Eight Years of Liberal Hatred

In politics as in personal life, hatred is a dangerous tool. It's like one of the early medieval cannons, just as capable of blowing up in your face as it is of lobbing a ball at the enemy. Of course, the medieval metal casters realized they had a problem and worked to correct it. Haters never seem to get that far.

For the latest evidence of this, we can thank Peter Berkowitz. Berkowitz is that rarity, a sincere liberal with as critical an eye for his own side as he has for the opposition. In a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal, "The Insanity of Bush Hatred", Berkowitz attempts to take the measure of the haters, a phenomenon generally unmentioned by the legacy media, which prefers to act as an unknowing conduit for these people (watch how quickly this changes if Madame Hillary manages to squeak in).

Berkowitz gives us several fine examples of individuals on the very edge of permanent cognitive damage from Bush Derangement Syndrome. People who can't so much as hear the name without their faces going red and their features distorted. (My favorite is the "political moderate" who answers a civil question with: "I . . . hate . . . the . . . way . . . Bush . . . talks", an excellent illustration of the psychological factor called "displacement".)

(Other examples, if such were needed, can be found in this piece, concerning the next president's options in Iraq. According to Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group, the surge and its results are no more than a piece of theater worked up to allow Bush to hand the disaster over to the next administration. That is to say, Al Queda in Iraq is allowing the tar to be beaten out of themselves on behalf of their old pal George. Thanks for the input, Joost.)

Berkowitz gives us a nice guided tour of liberal follies from the inside. But he fails at coming up with an explanation. He's a rational man, looking for reasons in the record, sorting through the facts in an attempt to pinpoint exactly where Bush hatred began to metastasize within the liberal mentality. But all he succeeds in doing is to underline the fact that there is no rational explanation. Bush v. Gore, the War on Terror, the administration's trampling of the Constitution... all clearly reveal themselves as hollow excuses, created ex-post-facto to hide the actual explanation. The Supreme Court decision was triggered by Al Gore himself. Future historians will marvel over the fact that an attack against the U.S. generated hatred not for the enemy but for American leadership. And whatever depredations have been carried against American rights and liberties (and I don't believe anything of the sort), they pale in significance against those of FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and, for that matter, Abe Lincoln.

All the same, the two Bush terms have been on unending carnival of hatred. Just to hit the high points, there's the novel blueprinting his assassination, a film on the same topic, and probably more. We've had several impeachment attempts, all hopeless on their face, the latest proposed by the noted statesman Dennis Kucinich. And all this before we get to one single word of media coverage on Karl Rove, waterboarding, surveillance, Virginia Plame, or Scott McClellan.

It's a waste of time looking for a rational explanation amid all this. None could conceivably cover every last convolution of paranoia, delusion, and obsession. "Bush hatred," as Berkowitz writes, "is different." It's different because it has its roots in ideology.

We often overlook the fact that liberalism is an ideology, and has been since the days of the New Deal. It is not a doctrine or a school of thought, and does not operate by the rational rules required in those cases. It's an ideology in the sense of a synthetic, politically-based replacement for religious belief, and it operates by the rules of an ideology -- irrational, compulsive, and totally divorced from anything outside of the ideological system itself.

Hatred, along with fear, hysteria, and conformity, is a basic element of ideological thinking. I know of no exceptions. For the Nazis, the hate-figures were, of course, the Jews. For the Soviet communists, they were a shifting cast of kulaks, socialists, capitalists, Trotskyites and "wreckers" (saboteurs out to destroy communist achievements on the orders of any of the above). For the New Dealers, it was businessmen (as it is today for some Greens).

The need for devil figures remains true no matter what part of the political spectrum the ideology lies on, what other elements are present, and whatever the ideology's goals may be. You could go so far as to say that hate is necessary to the definition of any ideology.

The hate figures are often synthetic. Orwell recognized this in his creation of Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984. Goldstein (who was based on Trotsky), the victim of the book's five-minute hate, was a semi-mythical entity with the exact characteristics required to fit the passions of the moment.

If the hate-figures aren't completely artificial, if they're based on real individuals, then they're caricatures, figures distorted to an extent that all sense of reality has been drained out. We've seen this repeatedly from American liberals.

