Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Doubling Down on a Losing Bet(A thoughtful analysis of Michael Moore/Bush Haters,and the future)
The Claremont Institute ^ | November 8, 2004 | William Voegeli

Posted on 11/09/2004 12:20:45 AM PST by Stoat

Doubling Down on a Losing Bet

By William Voegeli

Posted November 8, 2004  

-----

The list of credits for the Republican victory in 2004 would be incomplete without a line for Michael Moore—not Michael Moore the filmmaker and activist so much as Michael Moore the phenomenon.  Fahrenheit 911 was the ultimate expression of the hatred and contempt for George W. Bush that existed long before this election year.  The popularity of the film both reflected that hatred and intensified it.

President Bush benefited in two ways from being not only misunderestimated but misoverdespised.  First, the volume level inside the liberal echo chamber drowned out all other voices, ruining the political judgment of the inhabitants.  It has been 32 years since Pauline Kael expressed amazement that Richard Nixon could have defeated George McGovern when absolutely everyone she knew had voted for the Democrat.  Over the past eight elections the Upper East Side—like sociologically similar precincts around the country—has become even more self-referential.

Only a hearing-impaired political class, for example, could have convinced itself that the hatred of George Bush was so widely shared that it would suffice for a Democratic candidate to defeat him by merely not being him.  John Kerry spent most of the weeks between securing the nomination in March and Election Day in the grip of that illusion.  As a result, it was always much easier to interpret his campaign as a long list of reasons to elect Kerry than it was to come away from it clear about the reason.  Devoting his most important moment in the spotlight, the Boston Democratic convention, to the non sequitur that Kerry would be a good president in 2005 because he had been a brave Navy lieutenant in 1969 was the pinnacle of that failure.

The president was mocked and reviled in dinner parties, faculty lounges, and media coverage.  The cumulative effect was strong enough that an intermittently sensible columnist, Richard Cohen, was able to diagnose the affliction in an article in September, then succumb to it six weeks later.  First, he wrote that he could not bring himself to hate Bush, and criticized "anti-Bush alarmists" who "compulsively blame their own country."  He warned that the "demonization of Bush is going to cost John Kerry plenty if it hasn't already.  It so overstates the case against Bush that a levelheaded listener would be excused for thinking that there isn't one in the first place."  By October, Cohen had completely forgotten his own argument; his last Washington Post column before the election called for impeaching the president.  The names of the Americans killed in Iraq "would make up every one of my articles of impeachment.  I would read every name from the well of the House."

As Cohen predicted, this kind of stridency put off voters who were not already invested in reviling President Bush.  It is the second way Bush benefited from being loathed.  Tom Wolfe said just before the election that "support for Bush is about not wanting to be led by East Coast pretensions....That is constantly done, and there is real resentment."

It is, for example, no mystery that Bush overwhelmed Kerry among voters who go to church at least once a week, considering that the role of religious faith in Bush's life was one of the favorite objects of derision for his critics.  Red state voters understood that things they had in common with George Bush were just the things his harshest critics were sneering at, and it made choosing sides in that fight a lot easier.  "Airheads are going to be the definitive swing voters on Nov. 2," Tina Brown helpfully explained, reminding her fellow citizens that Bush-haters who believe the president is an idiot also think anyone who can't see such an obvious fact must be an idiot, too.

Will the Bush-haters back off?  Conservatives, as patriots, must wish for a change in the political climate.  In his first inaugural address Lincoln said, "We are not enemies, but friends.  We must not be enemies."  The inevitable post-election blather about unity fails to make the crucial distinction.  A healthy democracy does not require blurring political differences.  But it must find a way to express those differences forcefully without anathematizing people who hold different views.

If the reelection of George Bush causes the people who hate him to express that hatred even more venomously, conservatives can lament the further damage done to the tone of national discourse, but have no means to interfere with the delivery of this political gift, the assisted suicide of the Democratic Party.  The early indications argue that the Bush-haters are indeed going to double their losing bet.  The day after the election, Michael Moore's website displayed a computer-generated mosaic of the president.  Every "tile" was the face of an American soldier killed in Iraq.

Four Moore years.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bushhaters; claremontinstitute; election2004; michaelmoore; presidentbush

 

Real Solutions for Fake Problems
Posted on October 25, 2004

The Perversity of Diversity
Posted on August 17, 2004

-----

Related Stories
The Multiplier Effect
Posted on October 29, 2004

Back to the Future
Posted on October 26, 2004

Partisans of Neutrality
Posted on October 19, 2004


1 posted on 11/09/2004 12:20:46 AM PST by Stoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Stoat
While we are in the majority, we need to suspend the Constitution.


LOL... that'll be posted at DU soon.

2 posted on 11/09/2004 12:24:13 AM PST by GeronL (Congratulations Bush on your re-election VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Yes, the Dems love the Constitution when they can weild it as a cudgel, but dismiss it, overlook it or intentionally twist it's meaning when it suits them. These are nothing but spoiled, Socialist brats who don't play well with others.


3 posted on 11/09/2004 12:29:13 AM PST by Stoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

You have freepmail.


4 posted on 11/09/2004 12:33:39 AM PST by blondee123 (Proud Member of the FR Pajama Blogger Brigade - New Sheriffs in Town!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
Four Moore years.

That is positively priceless.

5 posted on 11/09/2004 12:36:03 AM PST by Angry Enough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angry Enough
Yes it is :-)

It will be amusing to see how Moore as well as the shrill, outspoken Hollywood Left tries to salvage their respective careers from the ashes of crushing public humiliation. They have effectively spent their star capitol on this election, and they have discovered that they were utterly inconsequential to their fellow-travellers as well as helpful to the opposition. This current spin of "the red-staters are just stupid, that's all" only intensifies their breathtaking failure by illustrating the utter juvenile shallowness that serves as their core. Watching them twist in the wind is great theater.

6 posted on 11/09/2004 12:43:07 AM PST by Stoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

Well, it seems to me some freepers froth and such at the mention of Hillary. So next election cycle will be interesting. Who hates who the mostest.


7 posted on 11/09/2004 1:33:19 AM PST by carumba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: carumba
Actually, I have my doubts that Hillary will truly want to run. Her candidacy would be the greatest gift that the Dems could possibly give to the Republicans, as it would be an instant slam-dunk. It would make Dukakas's efforts seem Herculean by comparison, such are the scale of her negatives. When thoughtful, traditional Democrats revile her because of her innumerable negatives it's pretty clear that her candidacy would be a non-starter. A crushing defeat for her would be a monumental blow to her ego, something she simply wouldn't tolerate. I'm thinking that she will perhaps wait for the next Dem administration and lobby for a Supreme Court appointment. In truth, I'm hoping that I'm wrong in this assessment because it would certainly be a great show :-)

As to hate and vitriol from Republicans, yes it's there but not nearly on the scale as what's been shown by the Dems. If Kerry had won, you wouldn't be seeing Republican leaders calling the rest of the country "stupid" and you wouldn't have Republican representatives calling for secession. You wouldn't have Republicans committing suicide and lining up to see psychiatrists for depressive disorders. Defeat would have been painful but it would have been accepted gracefully and we would have looked thougtfully at ourselves and tried to determine what we did wrong, rather than hysterically screaming about how the rest of the country is so utterly worthless and stupid.

8 posted on 11/09/2004 2:08:14 AM PST by Stoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson