TNR: Ball Fake [The Loony Left Loses Another Liberal]

The New Republic ^ | 01.21.05 | Tom Frank

[West Coast Conservative]

wasn't supposed to be here. I was supposed to be at a ball, a genuine inaugural ball with tuxedos and presidential-seal-emblazoned square napkins and succulent miniature crab cakes. Regrettably, we're a liberal magazine and, consequently, many of us are less than perfectly organized (although, at TNR, some of us prefer to think of ourselves as neo-disorganized)--and, well, I failed to honor certain press-credentialing deadlines. Now, instead, I would be covering "counter-inaugural events." As a result, last night I was sitting in a low-budget church on G Street in downtown Washington listening to speakers at an International Socialist Organization-sponsored gathering by the name of "Town Hall: Empire and Resistance."

Needless to say, this wasn't much fun. I could have thrown a stone as far as my strength allowed and still have been certain of not hitting a crab cake. On the other hand, everyone else seemed to be having a good time. The hundred or so people there frequently applauded and hollered, and, as expected, phrases like "exposing Bush for what he is--a cold-blooded killer" were particular hits. I didn't even think there was much to report on. After all, who cares what the ideological fringe of the losing side has to say? But the more I heard, the more I became convinced that I had discovered something truly threatening: This band of socialists was the most effective recruiting tool for the Republican Party I'd ever encountered.

To begin with, there were the posters on the wall: MONEY FOR JOBS AND EDUCATION, NOT FOR WAR AND OCCUPATION. Let's leave aside that the meter is somehow dissatisfying (nine syllables followed by eight--no flow at all). The main point is, if the shallowness of this statement bothers you, to what party do you look for comfort? To the Democrats, many of whom condemn building firehouses in Baghdad and closing firehouses at home? Or do you say to yourself, in that moment, "I don't much care for Newt Gingrich--nor does anyone else--but I bet he hates that goddamn poster as much as I do"? I know where I was leaning.

Then there was the pooh-poohing of elections--any elections. Former soldier Stan Goff (supposedly of the Delta Force, Rangers, and Special Forces) spoke at length about the evils of capitalism and declared, "We ain't never resolved nothing through an election." This drew loud, sustained applause. Nothing to get worked up about, I thought; just a leftist speaker spouting lunacy. But today it seemed particularly bad. It wasn't just that I was missing what might be lovely canapés (or perhaps spring rolls being brought about on trays with delectable dipping sauce); rather, it was the thought that the speaker was dismissing something that Afghanis of all ages had recently risked their lives to participate in, something Iraq's insurgents view as so transformative that they are murdering scores of Iraqis to prevent it. No, what I needed to counter this speaker was not a Democrat like me who might argue that elections were, in fact, important. What I needed was a Republican like Arnold who would walk up to him and punch him in the face.

But the worst came with the final speaker, a woman by the name of Sherry Wolf, who is supposedly on the "editorial board of International Socialist Review." She talked, and talked, and talked; terms like "architects of the slaughter," "war criminal," and "Noam Chomsky" wafted about the room; and my eyes grew so bleary that I ceased taking notes. But then she brought up the insurgents in Iraq. Sure they were bad, she admitted: "No one cheers the beheading of journalists." But, she continued, they had a "right" to rebel against occupation. Then she read from a speech by the activist Arundhati Roy: "Of course, [the Iraqi resistance] is riddled with opportunism, local rivalry, demagoguery, and criminality. But if we were to only support pristine movements, then no resistance will be worthy of our purity." In sum, Wolf said, the choice boiled down to supporting occupation or resistance, and we had to support resistance.

So there it was. I even forgot about the Constitution Ball for a minute. Apparently, we were to view the people who set off bombs killing over 150 peaceful Shia worshippers in Baghdad and Karbala as "resistance" fighters. And the audience seemed entirely fine with this. These weren't harmless lefties. I didn't want Nancy Pelosi talking sense to them; I wanted John Ashcroft to come busting through the wall with a submachine gun to round everyone up for an immediate trip to Gitmo, with Charles Graner on hand for interrogation.

