Another Leftist Media Type Bemoans the “Rage” on the Right
Add this bitter diatribe by Charles Cooper to the growing list of hand-wringing missives from the left lamenting the potent “rage” from the right.
There are always going to be honest disagreements between honest men and women about how to best run the country. But the rage is rising and I wonder whether anyone still believes this remains a routine disagreement between left and right. The opposition to the president is more than an amalgam of discontent over budget deficits and bailouts, government spending and the choice of Supreme Court appointees. Almost from the day the Obama administration took office, the refrain has gotten louder and louder, egged on by a fringe pushing rumors that Obama was a Muslim or that Obama was a Kenyan national and thus in violation of the U.S. Constitution. when you step back from the day-to-day, it’s clear that health care reform is only the latest reason for Obama’s most unyielding critics to vent. With angry demands about wanting back “their America,” what is it that they really want to say?
Liberals just don’t get it, do they?
Part of the problem–as I have noted before at some length–is that liberals misread the results of the 2008 elections as a mandate for liberal policies. More on that momentarily.
There’s a good reason why liberals are scared out of their wits. It has been standard operating procedure in the past that when leftists hurl their slanderous invective at conservatives, conservatives refused to engage them. When liberals would cry “Nazi!” over a proposed slight reduction in the top tax bracket, conservatives would playfully tussle their hair, tell them what silly fools they were, and patiently explain to the public that a proposed reduction in top marginal tax brackets didn’t include a provision for zyklon b. But no longer.
Rush Limbaugh sparked impotent rage in the left by essentially saying, Okay, so you’re fond of Nazi analogies; let’s take a measured look at things and see which ideology most closely resembles the socialism and totalitarianism of Nazi Germany. Even when a prominent conservative dares to engage the shop-worn leftist imprecation that conservatives equal Nazis, he still pulls up short of attempting to imply that the opposition has designs on wholesale genocide–as well he should pull up short of such a brazen and ludicrous charge.
Likewise, conservative women have endured vitriolic denunciations from the left that are so misogynistic that it makes one question the seriousness of leftist women who refer to themselves as “feminists”, until careful discernment bears out the truth of the matter: to leftists, being a feminist means “has sworn fealty to the liberal catechism and cherishes abortion as a sacrament”. Thus, their febrile screeching that Palin is a dunce, a liar, and a bimbo surviving on looks, can accurately be viewed as projection. In truth, no woman on the planet is as vapid or shameless as, say, a Gloria Steinem or an Ariana Huffington, both of whom have–at least as near as anyone can tell (and in Steinem’s case, by her own admission)–slept with men to advance themselves. That doesn’t stop Maureen Dowd, for instance, from arrogantly pointing out that Palin attacks “cerebral Democrats” with her folksy wisdom and abominable habit of dropping her ‘G’s, because, as we all know, people are only truly enlightened if they graduate from Cornell’s journalism school or Harvard law.
Except, wait!–even that was formerly inadequate to prevent conservatives from charges of idiocy. Witness George W. Bush, who graduated from both Yale and Harvard, and who was allegedly too stupid to tie his own shoes. So the benchmark is: you must be a liberal.
Conservatives aren’t accepting this any longer. Liberals are appalled that average people are mobilizing themselves without the benefit of Harvard educated liberal leadership in order to inform their elected leaders that they want the government the hell out of the way. Apparently, it’s a crisis for our very republic: Hoi Poloi is reading bills! Whatever will we do?
Instead of simply laughing at liberal lunacy and moving on to make what conservatives refer to as “a point”, we’re actually returning fire. Hence, efforts to point out that dissent was all the rage from 2001-2007 inspire actual rage on the left. The left would have the public believe that mentions of their perfidy during the dreaded reign of the Bushitler are verboten. History for liberals begins when they say it does. That’s why, at any given moment, they can claim they want to move forward and take responsibility, and the next, they engage in shameless demagoguery of the former administration.
The effort to paint conservative opposition as nothing more than angry obstructionism really isn’t new, however. Labeling the opposition is much easier than arguing. As a generally rule, substandard ideas ought to be refuted, not labeled. Hence, Democrats don’t make any appreciable attempt to deny the existence of language in the health care bill that throws the doors wide open for government rationing of end-of-life care; instead, they label the opposition as angry and mob-like. Particularly Orwellian is the attempts to deny the existence us such language after Democrats admit the language has been excised! It would seem difficult to remove something that reputedly did not exist to begin with, so the proper answer for the left is: Right-wingers are angry, they’re Nazis, they’re obstructionists, and no, I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
Liberals would be well served in the future to understand that though we are no longer tolerating their foolishness, it doesn’t mean that our principles aren’t manifestly more fit and more agreeable to the American people. They would also be well served to recognize 2008 for what it was: The Year of the Anti-Bush. Hopenchange is dead on arrival precisely because the American people were fatigued after eight years of ceaseless attacks on Bush, and not surprisingly, some of those attacks–even the most outlandish–managed to stick, and the people made an over-correction. I would say that liberals would be best served to stop trying to win a moral equivalence game they’ve already lost and instead attempt to persuade people to their point of view, but I think we all know how that would work out.