Posted on 05/09/2006 6:40:43 AM PDT by Quilla
America’s Left and the political party it calls home, the Democrats, have been seized by anger ever since the disputes of the 2000 presidential election, with its razor-thin margin, judicial intervention called forth by Gore, and the ultimate victory for President Bush. Intoxicated by the endocrine-like jolts of energy, the Left has become addicted to anger.
The Left has been self-administering a daily dose of derision, bile, and venom in an effort to keep its energy levels high in the face of a continued Republican hold on the presidency and Congressional majorities. But these are dangerous drugs. Whatever satisfying kick they provide, the side effects are so serious as to threaten the survival of the organism itself.
The toxicity has become so potent that some of the cooler heads on the Left are starting to notice. Richard Cohen, writing in his Washington Post column today, describes his email, traffic after a mildly critical reference to Stephen Colbert’s unfunny performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner:
It seemed that most of my correspondents had been egged on to write me by various blogs. In response, they smartly assembled into a digital lynch mob and went roaring after me. If I did not like Colbert, I must like Bush. If I write for The Post, I must be a mainstream media warmonger. If I was over a certain age—which I am—I am simply out of it, wherever “it” may be. All in all, I was—I am, and I guess I remain—the worthy object of ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation. [….]
But the message in this case truly is the medium. The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble—not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before—back in the Vietnam War era. That’s when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.
The hatred is back. I know it’s only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations.
Presumably Cohen writes to warn his ideological brethren of the dangers and possibly deflect or diminish the anger. This will not work. Anger is a self-reinforcing addiction when it is shared with others in the same community. Anger is a terrific motivator. Angry people contribute money, go to events, wear buttons, t-shirts, and funny hats, and readily slap bumper stickers on their Priuses, Volvos, Beetles, mini-vans, and Lexuses. They enjoy meeting and spending time with others who are in tune with their particular emotional orientation.
And President Bush, by his very persona, triggers the very wellsprings of anger and resentment on the part of the secular fundamentalists who dominate the contemporary Left. A large segment of the American intelligentsia and its hangers-on has found an object wholly outside their framework of affection. People who obtained their status and income partially from the ability to speak articulately, and master a body of learning, find it troubling when one who gives no evidence of even caring about reading books and newspapers, or developing a large vocabulary of eloquently-spoken words, rises above them in status. It is an insult to the personal values they have embraced, and on whose rightness their own sense of self-worth depends.
His open Christian faith is an affront to their pretentious embrace of denatured religion, agnosticism or atheism. That such a man should be the head of state for the political entity they regard as the vehicle for transformation of humanity is both prfoundly embarrassing and infuriating to them.
The energy generated by the resulting anger intoxicates those who have no solace in the ability to command others to conform to their vision, lacking access to the instruments of state power. But like the thrill brought on by amphetamines or other nervous system stimulants, the short term surge comes at the cost of longer term damage to health.
Americans tend to favor optimism and a sunny disposition in their political leadership. Ours is a nation built on the pursuit of happiness as an inalienable right granted us by our Creator. More than two hundred years after this right was articulated in the Declaration of Independence, Ronald Reagan won overwhelming electoral support running on the slogan “Morning in America.” Aside from its limited electoral appeal, anger is operationally a tricky, even dangerous force to harness. “Blind anger” is a common expression precisely because anger tends to render its carriers insensible to the complexities and subtleties of their environment. Particularly when the angry gather together, their anger feeds on itself and multiplies its force. It is precisely for this reason that mobs are recognized as dangerous. Even if the shared anger is nonviolent, it still is capable of blinding the angry to the probable reactions of others. Convinced of their utter righteousness, seriously angry political movements readily overplay the cards they are dealt. Haters of Bill Clinton learned the hard way that the middle/majority of Americans could not be mobilized to share their passion, even when they held an ace, in the form of their enemy’s false testimony under oath.
The current decade sees the Democrat Left even more dominated by anger than conservatives ever were in the 90’s. When Nancy Pelosi promises investigations of Bush, should voters hand a House majority to her party, she may energize her adherents, but she also alienates the swing voters who will determine that majority. As Charles Krauthammer (creator of the Bush Derangement Syndrome diagnosis) noted yesterday on Special Report with Brit Hume, they are in essence promising voters that they will make sure that Bush goes down in history as a failed president.