I left early (I couldn't stomach the question-answer session) and made my way to the Metro. In the station were people wearing fur coats and tuxedos and lovely gowns and shiny shoes. I assumed they were in town to celebrate Bush's reelection, and, for a moment, I wanted to join in. After my session with the ISO, they suddenly looked--well, so appealing.

Having attended college in New York City, I know what it's like to be confronted with some of the more irritating forms of campus leftism. Yet I never quite understood why, ultimately, such leftism should drive sensible people away from liberalism. But yesterday's display made it a little more understandable: Maybe sometimes you just want to be on the side of whoever is more likely to take a bunker buster to Arundhati Roy.

[cripplecreek]

"Of course, [the Iraqi resistance] is riddled with opportunism, local rivalry, demagoguery, and criminality. But if we were to only support pristine movements, then no resistance will be worthy of our purity."


Wow.

[Graybeard58]

The farther left the democrat party goes the more people they will lose.

I can't believe that most democrats in this country are traitors and believe the things the loony left believes.

Let them spout this nonsense. It's our gain.

[cripplecreek]

"I didn't want Nancy Pelosi talking sense to them; I wanted John Ashcroft to come busting through the wall with a submachine gun to round everyone up for an immediate trip to Gitmo, with Charles Graner on hand for interrogation."


To quote any given hip hop artist "I'm down with that".

[Theresawithanh]

I also liked when the author said he wanted Arnold Schwarzenegger to slug someone!

[al_again]

I will say it time and time again - the disintegration of the Democrats is not good for this country. The Democratic party will continue to lose the blue-collar constituency and will become absolutely powerless. This will leave the Republicans with no opposition and will inevitably lead to widespread corruption.

[cripplecreek]

Kinda makes me wish I had room for it in my tagline box.

[Nevada Mark]

Let's join hands and sing... Where have all the liberals gone? Long time passing. Where have all the liberals gone? Long time ago. Where have all the liberals gone? Off to Canada everyone. When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?

[cripplecreek]

LOL

[texasflower]

I don't think you will find many people who wish for us to have a one party system.

But these nutcases are taking over the democratic party. They need to go.

[Choose Ye This Day]

This is great. E-mailing now to my loony left relatives.

[Darkwolf377]

This guy is a sane liberal--i.e. his heart is in the right place, no matter how much I might disagree with how he thinks certain problems should be solved.

The people he describes, on the other hand, are anti-Americans. Both sides have a tendency to spout rhetoric, but for me the test is simple--put the words these people say into the mouths of people during WW2, and instead of terrorists and insurgents they're saying these things about the Nazis.

[Graybeard58]

The Democratic party will continue to lose the blue-collar constituency and will become absolutely powerless. This will leave the Republicans with no opposition and will inevitably lead to widespread corruption.

As long as the country as a whole is moving toward conservatism. The democratic party becomes less and less relevant. Eventually they will truly be a fringe party. I don't see that as a bad thing because people will still lean the way they do now but will just come up with a new name.

For a two party system I would suggest, moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans, with todays democratic party having about the same influence as the green party has now.

The views stated in this article are without any redeeming value whatsoever. Let them fade into oblivion.

[cripplecreek]

"I don't think you will find many people who wish for us to have a one party system."


I agree. I would feel a lot better if the democratic party were in the hands of sane men.

[dangus]

Yes! When the Democratic Party fails to appeal to "normal" liberals, the Republican Party of today will become the Democratic Party of tomorrow. And then where will we be?

[clee1]

But you got the vernacular all wrong!

It's: "I'm DOWN wid dat!"

[spinestein]

Don't worry. Republicans will have plenty of opposition soon enough. The tens of millions of voters in this country who still depend on Big Government everyday will make sure of that.

[formercalifornian]

What I needed to counter this speaker was not a Democrat like me who might argue that elections were, in fact, important. What I needed was a Republican like Arnold who would walk up to him and punch him in the face.

[ChicagoHebrew]

The New Republic, every conservative's favorite liberal magazine. One of the last respites of sensible liberalism.

[clee1]

We'll become the "Conservative Party".