Red-State Sneer

We should be glad there are guys like this out there. As long as we have people like him explaining why republicans are winning, the libs will never figure it out.

This guy doesn't have a clue.

Red-State Sneer
Prospect Magazine [UK] ^ | January 2005 | Michael Lind
Posted on 12/18/2004 2:52:12 PM EST by quidnunc

"Many Democrats blame the unenlightened people of red-state America for John Kerry's defeat. But most working-class Americans remain politically centrist and a rising number simply want to live in the fast-growing suburbs of middle America. Liberals should stop sneering at the people they aspire to lead"

"Liberals" cannot lead because they only "aspire to" mislead by dictating according to their collective ego-centricity."

"Is the United States turning into the Republic of Gilead? That was the name of the theocratic Christian America that Margaret Atwood imagined in her novel The Handmaid's Tale."

America is not turning into a theocracy just because most Americans find loud neurotic narcissistic atheists repulsive and offensive - a threat to America's freedoms.

"Following the November election in the US, a map circulating on the internet showed the blue states of the east and west coasts annexed to Canada, with the red-state portions of the country that had voted Republican labelled "Jesusland."

Yep, and that sort of post-election ill-liberal derision is just another example why the obnoxious liberal intoleRANTS were defeated. Defeated by their mocking Americans of Christian good-will.

"The election of 2004 confirmed the status of the Republican party in the US as the majority party at all levels — but it did not prove that Americans have turned into reactionaries."

The only perverse reactionaries we have in America are those misnamed as "liberals." A political "liberal" is not really liberal at all - a political neo-Marxist "liberal" is a snotty elitist. So-called "liberals" do not represent most Americans nor can they lead Amerca because their overbearing "liberal" contempt for most Americans runneth over.

"Unlike Nixon and Reagan, who were re-elected in landslides, Bush barely squeaked by."

Against terrific odds, permeating defamation, slander and ridicule, a left-biased media (ref:CBS/Rather failed coup), dysinformation and propaganda, Bush gracefully side-stepped the manure piles and passed by to win.

"He remains a divisive and unpopular president."

The Democrat party is the most divisive entity in America.
Right now, the Democrat party is the most unpopular entity in America.

"And self-described conservatives, like self-described liberals, remain a minority in the US."

All rational and reasonable Americans, if not all decent humans, are conservative by their nature and temperment. A "political conservative" is not as radically reactionary as a "political liberal."

"The American right has managed to unite the centre with the right in a majority coalition. But it has not converted the centre to the right."

I am tired of this guy's clone-minded stereotyping. What in hell! Does Lind presume to objectively analyse "center to right" conversions? Obviously, Michael Lind, sounding like the same old leftoever, has no intellectual compass because he only sees political dimensions on the static stereotypical flatline between left and right.

"Indeed, in this election, as in 2000, Bush downplayed his hardline conservatism"

Obligatory false premise blathers, what a bore Lind is! Michael Lind should define what he means by "hardline conservatism." Also, Lind should demonstrate how Bush "downplayed his hardline conversatism."

Fortunately for Bush, and for America, the Democrat party did not downplay its hardline neoMarxist tactics and imperatives.

Many thanks again to the vigilant Free Republic members for countering the Bush-Memos coup contrived by Democrats, CBS and hardlined leftist Dan Rather.

"and [Bush]campaigned on the basis of widely shared American values."

Traditional and conservative American values. (Certainly not Vichy France's values!)

[Lind concludes]The Republicans have successfully reached out to red-state America — while the Democrats have turned their backs on it.

The Democrats turned their arses to Americans and emitted toxic flatus at them. The ever-so liberal Democrats continue to pollute America with their meanspirited emissions.

Michael Lind is a hack.

Is it too much to expect that sometime, somewhere, a British magazine or newspaper ask an actual BUUSH VOTER why Bush won, instead of always asking fellow travelers of the losing party? I'm a red-voting dummy, but even us dummies realize that the winners probably know more about why they won than the losers do.

Interesting read of the election by ex-liberal Michael Lind. I would say the center has united with the right precisely in that Left looks down on the beliefs and lifestyles of Middle America. The reasons for the Democrats' loss isn't too hard to divine. As long as the party says to Americans, "you're stupid" or "you can't have that - its fill in the blanks for you", they will keep on losing elections.

Michael Lind is an ex-conservative that moved left. Though I wouldn't call him a lib either. I guess he would be a LSM-defined-moderate if this piece reflects his stand (read: centre-left to the extent that is between a liberal and a centrist).

Michael Lind's first book was Up From Conservatisme, a takeoff on Buckley's book and arguable seriously written. He'd have done well to put in 4 at Fort Benning while starting the literary career.