Richard M. Nixon's notorious social gaffes (which are usually a product of extreme shyness) were presented as evidence of incipient insanity, with all of Nixon's actions analyzed for evidence of a breakdown. Thus the 1970 incursion into Cambodia, the result of months of pleading by U.S. military commanders to be allowed to hit the PAVN's supply dumps and training camps across the border, was explained with a claim that Nixon had seen the film Patton the night before.

While it was forgotten amid all the adulation following his funeral, Reagan was loathed nearly as much as Bush during his presidential terms. (A critical moment in my political education occurred when I stepped out of my office moments after Reagan was shot in 1981 and saw Americans dancing in the street over the news.) Reagan, of course, was the halfwit who needed to be led around by his "handlers" lest he stumble in front of a bus or hit the wrong button on the nuclear football. Almost everything he said or did was reported to fit that image, for example, the widely-covered incident in which he referred to Thailand as "Siam". What the reporters failed to realize was that for the first third of Reagan's long life, the name of the place actually was Siam. (Late in the 80s, a small number of liberals began to wise up. Prominent among them was the cartoonist Jules Feiffer, who published a cartoon showing one of his trademark wimpy liberals saying, "Reagan said the Berlin Wall would come down, and I said Reagan was a fool." Each panel featured yet another statement by Reagan answered with the same refrain, until we reach the last: "Because if Reagan was right all along... ... then what kind of fool am I?")

We could go on for page after page if we liked. Eisenhower, the man who coordinated Allied strategy against Hitler's Germany (a better piece of work than any of his critics ever achieved) was dismissed as the "Great Golfer". Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay. Possibly the most odious case I'm aware of: Garry Wills. After it was revealed that an Iraqi hit team had been stalking George H.W. Bush, Wills produced a column in which he said, "Who cares? It's only George Bush."

Then, after all that, and only after all that, do we get to George W. Bush, baby-killer, torturer, trasher of the Constitution, and slave of Halliburton. In the context we've established, none of this looks particularly unprecedented or unique, or even surprising. Bush is simply the latest of a long line of hate-figures -- it's the way the liberal-left does things

Liberalism does things that way because it has devolved into an ideology with an ideology's characteristics. (Liberalism may well be the only ideology that has actually gone through a process of development: most of the others were designed, to one extent or another.) Little trace remains of discussion, debate, consensus, or any respect for democratic norms and procedures. There's only the philosophy of "whatever it takes", the strategy of "by any means necessary".

It will grow more rabid in time, as it always does. When Rudolph Giuliani is elected, they will turn on him the same way they did Bush. They already have in New York City. (In all discussions of Giuliani's "failings" I have yet to see anyone point out that Giuliani is the sole Republican candidate who has put the boot to the liberals successfully and repeatedly.) For that matter, Mitt Romney would be in for the same treatment if he were elected. Even Ron Paul, borderline radical that he is.

Any Republican elected to high office will be treated the same for the foreseeable future. So the media may as well knock off all the marveling on how hated Republican office holders are. At this point, it's simply part of the job description. Liberalism has become the party of hate -- the first major party to fit that description since the heyday of the Know-Nothings. You can check the record and see how long they lasted.

Can liberalism change? It's doubtful. There are still decent liberals. Berkowitz is only one example. But they are islands. They alone can turn it around, and I don't think there are enough of them. (By his own admission, Berkowitz doesn't seem to have had much luck with his intellectual friends.

In any case, what's required would be that the liberals "de-ideologize" themselves, and there's no record that any political entity has ever accomplished this. Communism was de-ideologized by collapse, fascism by Allied tanks. Not much of a choice from the liberal point of view.

So we can look forward to more viciousness and more nastiness, more foully and more often expressed. It will only break when liberalism does.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/eight_years_of_liberal_hatred.html at November 28, 2007 - 01:17:42 AM EST

I don't recall anything good or positive having been said on this forum about either of the Clintons, Carter, Johnson or FDR. Occasionally a kind word about Lieberman or Zell Miller but they are rare exceptions.

NAFTA was lauded by many Republicans, as was welfare reform. Also, aside from the timing, I don't recall anyone saying that Clinton should not have bombed Saddam Hussein.

I think we have given Clinton credit for these things. But Bush, even if he utterly toed the liberal line for the rest of his term, would not get credit for anything.

Yes, but the liberal arguments are irrational. Selected, not elected, how childish is that? When every re-counter in the country couldn’t get Gore elected. There was nothing stolen, when you discount what the liberals were trying to do, steal the 2000 election using the legal system and blocking votes from being counted.

In fact liberals use the legal system to try and steal every election they think they can, look at the Washing ton Governors race.

What liberals talk about others doing is very likely what they ARE doing. Not hard t see through them, they just still think the media can hide it.

Politics in America are broken because they've fundamentally broken the country. America is now essentially *two* countries now, one liberal one conservative, with no common ground in between.

That is true, with one fact you've overlooked. Liberals have control of the pursestrings, the language, the media, and the culture.

It's not an even playing field. Not even close.

And, no, I do not want to hold hands and sing Kumbayah with liberals. Liberalism is an infantile mental disorder.

I don't recall anything good or positive having been said on this forum about either of the Clintons, Carter, Johnson or FDR.

Most comments on FR regarding Carter refer to him being an ineffectual doof, not (like the Bush haters) comments accusing him of murder, torture, swindling, draft-dodging, etc.

As for Johnson or FDR, I don't recall any hatriolics outside of people who feel the Democratic policies have nearly ruined America.

As for Hillary or the Slickster, much of the hatriolic criticism stems from their proven treatment of numerous women, their admitted hijacking of FBI files, their policies of demonizing the wealthy while THEY fudge every rule they can in order to become wealthy.

In short, the Clinton's personal lifestyles...their pushing of the gay agenda, anti-faithful, etc..... is WAAY more insulting and intrusive to the average American than anything Reagan, or Eisenhower, or GWB ever did.

Can't explain it, but I feel the Clintons have consciously singled themselves out to be 'superior' to all us noodniks.

Prominent among them was the cartoonist Jules Feiffer, who published a cartoon showing one of his trademark wimpy liberals saying, “Reagan said the Berlin Wall would come down, and I said Reagan was a fool.” Each panel featured yet another statement by Reagan answered with the same refrain, until we reach the last: “Because if Reagan was right all along... ... then what kind of fool am I?”)

Anybody have a link or can post that cartoon?

And, no, I do not want to hold hands and sing Kumbayah with liberals. Liberalism is an infantile mental disorder.

But they do say something worth quoting once in a while, don't they?

A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to kiss ass" - Paul Begala on pandering

If he actually said that, at least it's funny and a jab at himself coming from a Hillary ass kisser.

I too have a liberal friend, she has been (has been) a good friend for over a decade. We would often be able to discuss issues of the day with reasonable discourse. I have sadly watched that ability devolve over the last 4 years to the point that I avoid her.

So deluded has she become that she called me on Thanksgiving eve to invite me to lunch on Thanksgiving Day! Confused, I explained I would be spending it with my family and thanking God for His blessings. I was told it wasn’t it religious holiday. I reminded her Washington established it as a day to Thank God. She didn’t know anything about that...! Ugh!

The brainwashing seems nearly complete, IMHO. There is no talking to her.

A lot of the vitriol seems to be misogynistic in nature. It’s nothing new either and is directed at members of both parties.

Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, the Bush twins, Nancy Reagan, Amy Carter, Nixon and Johnson’s daughters, Bess and Margaret Truman, Eleanor Roosevelt. It’s about how they look and I’m sure it goes back farther than that.

It could be argued that the adults mentioned above are fair game and I am as guilty as anyone of participating in it at times but 11 year old Chelsea Clinton should have been immune from personal attacks about how she looked, as well as the other children and teens mentioned.

When I look at a picture of Hillary Clinton what I see is a rather average looking woman in her mid or late 50s but that doesn’t stop me from joining in the “ugly Hillary” talk. Maybe what I need to do is click my own screen name before joining in, to remind myself that I no raving beauty either and confine my remarks to her hated socialist policies.

