Observations in Hate Speech (Democrats and politics)

The Reality Check ^ | 08 February 2004 | Vincent Fiore

[Lando Lincoln]

"One of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures-and that means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation. Public figures as well as public officials will be subject to vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks."

-Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1944

In view of today's political discourse, Justice Frankfurter's observations seem monolithically prescient. Campaign assassinations and drive-by politicking have been a part of the political arena since the Founding Fathers time. It wasn't so very long ago that the 1964 campaign of Republican Barry Goldwater, in its day, achieved a new high mark in political lowbrow. Some of the more unhinged remarks cast upon the "extremist" Goldwater sound hauntingly familiar to what liberal Democrats say today. "We see dangerous signs of Hitlerism in the Goldwater campaign." This, from Martin Luther King in 1964. Remarking on Goldwater's acceptance speech in 1964, Governor Pat Brown of California stated the speech "had the stench of fascism ... all we need to hear was "Heil Hitler." The media, not one to be caught napping in Democratic strategy meetings, ran this headline in the Chicago defender: "GOP convention, 1964 recalls Germany, 1933."

Tough words for a process that boasts a "peaceful transfer of power" upon changing political parties in office. And though the actual transfer is peaceful, the road leading up to it is anything but. The 1964 Democrats stayed on message against Barry Goldwater, continually equating the Arizona Senator as Lord Harry himself. Though Martin Luther King and Senator Fulbright are no longer among the living to lambaste Senator Goldwater, who died in May of 1998, new players and targets are abundantly available. 40 years later, the target is one George W. Bush, and the king's and Fulbright's of the sixties are now the likes of billionaire George Soros and filmmaker Michael Moore to exhort the similarities of Republicanism and Nazism.

Though I was barely alive in 1964, I do not recall reading about an all-consuming malice that enveloped politics as it does now. And if it was there, it was principally among the politicians themselves and the lunatic fringe of the electorate. Today, and it shines most brilliantly among the Democratic Party, a large portion of the electorate is angry, and displays a definitive malignancy towards President Bush. Political seasons are never a day at the beach. Demagoguery and negative speech are always present. During President Clinton's tenure in office, there were many on the right that said things that needn't have been said. But this year is different. It is a ceaseless cacophony of rage; single-minded in its application, blind in its reasoning.

A sitting President during wartime is the target of such labels as "betrayer," "misleader," "miserable failure," "selected," "liar," "racist" and my personal favorite as stated by Howard Dean, "the enemy." Now, this is not new, you say. All too true. Ronald Reagan faced a lot of the same verbal bellicosity during his years in office. But the all-consuming anger behind the words that comes most specifically from the democratic nominees and their various interest groups has had a viral effect; it infects the rank and file. In the case of George W. Bush, it seems not a day goes by, barely a news cycle even, where some scurrilous of unfounded charge is hurled with an understood disregarding of the facts.

A good illustration of this would be DNC chairmen Terry McAuliffe accusing the sitting Commander in Chief of being AWOL during his service in the National Guard, and then erroneously saying "George Bush never served in our military in our country ." The thousands of National Guard now serving in Iraq may beg to differ. Upon asking Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry about McAuliffe's charges, Kerry glibly replies that the issue was "a question that I think remains open," thereby lending credence to slander. Though this issue was dealt with extensively by the New York Times and George Magazine during the 2000 presidential race and proved to be an urban myth, McAuliffe and Kerry cannot help but spread the virus.

In McAuliffe's case, who never served at all in the military, it is to be expected, this trotting out of trash so haphazardly strewn about. In the case of John Kerry, it can be viewed as getting into step with the rest of the party, and a political fishing expedition. When Presidential hopeful Wesley Clark was questioned during the last New Hampshire debate in regard to Michael Moore's moronic leveling of the charge of desertion against Bush, he squandered any hope of credibility among the electorate. Instead of simply telling the truth, Clark pretended ignorance garnished with aloofness as to the validity of the charges. No less a progressive luminary than Peter Jennings upbraided Clark by forcefully stating that the accusation was "a reckless charge, not supported by the facts." Clark's election is over. Kerry would do well to review what caused it to end, and put his fishing pole away.

Further observations into the depth of Democrats hatred for bush are revealed in exit polls from the Democratic primaries held last week. Here is how the Washington Post reported last weeks romp by John Kerry: "A significant slice of yesterday's voters went beyond dissatisfaction to 'anger' at the administration -- half of the Democratic voters in Delaware, four in 10 in Missouri and one in three in Bush strongholds such as Oklahoma and South Carolina."

{http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10416-2004Feb3.html} Obviously, the word "administration" in the above is substituted for the more personnel "President," as if the Democrats hatred is some big secret or new campaign novelty.

One of the last principled Democrats, John F. Kennedy, once said: "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." The closest the Democratic Party had to former President Kennedy in the Presidential race has quietly packed his lectern and went home, thoroughly beaten by his own principled sense of right and wrong. Joe Lieberman was for the war, most of the Presidents tax cuts, free trade, keeping the military strong, and moral behavior standards. Unable to behave like some modern day Nostradamus angrily flipping pancakes while shouting "Bush eats babies!" at a campaign stop, the democratic party base rejected him. But anger replaces thought, and is much easier besides. It is an unsettling thing to see, this intensified anger. It is precisely like Democratic Senator John Edwards stump speech says: We are living in "Two different America's."

Vincent Fiore is a freelance political op-ed writer. He currently contributes commentary for several web sites on a weekly basis, and occasionally has commentary posted on NewsMax.com. Your comments are always welcomed.

[Lando Lincoln]

Lando

[cake_crumb]

Good analysis.

[lainde]

BTTT! Excellent commentary!