Posted on 10/06/2004 4:06:31 PM PDT by mlmr
Everybody remembers the "Clinton-haters," the people who disliked our libidinous former chief executive so much they not only spread (mostly true) stories about his amorous exploits but spun rumors about various dark conspiracies in Arkansas and elsewhere.
However, Clinton's enemies were pikers compared to today's crop of people who, while they may or may not hate President Bush, certainly seem to dislike him very, very much.
I'm not referring here to people who merely disagree with Bush on one or a number of issues. It's easy to understand partisans getting upset over an opponent's policies, and certainly U.S. history is replete with examples of using political differences as grist for harsh criticism.
But Bush has been simultaneously portrayed as Hitler; as a moronic puppet of his advisors; as an evil genius; and as Satan.
All that and more (much of it unprintable) leaves conservatives in awe of the depth of rage being targeted at such a genial, outgoing guy - who also happens to be waging a serious war on our nation's enemies, just as a president is supposed to do.
It's possible to identify three basic streams feeding into Bush-hatred. One - let's call it the "Moveon.org stream" - is described by John O'Sullivan, editor of The National Interest, in the current issue of The American Enterprise Institute's magazine: "Most of the time (Clinton hatred) was simply the frustration of the Right with an opponent who was just too quick and too clever for them. Bush hatred is something else, something really significant. It's much deeper - a personalized version of American anti-Americanism.
"There is in this country a considerable cultural self-hatred," O'Sullivan continued. "The adversary culture fears and hates American power. So anybody who comes along and defends America's values self-confidently, and even pre-emptively attacks America's enemies, is going to be regarded by this sect as an agent of the Great Satan. The same hatred was directed at Reagan."
Second, "progressivism" tends to produce a conviction about the essential goodness of its causes, almost as if there were no consciousness of natural human imperfection. Leftists really think people are perfectible, and they believe they are the ones who know how to do the perfecting.
If there is something wrong with the world, therefore, it is not because people naturally screw up. It has to be a plot.
And since Reagan's days, Americans have voted for Republicans on a regular basis. Even worse, not the tame business-executive, country-club RINO type, but real social, economic and religious conservatives.
Even after Clinton (hardly a textbook liberal himself) beat Bush 41 in 1992, the GOP took over Congress two years later, and now the right-leaning party holds the presidency, both houses of Congress (though marginally in the Senate), most of the governorships and is even making strides in state legislatures.
But if you're a progressive, conservatives are dumb and you're smart. They're evil and you're good. They're devious and you're honest. (I know, I know, but that's how they think.)
So they can only come to one conclusion - the American people have been tricked, fooled and bamboozled by these devious conservatives. The left thinks it is entitled to rule, and yet people are spurning it - making fun of it, even. How can that be? It must be a plot, a conspiracy.
In their minds, the idea that people have considered their positions and rejected them is an impossibility, because they are right and conservatives are wrong. By definition.
Thus, leftists had to spin a myth of a "stolen" election in Florida, to prove perfidy where none existed. The alternative - that they, the good guys, could have lost fair and square, by the rules - is not credible to them.
Third, we should briefly note that a commitment to serious, historical, orthodox Christianity is another offense that Bush, and many other conservatives, offer to the progressive mentality. The anger relativists hold toward the idea of eternal moral absolutes knows no bounds.
Now, I have no idea who is going to win on Nov. 2. But if Bush should be the victor, what are all his detractors going to do? Wrap their heads in duct tape so they don't explode like the telepaths in "Scanners"?
No, I suspect they'll do what they did in 2000 - create another myth about a "stolen election."
You can already see it taking shape, in recent claims that Gallup polls showing Bush ahead are biased, or that presidential advisor Karl Rove was the one who gave Dan Rather his famously faked-up memos, or that the Bush campaign created and financed the Swift boat ads.
If Bush wins, it will be because a plot involving the "biased conservative media" did in Kerry.