The appeal of such a promise is minimal, even when the stakes are “only” national prosperity and domestic policy. When the nation is at war with an enemy that seeks our destruction, the promise becomes a mutual suicide pact, a platform with extremely limited appeal.
The left has always been the party of anger. They hated Reagan. The left was just a little less open about their anger. The left always projects on their enemies their own traits.
Excellent article by Lifson - as usual. He is a brilliant writer and thinker!
A profound insight, there.
The left can not accept that on Jan 21, 2008 Bush will not be POTUS. They have too much anger and hatred invested in him.
I thought it started with FDR's attempts to have the Federal government set all prices and wages?
"The current decade sees the Democrat Left even more dominated by anger than conservatives ever were in the 90's."
"Anger" is putting it mildly - it is more like blind hatred of anything associated with GWB as he is a constant reminder of their 2000 and 2004 losses. We can only hope that this hatred will drive the Dems ever further left. Selecting Gore as standard bearer would be the icing on the cake.
.....The energy generated by the resulting anger intoxicates those who have no solace in the ability to command others to conform to their vision,......
He describes the force as intoxication. When I viewed the recent clips of Pelosi gushing about the future it seemed orgasmic in origin.
"The kind of hate that the Democrats have is the kind of hate that kills millions. It is the hate of the Socialists and Communists everywhere."
Now that bears repeating. It really is that simple.
It is just that kind of mind-set, filled with paranoia, and hatred for those who choose not to follow their doctrine, that thinks up the gulags and death camps, and secret-police.
Uncle joe stalin comes to mind.
Without insane leftwing anger I wouldn't have a source of great material for the DUmmie FUnnies.
"It is just that kind of mind-set, filled with paranoia, and hatred for those who choose not to follow their doctrine, that thinks up the gulags and death camps, and secret-police. "
Agreed. And just to expand a little bit on the thought... the leftists, in general, tend to paint conservatives as stupid. When your enemy is seen as that stupid, you dehumanize them. Dehumanize a group, and all sorts of atrocities suddenly become possible.
"The left always projects on their enemies their own traits."
Maybe the right does too.
Look at Clinton (either one), Kennedy (pick one) or Kerry.
Can you honestly say you haven't seen plenty of hate for them around here?
"Without insane leftwing anger I wouldn't have a source of great material for the DUmmie FUnnies."
I've gone to the DU and seen their restrictive policies. There have been times I wanted to debate one or two of the more rational posters. No way. If you don't follow in lockstep, you're gone, banned. At least here, as long as you're rational about it, you can explore more than one side of an issue. (More than once I've been called a socialist, or DU escapee here, but never banned).
"Can you honestly say you haven't seen plenty of hate for them around here?"
Total seething hate for the Clintons, Jimmy Carter and Swimmer Kennedy. However, the right doesn't project traits on to those people. The hate around here is largely generated by the people in question. Earned, if you will.
"Dehumanize a group, and all sorts of atrocities suddenly become possible"
Yes, that's very true. It has been S.O.P. for these people.
Excellent point.
Once they get the masses all worked up in a tizzy, they can begin their work.
Totally agree.
"The kind of hate that the Democrats have is the kind of hate that kills millions. It is the hate of the Socialists and Communists everywhere."
Dittos to that! We need to remember this and keep repeating it! (Would make a good bumper sticker, too.)
ALSO
Look at their women -- almost all of the RAT/lib/socialist women have hate-eaten faces! All of the botox in the world can't get rid of that!
Please, not before breakfast.
I agree with you. I think that it is unfortunate but the manufacture of "anger points" has become a big part of the political process in the country. Its as if to defeat your opponent you first must hate him.
The Left wants to change society. They believe that society can be transformed by political means, and when they are denied the opportunity to effect those changes, they become enraged.
The rise of the New Left as a potent political force, beginning in the late 1960's, has been the most profound political event of the last 50 years. Its statist assumptions will little by little chip away at our freedom to speak and worship.
The right did hate Clinton. Clinton was a congenial liar. He could sound so sincere on a subject eventhough everone knows he is lying through his teeth. Even the left marveled at Clinton's ability to lie with a straight face and they loved him for it. The right did back too many conspiracy theories which discredited them, and most of the real stories were then dismissed by the media because of that. I don' think the right did not really projected their traits on to Clinton though. The left is more adept to doing anything to get their agenda advanced.
The quintessential "face" of this hatred can be seen in any image of Al Gore while giving a speech. Take your pick. His face is contorted; his eyes are lasers of hatred and venom; and his mouth is distorted with rage as he assails this sitting president.
"Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."
This severe break with reality, the Bush Derangement Syndrome is a malady that affects a small but vocal core of Bush Haters on Free Republic. If they are not liberals, they sound and act like them.
There is a huge difference in having derision towards politicians who routinely act in contempt of the rule of law (i.e. Clinton -either one, Kennedy - pick one, or Kerry), and an entire faceless group who does not share your political ideology.
I truly believe that the Democrats have been studying national socialist regimes more than even communism to get the pages for their playbook. Their constant invective towards conservatives, patriots, Christians, and white people in general just gives further justification to my view.
No matter how outraged you may be at the ineptitude and negligence of the Republican Congress and Presidency on so many issues, do not let anger cloud your judgment. Imagine these angry, decadent, delusional, incompetent and/or malevolent Leftists in control of the United States!
This is the bottom line:
Speaking for myself, it's more of a cold contempt for these phony poseurs who try to make us "great unwashed" think they really care about us.
The Clintons and the Kennedys have caused a lot of damage to this country, and Kerry would have also, thankfully he didn't get the chance.
That such a man should be the head of state for the political entity they regard as the vehicle for transformation of humanity is both prfoundly embarrassing and infuriating to them.
Many, if not most of them regard this "political entity" as the enemy, not a "vehicle for transformation of humanity." The UN is their true "vehicle."
And you and I are bushbots.
The Left does not see their imminent implosion. False polls are worshiped by the left like false gods. They will cannibalize themselves.
Positively Rovian!
"Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgement." -Michael Corleone
Care to tell us how you know about that polling? That would be interesting to know more about.
-Rex
Proud Bushbots!
As I said, it's just my opinion. I've heard nothing about polling.
Bump.
Cool. Thanks for the note!
Quite.
While the liberals are self-destructing over their hatred of all things Bush... conservatives are doing the same thing over immigration.
2006 midterms may end up being merely about who's a little behind in the race to the bottom. Both sides will be eating their own. I suspect it will be a very low turn-out midterm, as much of the squishy middle bails out of the hate and spew and decides not to care.
It'll be up to the extremes on either side to decide some seats in congress. Yikes. Strap in... it's gonna get bumpy. :-)
This article makes me wonder how Conservatives will act if Hillary is nominated. We will he HIGHLY motivated to defeat her, and rightfully so since she is a lying hypocritical Leftist. The trick will be to channel the vast antipathy against Hillary into a campaign that will not be seen as hateful by the independent swing voters. In our eagerness to defeat Hillary, we do NOT want those swing voters to be turned off to us like they are turned off by the Leftists.
Anger, vanity, envy, craving for power, lust, sloth, gluttony = Democrat
It proves the old claim that those who move so far to the right and those who move so far to the left finally meet up and join ranks. They are virtually indistinguishable.
"If a bird looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then you can infer that it is indeed a duck, even if it is not wearing a label that explicitly states its identity."
Most of these walk on water/Reagan was the greatest posters: sound like a liberal, post like a liberal, hate GW and Republicans like a liberal, are indeed liberals even if they don't admit to being a liberal.
The "Democratic Promise" playbook.
In his book, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (1971), Alinsky (Hillary Clinton's mentor) recommended "power tactics" to solve the kinds of problems that organizers and stewards often encounter. "Tactics are those consciously deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them," wrote Alinsky.
1 ) Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2 ) Never go outside the experience of your people. It may result in confusion, fear and retreat.
3 ) Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.
4 ) Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules.
5 ) Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6 ) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7 ) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8 ) Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9 ) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10 ) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11 ) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12 ) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13 ) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.
Sure he will, for 364 more days.
His term ends at noon on January 20, 2009.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.