Paranoia Politics

Seattle Weekly ^ | 12/17/03 | Knute Berger

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

BEATING GEORGE W. Bush in 2004 will be an uphill battle. While the campaign will require blood, toil, tears, and sweat, I think it's safe to say that it will not be successful if the opposition runs on the paranoia platform.

I loathe Bush like the next liberal, but I'm afraid I have to partially agree with the diagnosis of neocon columnist Charles Krauthammer, a former shrink, who earlier this month said he had identified a new psychological syndrome: Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), described as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush."

Now there are a lot of conservatives out there who are trying to pathologize liberalism—people who think, for example, that world-class economist Paul Krugman has somehow gone off his nut because in his column in The New York Times he consistently maintains that the Bush administration's policies are a menace. Krauthammer suggests Krugman is a BDS sufferer. He also tags Bill Moyers and Barbra Streisand, among others.

I disagree. Krugman, certainly, is one of the sanest men in the country. But I would also say this: Yes, there are those who occasionally become unhinged at the very idea of the Bush presidency, Mossback among them. A stolen election will do that. But there is also a comparable syndrome affecting those conservatives who froth like mad dogs at the idea that liberals themselves even exist. Author and commentator Ann Coulter is one case study. She believes that to be a liberal Democrat is to commit treason. And she worships the late red-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose execrable career was a singular monument to paranoia. So perhaps Krauthammer should be looking for a less partisan affliction.

But what the Moyers, Coulters, Streisands, and Krugmans think doesn't really matter. Paranoid or not, delusional or not, they're pundits and activists—part of American politics' "odds and sods" brigade who support the troops but do no real fighting. In the land of free speech, they can afford to be paranoid and are sometimes even rewarded for it.

IT'S A DIFFERENT MATTER, though, when it comes to politicians. Paranoia does matter, and some liberals need to do a better job of either treating their paranoia or hiding it.

Krauthammer's column was aimed at Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, who raised the suggestion that Bush might be trying to hide the fact that he was warned in advance about 9/11 by the Saudis. Dean's point was totally appropriate: The Bush administration is trying to withhold important information about who knew what leading up to 9/11. But it was wrong for Dean, a leading presidential contender, to voice a theory that, by his own admission, could not be proved. That's a role for the activists and commentators. A potential president has to be more careful: Go after Bush if you've got the goods. He might be the worst president in memory, but that's different from believing the worst in him. Dean's comments amount to a smear.

Dean has handed ammo to the Bushies with absolutely no benefit to himself or the party. Those who might believe in a 9/11 cover-up are already on his side. Validating paranoid theories with no evidence is a loser's gambit. This was dramatized effectively at Bush's post- Saddam-capture press conference on Monday, Dec. 15, when a member of the press raised Dean's allegation. Bush dismissed it as "absurd," but it also seemed beside the point in a moment of victory. Whatever you think about the war in Iraq, it's also hard to argue that capturing and trying Saddam Hussein is not a good thing, or that Bush doesn't genuinely believe he is trying to make America safer. Dean is already struggling for stature, and the 9/11 conspiracy suggestion makes him look small.

As if on cue, our own Jim McDermott entered the scene and stumbled in a way that underscores Krauthammer's BDS diagnosis. On Dave Ross' radio talk show on KIRO-AM, McDermott, the U.S. representative from Seattle, suggested that the timing of Hussein's arrest was political. "I'm sure they could have found him a long time ago if they wanted to," he claimed. McDermott went on to say that the capture of Saddam Hussein was some kind of preplanned Christmas gift that the Bush administration gave itself.

This is nuttier than a tin of Almond Roca, and it's the kind of blather that solidifies McDermott as a marginal congressional character whose greatest accomplishment is to provide fodder for Matt Drudge.

I DEFENDED MCDERMOTT in this column when he went to Baghdad before the war and called Bush a liar on national TV. McDermott later admitted that was a mistake. Not an error of fact—it's even clearer now that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war—but a political blunder. In the eyes of many, the timing and place of that comment hurt both McDermott and the antiwar movement.

McDermott later explained that he is frustrated with trying to operate in Bush's Washington and Tom DeLay's House of Representatives. I don't blame him. But if he can't stay positive, you have to wonder if one of America's rare, sure, liberal congressional seats should be left to a man who continues to undercut his credibility, and thereby the credibility of liberalism, with politically dumb crackpottery.