The fact that no such thing exists will deter them not one whit. The left proved in 2000 that mere facts can't stand in the way of a really outstanding conspiracy theory, and this year will be no different - if Bush wins.
If not, well, I'll have plenty of topics for columns.
M.D. Harmon is an editorial page writer and editor. He can be contacted at 791-6482 or at:
mharmon@pressherald.com
You mean the american democrat party or their surrogates.?
Get rid of american democrats and the terrorists would settle right down.. they ain't stupid... They are only in it for the attention of the propaganda arm of the DNC.... the main stream media.. Without good press coverage why kill all those poor sand monkeys and american military personel.. Agitprop from Al Jeezera could be handled too, anybody can make car bombs..
I was never a vegan, like my steak too much.
Still somewhat of an enviro, but I hold to the 'heretical' view that we should have smart stewardship of the land, meaning that we make use of it, remove dead wood to avoid destructive hyper fires, and manage the deer herds.
(A biggie here in NY, NJ, and PA.)
The so-called enviros today think mankind should perform vountary extinction.
It's already a Federal crime to use violence to influence a labor dispute. R. Reagan got that one through. I suspect the same goes for elections as well. Probably the civil rights act. Local law is sometimes better.
All the laws and lawyers in the world don't do you a bit of good unless the persons charged with enforcing the law actually do so.
I'll have to get into my labor texts and ponder this.
I have a fishing buddy, a close friend, who considers himself a socialist. But he believes in the RKBA. I have also heard him refer to himself as a closet Republican.
Understood.
Was thinking about that earlier, but the local law enforcement in some of the areas that happened in sat on their hands.
bttt = 50 "Every illegal vote deprives us to a degree of our right to vote"
I agree with the smart stewardship, and with the managing the dead-wood.
Where i am the deer and the bloody geese are a REAL problem.... Not enough predators.
And the coyotes are getting awfully bold too.
I like that point. I guess history has even demonstrated it once, when Reagan was elected, the hostages were released that week. I very much agree.
I had been referring to the Democrats, the socialists, the commies, and anyone else on the Left. I guess it includes a majority of those who refer to themselves as liberals.
Thanks..
Yeah, they brought coyotes in to reduce the deer population.
The coyotes took one look at the deer and said, "No way man!"
Pets, pet food, and trash are easier food to catch than deer for a coyote.
The local anti-hunters go bezerk over hunting every year.
Sometimes more vocal than others.
They sometimes try the same intimidation tactics as the union thugs have.
Note the NJ bear hunt and the cowardly anti-hunters targeting specifically the youth hunting for the first time.
and not a few republicans by the way..
Being RKBA is certainly not PC in some Democratic circles. Just depends where you're at.
A political party is like any large group of people. Some saints, some sinners, most in between.
Oh no! Not unnngh again!
Yuppers.
AND it fits with the pic!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1236609/posts?q=1&&page=1
Companion reading...and one post has a Soros"file"..
If more of them actually were willing to discuss things as you do, and you've shown you are willling to discuss things quite candidly, there would be less problems.
Just wait until about a dozen of them show up and post such wonderful discussion material as gay porn.
*ugh*
Got to see a similar incident happen once.
The guy got banend, came back asking why he was banned.
Had a guy private message me.
He started arguing with me, sayng some very nasty things.
I tried to debate him but he was only interested in fighting and insulting.
I told him I had no problem debating, but if he wanted to fight and be dishonest there was a problem.
He kept it up and got banned.
As we edge closer to the election, you're likely to see more stuff that will 'make your tie twirl and your ears burn' so to speak.
Only advance warning I can give about it when that happens is "duck your head!"
Saw it when I signed up during the 2000 elections.
The number of people signing up to merely be provocative or outright disruptive went up exponentially as it crept closer to the election.
" banend"?
Me and my typos.
I'm starting to get tired.
Should read "banned".
Typos are contagious, keep an eye on your keyboard for a bit now.
I hope you stay around.
Yeah, some Republicans too.
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.