is also rhetorical over-kill. We're not there yet. At the same time, the gulf between liberals and conservatives, broadly speaking, or between Bush-supporters and Bush-haters, between young and old, between South and North, has rarely been as profound or as bitter than now. The fact that the United States is also at the beginning of a long war against Islamo-fascism makes the divisions more acrimonious and emotionally fraught. You feel at times, in many conversations and interactions, caught between two magnetic poles, whose cultural power is so strong that maintaining any position in between them becomes harder and harder.

Just look at the best-seller list for starters. Top of the pops is Michael Moore - a fanatical, duplicitous Bush-hater. Close behind, another anti-Bush screed, by Al Franken. You can gather its reasoned tone by the title: "LIES (AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM)." Then right behind them comes Bill O'Reilly, pugnacious, intolerant host of Fox News Channel's most successful right-leaning talk-show: "Who's Looking Out For You?" Further down, "The Great Unraveling," by Paul Krugman, the New York Times' unhinged leftist; and "Bushwhacked," yet another anti-Bush tome from Texas liberal, Molly Ivins. Then at Number 5, there's a very popular memoir by ... Barbara Bush! And a best-seller from David Limbaugh called "Persecution." The Times explains the book thus: "The author of 'Absolute Power' argues that 'liberals are waging war against Christianity.'" Yep. This is debate in America. You're a Liar! You too! You Oppress Me! I Hate You! Don't! Do! Etc etc etc.

The difficulty of finding middle ground was highlighted last week in several ways. The election results showed the South gradually becoming monolithically Republican: the governorships in Kentucky and Mississippi both went to Bush's party; and the race in Louisiana is headed the same way. That follows elections last year that saw the Democrats losing governors' races in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. Four Democratic senators from the South have already announced they will not seek re-election, adding to the Republican march, and almost certainly ensuring Republican control of the U.S. Senate for the foreseeable future. The Senator from Georgia, Zell Miller, a former ally of Bill Clinton, went so far as to endorse Bush for re-election, more than a year ahead of time, denouncing his Democratic colleagues with sarcasm and contempt.

Meanwhile, the leading Democratic candidate, Howard Dean, could not represent the Northeastern upper middle class liberal more perfectly. He's from Vermont, one of the home bases of what's being called "the Starbucks Metrosexual elite." His favorite singer is Jean Wyclef (no, don't ask me). He's for raising taxes, expanding healthcare, and withdrawing some forces from Iraq. Last week, he committed not his first gaffe with respect to the South. In a Boston debate, he was pummeled by arguing that the Democrats needed to appeal to Southern "guys with Confederate flags in their pick-up trucks." His impulse was right - the Democrats cannot afford to alienate Southern and conservative voters the way they long have done. But he enraged the Democratic base by referring to what many regard as a racist symbol of the Old South and he alienated Southerners by what seemed like a witless stereotype. Senator Miller remarked, "Dean knows as much about the South as a hog knows about Sunday." No, I don't know what that means either. But then I'm no less of a Southerner than Howard Dean is.

The divide is deeper than geography. Take two events from last week. George W. Bush signed the "Partial Birth Abortion Act," which bans the late-pregnancy procedure in which an unborn child is pulled halfway out of the womb only to have its skull crushed. The opponents of the bill refuse even to use the term "partial birth abortion," and see this moderate restriction, supported by big majorities in the Congress and among the public, as the beginning of the end of legal abortion in America. A horrified New York Times opined, "With this legislation, Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress are clearly mounting an assault on women's reproductive rights." Within hours of the law passing, a judge had ordered a Constitutional stay on the matter, pending judicial review. Impasse. Or take the network CBS' production of a new miniseries on the Reagans. Produced with the help of the left-liberals who dominate Hollywood, starring liberal Judy Davis as Nancy and Barbra Streisand's husband as Reagan, the program was riddled with errors and anti-Reagan distortions. Even the head of CBS conceded that the movie was biased. It portrayed Reagan as viciously homophobic, and as having Alzheimers in his term of office - ideas that seem completely banal to the Coastal liberals. But the Internet and talk radio exploded in fury and the series was shifted to the cable channel, Showtime. Then it was the turn of liberals to be outraged. "Hallelujah! The Gipper is safe and the hated liberal media humbled. It's a big victory for the "Elephant Echo Chamber," the unholy trinity of conservative talk radio, conservative Internet sites and the Republican National Committee," wrote liberal pundit, Jonathan Alter, in Newsweek. Again, culture war deadlock.

The Iraq war has exacerbated the tension even further. Here's a bowdlerized version of an email posted on the Democratic Underground website last week. DU is a radical left publication, although it obviously uses the party name: "I Hope the Bloodshed Continues in Iraq. Well, that should bring the bats out of the attic with fangs dripping. I won't be hypocritical. It is politically correct, particularly in any Dem discussion to hope and pray and feel for our troops and scream "bring them back now"... I realize that not every GI Joe was 100 percent behind President Bush going into this war; but I do know that that is what an overwhelming number of them and their families screamed in the face of protesters who were trying to protect these kids. Well, there is more than one way to be "dead" for your country. They are not only not accomplishing squat in Iraq, they are doing nothing for the safety, defense of the US of A over there directly. But "indirectly" they are doing a lot. The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil baron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free." No, this is not representative of the left as a whole. But the fact that it exists at all shows how alienated some parts of the United States now are. And you can find similarly wacko views on the right on such websites as Free Republic, which is sometimes just as outrageous in the other direction as Democratic Underground.

Some of this can be attributed to the psychological strains of a difficult war. Some is a replay of the acrid tensions of Vietnam, through which prism the baby-boomer generation tends to see everything. Some may also be due to the fracturing of the media in which cable and the Internet and talk radio have given every constituency its own echo chamber. When that happens, the ability to frame arguments in order to persuade, rather than simply to rally the troops, becomes atrophied. Some is also generational, with the under-30s showing the highest levels of support for president Bush and the over 60s expressing the most severe discontent. But after a while, the rancour becomes self-reinforcing, with both sides using the other side's bitterness as new fuel for their own. When you add the profit motive - and the extremist books have been selling phenomenally well - the combustible mix is complete.

Politically, however, it strikes me that much of this curdling of discourse might actually help president Bush. He is a deeply polarizing figure in some quarters but he is the president. And as the president, his rhetoric has been studiedly non-inflammatory. He has rewarded his far right flank not with fiery language but with constant contact, judicial appointments and kinder, gentler Christian boilerplate. This low-key style ensures that although he will never win over that third of the electorate that despises him, he seems more appealing to the middle than the angry left that is now galvanizing the Democratic primary season. He is not a uniter of all; but he is a uniter of what is almost certainly a plurality. Through the fog of a polarized, divided country, he has somehow managed to cobble together a majority. It hovers around 55 percent. And the more the Democrats assail him personally, the shriller and less electable they seem. Perhaps even Bush will come acropper in this difficult terrain - especially if he nominates a real extremist to the Supreme Court or backs a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage. But so far, he is still the relatively calm voice in the middle of the increasingly raucous and uncompromising crowd. The warring words fly over his head. And if Bill Clinton survived the hatred, why on earth should this president not?

[Amelia]

But I have to agree with Sullivan (not for the first time) that FR can also attract its foil-wrap crowd, as well as those that are a little less than rational about their favoured hobby-horses.

Anyone who has been here for any length of time knows that. Some of us apparently don't want to admit it this morning.

[Trust but Verify]

I imagine Sullivan was referring to the "Nuke Mecca" brigade. Yes, they are here, and they are an embarrassment

My thoughts exactly.

[tet68]

Note to Sullivan,

Bill Clinton didn't survive the hatred, he escaped justice.

[Timesink]

As was that post, on DU. In fact, it was pulled within hours ... but continues to circulate as if it was still there, due to the wonders of cacheing.

Yeah, something like EIGHTEEN hours, and only after it started being published elsewhere and became an embarrassment to DU. If it had never started getting circulated, it would still be there today.

Anyway, there are only three reasons Sullivan mentioned FR, not necessarily in the following order of importance:

1) This was a serious piece written for what is arguably the most influential newspaper in Britain, so he had to play "fair and balanced".

2) His entire argument (which I disagree with, but that's not important here) is that America is becoming more divided than ever. To mention DU and not FR would imply that all the true hardcore anger is on one side, and undercut his own point.

3) There is a contingent of Freepers that does not like Andrew Sullivan, mainly because he's openly gay, and some of them love using certain intellectual debate tactics to counter his arguments, along the lines of "Who cares what that faggot thinks?" Obviously, when you do that to someone with a regular column in The Times of London, eventually you're going to get slammed in The Times of London for doing so. It's payback.

[Rebelbase]

"I imagine Sullivan was referring to the "Nuke Mecca" brigade.
Yes, they are here, and they are an embarrassment"

Yep, a true embarrasement.

[codercpc]

bump for later reading.

[independentmind]

BTTT

[section9]

Precisely; which is why Sullivan put in the qualifiers and attempted to be "balanced" by criticizing the whackos over here (the Nuke Mecca people and some of the Paleocon Southern Restorationists). The fact is, that post got taken down precisely because the DU moderators saw that Sullivan got a hold of it and it was spreading throughout the internet faster than any Urban Legend had done since, well, since Tourist Guy. What really embarrassed them was not simply the post, coming as it did in the wake of the Chinook shootdown. What really gave them pause was the fact that so many of the "respondents" understood or agreed with the poster (Starpass).

