..remember the look in a child's face when you tell them 'NO',that`s the look the dems wear today;tantrums run wild "Whoppie" ring a bell;Deans scream...tough love is simply that..tough,but it is a must, these children must be put into time out and let them pout awhile then bring them back into the fold ...

Michele,

Interesting observations. I have had conversations with many thoughtful people recently and have not found a satisfactory answer to the following question: How did American politics get so ugly?

If you look at the presidential elections since Vietnam, they have not been that contentious, save 2000. Reagan landslides, Clinton mini landslides (remember all that hooey that he didn't have a mandate because Ross Perot took 11% of the vote and Clinton had less than a majority). So what happened to make the country so polarized? Some have credited the trend to Limbaugh and his ilk for getting rich off of Clinton hating in the 90’s. While that explanation may be historically accurate, it sounds a little like "He started it." The point is, we now have groups on both sides that are mired in the politics of hate and negativity. If book sales and media ratings are any guide, the economic incentives are certainly there. So why does hate sell?

I think America is capable of, and deserves, better. But I'm not holding my breath.

Todd,

I'm not sure how you would define "satisfactory," so I'll just engage in some of my own partisan hackery and see how much of it sticks.

Some have credited the trend to Limbaugh and his ilk for getting rich off of Clinton hating in the 90’s.

I would take it a step back, and simply credit Limbaugh with exposing the Clinton agenda to a national audience. Improved communication, from two-way talk shows to e-mail and cheaper phone rates, put the Congress back into people's reach, to make their voices heard. That's why Hillary's Health Care Reform Act went down in flames.

(The big 3 TV networks, plus CNN, derided Limbaugh simply because he also exposed their own political bias, and their errors of omission.)

Once that happened, and people started ignoring the Democrats and the nightly news, the only way they could get people's attention was the Howard Stern School of Shock. However, since sex is good only for scandal in the world of politics, they had to turn to baiting various social divisions.

This is not working as well as it used to, since they have lost control of the news production. As the desperation becomes deeper, so does the shrill-ness.

The remedy? I dunno. You only asked how it became so ugly. But is my answer at least somewhat satisfactory?

(Note to Don and rdelephant: Yes, I know it's hackery. I am not a professional social analyst. What I note above is merely from my own observations.)

Kerry Lied, 2 million Died

Nice bumper sticker, no? Or a protest sign at EVERY Kerry event.

Cambodia is the important, UNFINISHED business
of America after Vietnam.

REAL alternatives are the issue; in Iraq, Iran, Sudan today.
In SE Asia from 1968-1978.

Killing innocents to stop evil is the moral problem.

The anti-Vietnam War Left, in America, and the EU, have totally failed to look at the two
real alternatives, and the one they "really" chose.
1) Stay and fight and die (draftees!) and kill bad guys AND some innocents?
2) Leave, stop dying (good!) let evil commies win, and accept the Killing Fields.

Kerry advised (2), Nixon cut and ran, and Pol Pot, the kind of evil commie the US was fighting against, committed genocide in Cambodia (little complaint by Ford or Carter in 76-77).

If you ask any anti-Vietnam War protester: "did you support the commies winning in Vietnam?" -- they'll say NO!
But they are, in "reality", lying. This is the BIG LIE at the heart of Bush-hate.
Opposition to war in Iraq IS "really" support for Saddam.

Kerry's Big Lie was that the US leaving SE Asia was "good".

The “Moral Superiority” of the Left is based on the assumption that being against the US war in Vietnam is the morally superior position – that the US fighting evil commies in SE Asia was wrong/ evil.

Is genocide worth fighting against? Worth dying for, worth killing for?
Gandhi said no. Is that really the morally superior answer?
http://tomgrey.motime.com/1092246736#322590

(I also have a few other Bush-hate "legendary" posts)

I'm very familiar with SBHFS. I've had it for a couple of months now. I don't see it getting better until after the election. And unfortunately, there exists the possibility that the election may make it worse.

My brother, a historian by training, has it too. He had it so bad that a few weeks ago he had to write the following just to get it out of his head. I thought the essay very good and emailed it to Alan, but I guess since we're not bloggers the CP didn't post it. If any of the admins think this is spam then I apologize in advance and will bear no hard feelings should they decide to delete it.

-====-==

Leftist Frustration
by Jax Zero

I consider myself a centrist. I have plenty of criticisms for the American right, which I may make later elsewhere. But I've been thinking about the increasing partisanship and general nastiness of the current political dialogue for a while, and I’m more and more convinced that this mess is fundamentally a result of increasing leftist frustration. And the root cause is the failure of world collectivism.

For centuries parliamentary bodies have been comprised of various segments that might be generally labeled conservative and reformist. On almost any issue there will be some people who like things the way they are and others who want to change things. This is a perfectly natural human division of opinion, and the fruits of our dialectic have governed increasingly free societies since the Ancient Greeks. But every once in a while someone decides to upset the balance of the Force and sweep their opposites from the board. They don’t want peaceful co-existence. They want total victory. That’s when bad stuff starts to happen.

The most recent iteration of this unfortunate pattern was begun by Karl Marx. The revolutionary nature of his agenda was touted as a feature, and a huge portion of the world bought into it. The desire to achieve social justice and eliminate class/racial/social/gender/etc. prejudice and oppression is a powerful incentive, and it seems the noblest cause in the world to its proponents. And, of course, the only thing needed to accomplish this marvel is political will. With enough power, the collectivist reformers believe that they can eliminate the unfair outcomes of capitalism, establish a functional command-and-control economy and make two plus two equal five.

Of course the problem with this is that two and two are four. The reason that this struggle is heating up now is that the historical evidence on collectivism is rolling in and it ain't looking too good. Every country where communism has been tried has devolved into an impoverished, oppressive failure. And the extent to which they have failed tracks pretty well with their commitment to implementing collectivist ideals. The Soviets embraced communism totally, and they have vanished from the Earth. China, after enduring decades of grinding poverty, has finally begun to liberalize her markets, and is enjoying some success proportional to the extent that she has done so. (And the Chinese people have noticed this.) Cuba remains a poor, backward, unhappy place. The Baathists died of nemesis. The less committed socialist countries continue the continuum of poverty and oppressive regulation: France, the economic toilet of Europe; the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, India, England, Australia. Right down the line.

The effects of the collapse of world communism on the left cannot be overstated. It was Armageddon. Their center started shifting right, and their adherents began hemorrhaging members like the Flat Earth Society in 1493. The economic left has had a more and more difficult time convincing people that their ideas will work. And because they need political power to implement their agenda, and because in America they have to get elected to have any power, they have little choice but to lie to their constituencies. Many have ceased trying to convince. Now they just grossly manipulate. Others, (the older ones mostly) will argue honestly enough over the merits of this brick or that brick. But they no longer dare to admit what it is they trying to build: a centralized state based on collectivist principles, i.e. the redistribution of private wealth.

Of course they are not fools, or demons, but fallible humans, trying to do their best. They are not remotely happy with this situation; on the contrary, it is extremely frustrating to them. They had honestly believed that by now the Worker’s Revolution should have swept the world and they should not still have to haggle with these stupid backward greedy boorish capitalists, Christians and other ignorant hicks. They are not supposed to be losing. They are supposed to be winning. It is imperative that they win. So most unhappily they have become liars about their own beliefs, which they don’t think they should have to lie about, and this makes them sullen and angry and resentful. And, some of them, vindictive. And also vulnerable to unintended consequences.

Enter the lawyers.

What happens when you have an organization where success is based on the ability to convincingly lie? Why, the very best liars become the most successful. Over the past couple of decades, the Democrats have increasingly become the party of trial lawyers, the very apotheosis of slick, fast-talking persuaders. The Clintons, John Edwards, and other ‘moderate democrats’ have become forces to be reckoned with in the Democratic Party. And it just drives the economic left up the wall. Everyone knows that many on the right hated President Clinton. Less well known, or at least less remarked upon is that the LEFT hated him as well. They knew as well as anyone that he was at heart a huckster, whose only unswerving allegiance was to power. He betrayed the gays who supported him with don’t-ask-don’t-tell instead of the promised stroke of the pen. He persuaded feminists to vote for him and then shagged the intern. And to the economic left, well, there’s NAFTA, welfare reform, the abandonment of Hillarycare and basically being an embarrassing unprincipled hack. But at least he was their boy, and better yet he got Al Gore within striking range of the presidency. So they gritted their teeth and shook his hand, and flew around the country telling everyone how great he was.

Then came the election of 2000.

I have seen a huge number of commenters on right-leaning blogs asking a hundred variations of "why do the left hate Bush so much?” The answer is simple. In their minds, President Bush and the Republicans stole the presidency. (What is the opening scene of Fahrenheit 9/11? The 2000 election.) The left are necessarily power fetishists. The ongoing defense of collectivism’s failures is that they have been sabotaged and thwarted by knuckle dragging reactionaries whom they have lacked the power to repel. They must have power to advance their agenda and save the world. The 2000 election was critical to their ambitions. They were NOT supposed to lose that election. They endured 8 years of Bubba to get Al in the big house and really get to work. They WON the freaking popular election! The revolution was finally about to regain some momentum after the awful Reagan-Bush years. They were NOT supposed to see George Bush’s son rise from the lake of fire and send them tumbling back down into Loserville. Bush PUNKED them. He jacked them. They will NEVER forgive him. And so now they are maneuvered by history into defending a murderous monster like Saddam Hussein (again! see Stalin, et. al.) and hoping for an American defeat in war. And they hate it. It’s killing them. It’s deranging them and they know it. It just makes everything worse.

