I hope he's a goner. Neocon/rightwing attack-tics: Anger-Baiting On The Right
by David Corn
Perhaps I'm being slow on the uptake, but I've noticed that the Right has found a way to try to diminish left-of-center partisans. In recent weeks, conservative commentators have branded the Bush opposition "The Angry Left," which apparently is not meant as a compliment. Some examples: James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com observed that Sen. Joseph Lieberman wants to "save his party from the Angry Left." (Taranto also wrote in early August, "Oh dear, now the Angry Left is angry at us. The Wall Street Journal has been hit by a mass e-mail campaign, spurred by our... item in which we characterized MoveOn.org as a ‘far-left, pro-Saddam group.’" Now, wasn’t it silly of MoveOn-ers to be offended by that? ) Fox News Channel’s John Gibson recently asked a guest, "Is [Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean] as angry as The Angry Left?"
When I appeared on a public radio show the day after George W. Bush said he needed an additional $87 billion for his endeavors in Iraq and Afghanistan, my fellow guest, National Review's Byron York, at one point cracked that I -- by complaining that Bush had proposed no means of paying for his occupation of Iraq -- was effectively presenting the viewpoint of "The Angry Left." And on various Web sites, bloggers and chatheads of rightward tilt and of no name recognition have been deriding The Angry Left for months.
The Angry Left has yet to be certified by Ann Coulter as the conservative movement’s official description of America’s traitors, but I suspect that the commentators of the Right will increasingly resort to this label to dismiss what might well be a growing opposition to Bush (or, at least, an opposition growing in passion). The moniker is designed as a put-down, one meant to signal that those afflicted with anti-Bushism are motivated by emotion, not rationality, that they cannot be reasoned with, that they and their ideas need not be taken seriously.
John Podhoretz, a columnist for The New York Post and a Fox News Channel contributor (as I am), wrote a few weeks ago, "The rise of an ardent, passionate, angry and engaged left is the most important political story of 2003." He pointed to Dean’s success as the outrage candidate and to a spate of right-critiquing books now hitting the bookstands, including Al Franken’s Lies (and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them), Joe Conason’s Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth, and my own forthcoming work, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception, which he kindly predicted would become a bestseller. But Podhoretz claimed that The Angry Left is lost within the fog of its own ire. Its denizens, he said, suffer from Foxanoia -- the condition of obsessing over the influence of Fox News Channel -- and cannot "bear to admit" that "they lost an argument about the nature of terrorism, rogue nations and world power after 9/11." So instead of debating the merits of these matters, they blast Bush, Fox and Coulter for lying. "What aside from hating Bush and the Fox News Channel, do they believe in?" he asked -- as if the only thing The Angry Left has to offer is anger itself.
Oh, it’s easy to find examples of angry leftism run amok. I get e-mail all the time from outraged lefties (or liberals or progressives) who quite sincerely suggest that Bush has brought the country to the edge of fascism. Such loose and hyperbolic talk is foolish. But, even so, these outbursts do not match the extremism of hate that ran through parts of the conservative movement in the 1990s. At mainstream conservative conferences -- where GOP senators, representatives and presidential candidates spoke -- you could pick up bumperstickers that asked, "Where’s Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?" And the Rev. Jerry Falwell was promoting a video that accused Bill Clinton of having murdered his political foes.
Back then, media commentators and left-of-center advocates derided the Right for being irate. Remember the shocking congressional election of 1994, in which Newt Gingrich led his fellow Republicans to a historic takeover of the House of Representatives? This feat was tagged as the triumph of "angry white men." Now the sanctimonious smugness is on the other foot.
But -- be warned, Podhoretz -- anger can be power, as those mad Caucasian guys demonstrated. The United States, the political analysts say, is ever more divided along partisan lines; there are fewer fabled swing voters. In such a world, elections tend to be won by the side that motivates more of its voters. And anger is a motivator. After all, would Bush have had a chance in 2000 if disgust and revenge had not been driving forces for many GOP voters? And Bush (per Karl Rove) eagerly exploited those emotions, as he campaigned for president as the fellow who would "restore" honor and integrity to the White House.
These days, anger-baiting is being adopted by some on the Right to duck the accusations made by The Angry Left and to discredit the accusers, who do have more to offer than mere anger, such as comprehensive health coverage, a fairer tax code, a safer workplace, tighter environmental safeguards. But if indeed Bush lied -- or, to be kind, misrepresented -- as he guided the nation into war, shouldn’t that cause a citizen to become upset? If Bush is saddling this nation with trillions of dollars in debt in order to grant tax cuts to millionaires who would get by fine without them, shouldn’t that provoke rage? It’s okay for Arnold Schwarzenegger to be mad-as-hell about a $10 billion or so shortfall in the Golden State’s budget. No one on the Right is mocking him as Angry Arnold. So how should the taxpayer who cleans Schwarzenegger’s shirts feel about a $500 billion national deficit? Anger is not what matters; the cause of the anger does.
Sure, lefties tend to be pissed off at Fox News Channel. But my hunch is they’re madder with Bush -- for good reason. Certainly, some of their anger still is fueled by non-policy issues, such as his less-than-honorable victory in 2000. Some of the wrath is akin to the I-can’t-believe-it outrage that was felt by anti-Clintonites: how could so many Americans fall for this phony scoundrel? But much of the anger has been stirred by Bush’s policy decisions and his use of dishonest arguments to support these actions. (You need an example? In a speech two days before he invaded Iraq, Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." But former deputy CIA director Richard Kerr, who is leading a review of prewar intelligence on Iraq, has said the intelligence was loaded with caveats and qualifiers and was based on circumstantial and inferential evidence. In other words, the intelligence was hardly no-doubt material.)
Bush’s actions and assertions are the issue. Understandably, it is easier for some on the Right to discount the critiques of Bush as no more than the out-of-touch reactions of sore losers (shades of 2000!) than it is for them to confront head-on the case against Bush. Derision can be an effective tool for Bush’s defenders. If his most fervent opponents can be cast as overly choleric, then their arguments need not be considered. Bush foes should expect the anger-baiting to continue, and they should hope that Bush critics counter it with the right mix of calm indignation and well-founded accusations.
tompaine.com
David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, is the author of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers), which will be released on September 30, 2003. |