The Democrats would do well to take the advice of the paranoid yet politically effective Kennedy clan, who lived by the political saw, "Don't get mad, get even." Keep paranoia close to the vest and fight to win. To achieve victory in 2004, the Democrats are going to have to offer a positive alternative to the current regime. To do that, they need sanity on their side.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

For those of my fellow FReepers fortunate enough not to be trapped in The People's Glorious Republik of Seattlestan: THE SEATTLE WEEKLY is a scabby little "alternative" rag appreciably to the left of Chairman Mao; and the scribbler of the article in question -- i.e., Knute Berger -- is the sort of infection one might reasonably expect to contract, after years of continual and rigorous intellectual self-abuse.

For those wishing to share a gentle, FReeperish little observation or three with the (demonstrably) addlepated little leftist yipyop, after perusing the above yowlings: kberger@seattleweekly.com .

[ovrtaxt]

But there is also a comparable syndrome affecting those conservatives who froth like mad dogs at the idea that liberals themselves even exist. Author and commentator Ann Coulter is one case study.

No, Coulter makes a living out of laughing at you! Get a clue.

[ovrtaxt]

I shall email him shortly! Thanks for the email address.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Krugman, certainly, is one of the sanest men in the country.

Every time I stare at those words, ordered thusly: my eyes cross, involuntarily. :)

[fellowpatriot]

Validating paranoid theories with no evidence is a loser's gambit.

In other words, what he's saying is that lying doesn't work.

[ovrtaxt]

My email to this dingleberry:

I DEFENDED MCDERMOTT in this column when he went to Baghdad before the war and called Bush a liar on national TV. McDermott later admitted that was a mistake. Not an error of fact—it's even clearer now that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war—but a political blunder.

Bush lied? About what, that Saddam was a threat? That's obvious now. About the brutality of his regime? No, we have lots of creepy home videos from the Hussein family. Oh, it must be the WMD.

The fact that the CIA was EMASCULATED by leftists at the highest levels, starting with Sen. Frank Church's undermining of our intelligence gathering capabilities, has NOTHING to do with having to play catch-up now. It took us 8 months to find Aqualung--er, Saddam. Now you liberals expect us to just trip over chunks of Uranium and vials of sarin gas in the streets of Tikrit? Please.

They made an art of deception and concealment. What with Hans Blix and the Doofus Brigade visiting baby milk factories, driving around in the Mystery Machine looking for WMD, the Iraqi government became very adept at the art of illusion. It wouldn't surprise me if some of this stuff turned up in Iran or Syria.

In short, you liberals have nothing, NOTHING to run on except paranoia and emotions. And the resorvoir of emotion is finite. You will lose BIG in Nov., and it's your own fault. Get a clue. The majority of Americans are not socialists or communists. Once they start to actually think about politics, they invariably turn to the right.

Have a nice day.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Great stuff! Outstanding! :)

[tet68]

The most noteable symptom of BDS is complete denial of reality.

"A stolen election will do that. "

One need say no more.

[samtheman]

Of course the writer is a liberal scumbag who believes all the Standard Lies of Liberalism (election was stolen, Bush lied, etc).

But underneath it all, he's saying something interesting: Dean is a loser and unable to discern winning tactics from losing tactics.

This is great news if true. Because Dean continues to surge in the polls in New Hampshire.

An article like this allows me to dream the previously undreamable:

Bush wins all 50 states. The Republicans take 60 Senate seats (filibuster-proof).

Keep hope alive!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

To achieve victory in 2004, the Democrats are going to have to offer a positive alternative to the current regime. To do that, they need sanity on their side.

Madeleine Albright Excerpts from a Monitor breakfast on: capturing Saddam Hussein, North Korea, and foreign fighters in Iraq ****On the view of America she finds in travels overseas:

"I have never seen in my lifetime the United States at such a low level of regard. We are now viewed - and I am quoting - as a rogue state, as a country that has no ability to understand ... how we affect other countries and do not take into consideration other countries' national interests at all in creating our own which, from my perspective, weakens our argument for national interests. So I think there is a genuine question as to their (Republicans') national security credentials."

On the failure to capture or kill Osama Bin laden and Saddam Hussein: "Saddam Hussein's continued life is more of a problem than Osama bin Laden's. Because if we look at what has been happening with the insurgency [in Iraq] and stories in the last few days [about] funds that Saddam Hussein somehow has access to ... in many ways he has a lot of levers he was used to pulling. The question is whether the strings are attached... His continued life is creating huge problems. And while the [Bush] administration is basically saying none of this matters any more, I think it does matter. Whether they capture him there is no way of telling. Osama bin Laden ...I think it would be better if Osama bin Laden were captured. That is what they promised us and it hasn't happened."*** [More at LINK]

[fellowpatriot]

Excellent reply, ovrtaxt!

[verity]

Seattle, WEAKLY would be more appropriate.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

... and I'd be the last man on earth to argue that point with you, believe me. :)

[MEG33]

Does Maddy think Great Britain is a rogue state,Australia,Spain,Poland,Japan?Why us and not Great Britain for heavens sake.The rest of the world are the Euroweenies.She undermines our country at war (and people object to Ann Coulter's "Treason".)

[arthurus]

Don't get too elated about the idea of that 60 seat majority. With that the RINOs will see that they hold all the power in the senate by allying with the Crats to squash the "excessive" designs of the extremists on the right in the Republican party.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Picture of the cover for the latest offering from the man this silly little leftist sock monkey refers to, blandly, as "one of the sanest men in the country."

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: the prosecution rests. How do you find the defendant...? :)

[Cincinatus' Wife]

***"In their way of thinking," Noonan observes of the Clintons, "America is an important place, but not a thing of primary importance. America is the platform for the Clintons' ambitions, not the focus of them." The implication is that if they were principled emissaries of a political cause, the ambition to do big things for America would override all others. Instead, they have focused on themselves and consequently have made the American political landscape itself "a lower and lesser thing."

………………….But Bill Clinton is not like those who worship him, corrupting himself and others for a higher cause. Unlike them, he betrays principles because he has none. He will even betray his country, but without the slightest need to betray it for something else-for an idea, a party, or a cause. He is a narcissist who sacrifices principle for power because his vision is so filled with himself that he cannot tell the difference.

But the idealists who serve him-the Stephanopoulos's, the Ickes's, the feminists, the progressives and Hillary Clinton-can tell the difference. Their cynicism flows from the very perception they have of right and wrong. They do it for higher ends. They do it for the progressive faith. They do it because they see themselves as having the power to redeem the world from evil. It is that terrifyingly exalted ambition that fuels their spiritual arrogance and justifies their sordid and, if necessary, criminal means.

And that is why they hate conservatives. They hate you because you are killers of their dream. Because you are defenders of a Constitution that thwarts their cause. They hate you because your "reactionary" commitment to individual rights, to a single standard and to a neutral and limited state obstructs their progressive designs. They hate you because you are believers in property and its rights as the cornerstones of prosperity and human freedom; because you do not see the market economy as a mere instrument for acquiring personal wealth and political war chests, to be overcome in the end by bureaucratic schemes.

Conservatives who think progressives are misinformed idealists will forever be blind-sided by the malice of the left-by the cynicism of those who pride themselves on principle, by the viciousness of those who champion sensitivity, by the intolerance of those who call themselves liberal, and by the ruthless disregard for the well-being of the downtrodden by those who preen themselves as social saints.

Conservatives are caught by surprise because they see progressives as merely misguided, when in fact they are fundamentally misdirected. They are the messianists of a religious faith. But it is a false faith and a self-serving religion. Since the redeemed future that justifies their existence and rationalizes their hypocrisy can never be realized, what really motivates progressives is a modern idolatry: their limitless passion for the continuance of Them. ***Source

[leprechaun9]

..."could not be proved. That's a role for the activists and commentators."

This is merely another data point that shows that some of the media and the entertainment industries are nothing more than pimps of the election process!

[section9]

Bush lied? About what, that Saddam was a threat? That's obvious now. About the brutality of his regime? No, we have lots of creepy home videos from the Hussein family. Oh, it must be the WMD.

This is great. Understand that the day will come when each leftist argument against the War on Terror will be exposed for the tissue of lies that it is. Saddam's capture brings that day ever closer. There are the leftists, in the bunker, moving phantom armies in the night. Stephen Hayes' expose of the Al Qaeda-Saddam connexion knocked one pillar from their belief system. Saddam's capture destroyed one more. Now, we will find out about the fate of the WMD. When we do, our triumph will be complete.

The Left chose the path of the Lie when they first decided to undermine George W. Bush. They forgot that Bush was an exceedingly patient man.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[MEG33]

I had shivers the first time I read Noonan's piece..and it still gives me shivers.