Basically, DU is the home of the Sturmabteilungen Wing of the Democratic Party. The good thing about this is that their extremism will be their undoing in 2004, George Soros' attempt to purchase a President notwithstanding. Extremism always comes a cropper in Western societies. DU's problem is that ours is not an Islamic society, in which extremism and rabid debate win one brownie points in the souk. Rather, it is one based on Hellenistic assumptions about reason and moderation in debate and discourse. But there is always a bad thing for every good thing, as Martha Stewart might say. The bad thing is that these asshats are well on their way to becoming the "mainstream" of the Democratic Party, just as the Hippies did thirty years ago.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[mylife]

Sullivan is offbase here.
I have seen some wild statements on FR but they are usually "tounge in cheek" and are ALWAYS met with internal reprimands from fellow FReepers.
DU in contrast is a place where any "wildeyed" statment is met with an ever escalating chorus of even more outrageous comments. Any posts on DU by so called moderates are immediatly met with the cyberlynching of the moderate.
DU has nothing to do with democracy, it is MOB rule by anarchist.
Even their own moderaters have pleaded to no avail for the DUers to clean up their acts. Their mods have started to track there own people because it is so bad.
FR in contrast is for the most part, self policing, that is a sign of healthy society.

[kittymyrib]

Sullivan is not happy with FR because many on here believe homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so. Howard Dean will have the homosexual voters who love him for supporting same-sex marriage in Vermont, so why should Republicans care about this miniscule group anyway?

[TomB]

Well put, both of you. Denying our own misfits is denying reality. I'm willing to allow them their say and just as willing to shout them down when they do.

Hey Chris, seems like every blog comments section I read I see you. Well done.

[John H K]

The main difference between FR and DU is FR has about 100 times the posts, I guess (don't really have the foggiest idea what the actual difference is in posts/posters between the boards.)

DU is 90% loons, FR is about 1% loons, overall the loon total is about the same, but ALL DU has is political fanatics without real jobs; FR is mostly reasonable people, people with actual life experience making them experts on everything from firearms to electrical grids.

It makes the number of loons SEEM a lot lower here.

However, I'd submit we actually do have about as many as DU, and they're just as bad and embarassing....the Nuke Mecca folks, the apocalyptic religious prophecy nutballs, the rabid anti-gays, the most extreme of the Clinton obsessives, and the conspiracy nutters.

[ODDITHER]

The difference between DU and FreeRepublic is that you have to look long and hard for outrageous comments. DU is 90 percent outrageous.

"South as a hog knows about Sunday." Andrew that is why the disconnect is so deep between bicoastal states and middle America.

Farmers work 7 days a week, with very few vacations, if any at all. Why? cause the hogs don't know it's Sunday. Nor do the cows sheep or horses.

My grandfather used to tell us "get up and go feed the cows", and we would say but it's Sunday can't they wait? The cows don't know it"s Sunday. Get up and go feed them."

He then would say, there ain't no rest for the wicked and the righteous don't need any - get up and go.

We always wondered if grandpa thought we were righteous or wicked and he would never tell us. Take your pick he would say, with a gleem in his eye, I imagine on any given day we all swing from one tree to t'other. I used to imagine A man swinging from big long rope kind of like Tarzan, and the rope was going back and forth like a grandfather clock. When it went right, the man would look like an Angel and when it went left he looked like the devil and when it was in the middle he looked like a man.

Maybe Grandpa was alot smarter than I realized on those cold snowy Sunday mornings when he would make us get up and go feed the cows.

Alas, the Andrew Sullivans and every bi-coastal liberal needs a year on the farm.

[katana]

Nascent Civil War. I honestly think it may come to that. All that's needed is a spark.

I cannot recall any time from my life (even the 60's) when the political and philosophical divide was so large. The two sides may as well be speaking different languages. Treason to everything this Republic was founded upon is now common and that situation can't last.

[pickemuphere]

I heard Sean Hannity on his show Monday 11/10 and he had a caller talking about Free Republic and Sean said he was a frequent lurker and that "they have some real wackos there as well".

I would wager that Hannity found some posts referring to him as "Helmethead Hannity."

[Dan from Michigan]

There's only two things in the middle of the road, Andrew. ROADKILL and a YELLOW STRIPE.

[MissAmericanPie]

I really don't know if there is any point in attempting to bring reason to those with a mugger mentality that have wrapped themselves in a self deluding ideology that imparts to them a false, self satisfied, sense of nobility. But I so dread the widening fissures that no stone should be left unturned to forestall what's in the pipe a decade or two away.

[Lazamataz]

Sulliven makes out like I'm asking for all liberals to be rounded up and killed in vast concentration camps that run night and day, stacking dead liberals like cordwood for mass burials.

I don't want that. Too much work. Eliminate them right where you find 'em.

[Lazamataz]

DU is 90% loons, FR is about 1% loons,

Yeah, but I post a lot more than average people do.

Thusly increasing the loon factor.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

I don't see what many of you see in Bush either.

The only time I support him is when some idiot leftist starts spewing lies about him, and as much as I have no use for him, I have to defend him.

IMHO, he's Al Gore with personal morals.
Gore could never have advanced his agenda so far, however.