I just opened myself up to personal attack by letting everyone know that there is a picture of me at my “about” page and though I may be fair game because of my remarks, my family members also pictured have said or done nothing to offend anyone here.

Great article by J.R. Dunn. Thanks for posting.

Watch when Hillary is defeated. Socialist heads will explode.

Run Hillarious Run!

"When I look at a picture of Hillary Clinton what I see is a rather average looking woman in her mid or late 50s but that doesn’t stop me from joining in the “ugly Hillary” talk. Maybe what I need to do is click my own screen name before joining in, to remind myself that I no raving beauty either and confine my remarks to her hated socialist policies."

When I look at my high school yearbooks I am struck by how my view of people's appearance is affected by their personalities. There were a number of girls I found attractive in high school that now look quite ordinary. There were also some very attractive people who I found unappealing because of their demeanor.

Hillary reminds me of an aunt whom I detest. I see in her a self-serving and deceptive individual who seeks only her own benefit. Hillary's personality and her "cankles" make her quite unattractive.

OK, I’ll give you some deregulation.

Camp David, though, is still pretty specious. The Soviets are gone, and it wasn’t because of Camp David. All Camp David did was give Sadat some cover from Arab radicals for stopping attacks on Israel, which he wanted to do anyway after being defeated so soundly in ‘73. Long term, it didn’t do him much good, on that front.

No irony at all, for it was Al Gore, a DEMOCRAT, who began THEIR hysteria by refusing to concede in the election of a United States President, for the good of his country. (as other good men had done before him)

They and their media then started a campaign to de-legitimize President Bush, saying he STOLE the election, knowing it was a lie.

They then began accusing him of lying to go to war, being cold hearted and sinister enough to kill soldiers for his own political and financial gain. He, the VP and staff have been drug thru the mud and been slandered as corrupt, evil, have been investigated and thrown in jail by rogue CIA officers.

The Dims in Congress and our Intell agencies have leaked intell to their MSM sabotage our war efforts, have aided, abetted and comforted the enemy in two war theaters, leading to God knows what on the battlefield for our soldiers.

No, calling them vampires who suck the lifeblood out of their country everyday does not dehumanize them at all, they admittedly call their actions a proud "dissent", and they have proved everyday that they are no longer the loyal opposition, but an enemy to the Untied States.

I don't recall anything good or positive having been said on this forum about either of the Clintons, Carter, Johnson or FDR.

Wait a minute! Clinton has gotten his due. Most would credit him with NAFTA and Welfare Reform (he signed it). He has also been recognized -- for better or for worse -- as a consumate politician.

Carter? I frankly can't recall anything positive emerging from the Carter administration. He'll be remembered for 25% inflation and "malaise", little else.

Try as I might, I can't think of anything positive about the LBJ administration, either. He did a royal job of screwing it up -- Viet Nam, War on Poverty, consolidation of the Social Security and General Funds. He earns credit for some important civil rights legislation. But, by his own admission, it was crassly motivated -- to lock up the black vote for the Democrats for a generation.

FDR won a war, for cryin' out loud. He gets credit for that.

And I notice you didn't mention Harry S Truman -- who is as respected on this board as Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.

By and large, there is more respect expressed on this board for Democrat figures than you would find on any liberal board for Republican figures.

The fact of the matter is, the last three Democrat presidents been either deeply corrupt or nincompoops. Sometimes both. Plus, their most recent candidates, Al Gore and John Kerry, would've fitted right in with that description.

The hatred I see in my liberal friends is scary...

Scarier still when it's your own family.

Facts have no impact on them. A polite political discussion is simply impossible.

It is as if challenging their hatred of Bush and Republicans challenges their faith in liberalism. And that is like challenging a serious Christian's belief in God.

It's irrational.

Camp David was a pretty big accomplishment.

However, we now know that Begin and Sadat had arrived at the agreement themselves, well in advance of Camp David.

They contacted Carter to oversee the agreement so as to gain the U.S. endorsement and guarantee of the agreement.

Carter played the role of host. And got to claim a role in front of the cameras. Nothing more.

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.