Personally I think this situation is tragic. The left has won important victories that have improved life for every person in America. Their civil rights accomplishments alone are a breathtaking service to us all. And I believe they are on the side of the angels on many important issues: gay marriage, immigration, abortion rights, ecological concerns, nondiscrimination. They bring lots of important issues to the table. The populist posture is not totally affected. And even though I disagree with many of their conclusions, I still believe that ultimately they have America’s best interests at heart, and they can tell right from wrong and are only pressed by political necessity into these grotesque moral postures. They will instantly recover if these political pressures could be relieved. Hell, if they’d just embrace capitalism I’d BE one.

But collectivism? Dude, come on! Buy a calendar, will ya? Wake up and smell the mass graves! It. Just. Doesn’t. Work. For crying out loud. Wasn’t it Kant who said “Of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made”? Stalinist Russia post-purge was about the cleanest political environment that could possibly be produced. I mean, Stalin basically murdered everyone who disagreed with him. He had EVERYONE on board. As close to one hundred percent political agreement as could managed by any means. If your political and economic ideals don’t work in that situation, might I kindly suggest that you reconsider your premises? You can argue that the Soviets were undermined by Yankee Imperialism and corrupt officials, but THERE WILL ALWAYS BE geopolitical pressures and corrupt government officials! See the entire recorded history of human politics. If that’s going to wreck your engine, then Brother, you’re walking. Sorry, folks. I mean it. As Aldous Huxley put it, “the Tragedy of Science: A beautiful hypothesis slain by an ugly fact.” That’s the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.

The plain observable fact is that the American combination of individual liberty and capitalism has catapulted us to the forefront of human history and dragged half the planet along in our wake. Sure, capitalism produces ludicrous inequalities, if you compare Bill Gates to the guy with the sign at the intersection. But, inarguably, being poor in America is not like being poor in Africa or India or parts of Asia. By creating wealth at such a ferocious pace, freedom and capitalism elevate even the poorest. No, it’s not ideal. But at least it works. It delivers on its promise as collectivist schemes never have. It actually and measurably alleviates the misery of the poor. As an immigrant friend put it, you can be dropped in any city in the US with nothing but your shirt sleeves, and if you really put in the effort, you can be back on your feet and in a cheap flop in maybe a couple of months or less. The chances that you will starve to death are almost zero. This is simply not true in other countries. Try this experiment in Central America and you may be homeless and indigent for a long time. Try it in the Middle East and you vanish without a trace. That is the wealth creating power of a free capitalist society. That is the rampaging fact that is wrecking the collectivists’ beautiful theory. And people have begun to notice it. And to desire it.

This reality is not going to change. Collectivism is a dead turkey. And the only way for this to end and things to return to their proper balance is for the left to abandon this failed economic experiment and return to the forum. They need to re-imagine the future with a place for conservatives in it. They need to settle for less than total victory. They need to abandon their collectivist power fantasies and find a way to integrate classic liberal values into capitalist societies. Why the hell do you care how the bread gets to the market, anyway? As long as it’s there?

-====-==

:jackson

A minor point, but contrary to the implications ofChuck Schumer, the administration did not identify Khan. That was done by the New York Times, citing an annonymous Pakistani government official. At the time of the story, the official US government statement neither confirmed nor denied the report. Later (supposedly after evaluating the effects of the NYT story) they confirmed the report.

Michelle- thank you for articulating what was on all of our minds.

JZ- great piece. I saved it.

Just to inject a little levity into this, it seems that National Lampoon has discovered that there is money to made ridiculing the LEFT as well as the RIGHT, according to Steve Young. Political comedy isn't simply limited to Margaret Cho or the Daily Show any more. They have recently set up this website:

www.moveonplease.org

At this site, you will get valuable insight into:

A Sneak Peak at Michael Moore's New Autobiographical Documentary ("I Am Not an Asshole").

The Newest Really, Really Hateful Anti-bush Hate Commercials.

Finding an Air America Radio Signal Without Having to Park in the Station's Parking Lot... Just Kidding.

Regular Updates on Which Bush Administration Member the Left Thinks Should Be Fired Next.

"How to Have a Kerry for President Party for under $100,000." (Including Banner and All Paper Products).

"Why Everything Bad That Ever Happened Is the Fault of Donald Rumsfeld."

Al & Howard's School For Interpretive Speech.

...and of course the latest poll about how 55% of Iraqis who would have been maimed or killed by Saddam Hussein had he stayed in power want the US out.

Hey, its better than Mark Russell. :)

HHhhhhhh.... hhhhh... holy cow.

I wondered whatever happened to National Lampoon. Now I know.

Michelle, I don't know if it's possible that anyone could have hated Dick Nixon, John Mitchell, and Spiro Agnew more than my circle of friends. We (most of us) got over it and I now have a more "balanced" view of events from that era.

As traumatic and overwrought as it was (actual physical violence and bloodshed, not just mean words) the country survived.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: