Football Fans for Truth-- now Football Fans and Beyond -- has a great piece delineating the breadth and intensity of liberal anger:
Anger Management
Jeff Larkin
December 13, 2004
John Kerry's loss brought the Democrats to introspection. The New Republic's Peter Beinart has written a compelling piece arguing that the dominance of the Democratic "softs" (i.e., MoveOn.org and Michael Moore) prevented the party from taking a meaningful stand on the issue of our day - totalitarian radical Islam. Former Governor Howard Dean, in bidding for the DNC chairmanship, argued that it is merely a matter of "getting to know you" and once the Democrats introduce themselves to the Red states, they will be embraced, not shunned. And a host of pundits blamed fear-mongering, gay-bashing, the innate stupidity of Red America, or some combination of the three, for Democratic electoral failure. Recently, Moore himself weighed in, suggesting to Jay Leno that the Democrats' lack of a story lost them the election.
Many of these theories contain some truths, but it is the explication of these theories - especially the ones suggesting that Bush voters are backward morons - that reveal the primary failing of the Democrats.
ANGRY POLITICIANS
Dean, when making his case to an audience at George Washington University, laid out a broad screed:
I'll give this to Republicans. They know the America they want. They want a government so small that, in the words of one prominent Republican, it can be drowned in a bathtub.
They want a government that runs big deficits, but is small enough to fit in your bedroom.
They want a government that is of, by, and for their special interest friends.
They want a government that preaches compassion but practices division.
They want wealth rewarded over work.
And they are willing to use any means to get there.
In going from record surpluses to record deficits, the Republican Party has relinquished the mantle of fiscal responsibility.
And now they're talking about borrowing another $2 trillion to take benefits away from our Senior Citizens.
In going from record job creation to record job loss, they have abandoned the mantle of economic responsibility.
In cutting health care, education, and community policing programs... and in failing to invest in America's inner cities, or distressed rural communities... they certainly have no desire to even claim the mantle of social responsibility.
In their refusal to embrace real electoral reform or conduct the business in government in the light of day, they are hardly the model of civic responsibility.
In their willingness to change the rules so that their indicted leaders can stay in power, they have even given up any claim on personal responsibility.
And in starting an international conflict based on misleading information, I believe they have abdicated America's moral responsibility, as well.
Dean was pitching to run the campaign wing of the Democratic party. But it is a nasty pitch, and Dean's nastiness is emblematic of the Democratic message for the last four years. It is vitriol as core, and Dean is an enthusiastic practitioner.
Responding to the president's 2003 State of the Union address, Dean stated, "It would be un-American to plunge our country into conflict without clear justification." Not "foolish." Not "dangerous." "un-American." During his candidacy, Dean also charged Bush with playing the race card, merely because the president spoke to the Urban League. It was Dean who called the theory that the administration had advance knowledge of 9-11 "interesting." Dean also alleged that the administration was screwing around with terrorist alerts for maximum electoral advantage.
Dean was not alone in his excess. In November 2002, when he was said to still be weighing a presidential run, Al Gore called Bush's environmental policy "immoral." He also deemed Bush's economic policy "catastrophic" and his foreign policy "horrible."
Out of the race, Gore was unleashed. He gave a speech to MoveOn reminiscent of the Reichstag fire address. He screamed that President Bush "brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world"; "brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon"; "has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation -- because of his attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation who disagrees with him"; and "insult[ed] the religion and culture and tradition of people in other countries."
Those charges were the first paragraphs of Gore's speech. It wound up: "the abhorrent acts in the [Abu Ghraib] prison were a direct consequence of the culture of impunity encouraged, authorized and instituted by Bush and Rumsfeld in their statements that the Geneva Conventions did not apply. The apparent war crimes that took place were the logical, inevitable outcome of policies and statements from the administration."
Dean and Gore were not alone. In his quixotic campaign, Congressman Dennis Kucinich stumped to save us all from a war "that is wrong, that is unjust, that is immoral." When Senator Bob Graham formally announced, he labeled proposed tax cuts "immoral" because they would "offload the costs to future generations." Graham also bandied about impeachment. Al Sharpton told a crowd, "We're inspecting the immoral policies that said, 'No, we can't find the weapons in Iraq, we want to go to war.'"
The eventual ticket was no more reticent. Kerry complained that Bush lied to him "personally." He told a supporter "these guys are the most crooked, lying group I've ever seen." John Edwards declared that Bush "doesn't share our values. He honors and respects only one thing -- wealth."
To these candidates for the Democratic nomination, Bush was not an opponent. He was a malignancy on the body politic, a demon who needed to be exorcised.
ANGRY "SOFTS"
Michael Moore was even more incendiary. I laughed out loud the other night watching Comedy Central. A comedian lauded Moore's film. The crowd took the bait and roared its appreciation. The comedian then followed up with "I mean, I learned a lot from that film that I didn't know. I didn't know that Bush ate a baby. Yes. He ate a baby." The comedian then pointed at two African-American women in the audience. "It was a black baby."
Moore never went that far, but he came close. Upon winning the Oscar, he declared "We're fighting for Bush and his oil buddies. It's appalling and immoral." He later told Bob Costas that Bush knew exactly where Osama bin Laden was located but refused get him because the president was in the hip pocket of Saudi Arabia. And the thrust of Fahrenheit 9-11 was simple: Bush is incompetent, corrupt and perfectly willing to kill American soldiers to enrich his oil buddies.
Moore's film premiere was attended by then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe, and the filmmaker was given the honor of sitting with Jimmy Carter in the former president's box at the Democratic National Convention.
As for MoveOn.org, they accused Bush of using "the politics of hate" on gay marriage and manipulating the war on terror to assist his reelection. The organization currently wants you to sign a petition to call for an investigation into the Ohio vote.
ANGRY PUNDITS
The post-election anger of the pundits was not borne of disappointment after a hard fight. Rather, it was a continuation of the abuse they spewed the entire first Bush term. For every post-election insult heaped on the administration by Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd, there was a progenitor, by them or others. That Bush was stupid (or "incurious") was a given. That he was corrupt was also widely accepted.
But to many pundits, Bush was also dangerous to the nation. The New York Times' Bill Keller expressed concern that Bush may be conspiratorially in league with the Christian right (the opening sentence to a Keller column - "Is President Bush a religious zealot, or does he just pander to that crowd?" - is in the grand tradition of "When did you stop beating your wife?"). Chris Mooney of The American Prospect worried that Bush (and Rove) were moving the country to a dangerous "form of Christian nationhood." Martin Marty, a Lutheran minister and professor at the University of Chicago, told Newsweek that "Bush's God talk will set the tinderbox that is the Muslim world on fire." Ron Suskind's pre-election New York Times Magazine piece mused that Bush's religion put him at odds with the "reality-based community."
ANGRY NEIGHBORS
In my heavily Democratic neighborhood of Arlington, Virginia, a 10 to 1 ratio of Kerry-Edwards to Bush-Cheney bumper stickers and lawn posters was not enough (a friend's kindergarten-age son told him that his class voted for president and that President Bush didn't do so well, losing 16-1). Cars sport more specific messages, such as "If you're not appalled, you haven't been paying attention" and "Bush is stupid" and "Bush is a war criminal" and "I don't have to support the president to love my country." I may well believe that a particular politician is stupid. I can't imagine being so brazen that I'd announce my belief on my car. And I can't imagine being so disraught over the results of the election that I'd emblazon "The Smart 48%," or "Embarrassed American" on the ride.
Worse, the children of many of these angry people have been programmed to bring the fury of their parents to school. While my wife and I explained to our daughter that we disagreed with Senator Kerry, but we respected him and he would need our support were he elected, many of her third-grade classmates comfortably and regularly informed her that Bush was "stupid" and that they would move if the president won. The idea that the president, no matter his party, is the president for us all does not apply to George W Bush. It's this brand of extremism that underscores the need for post election stress syndrome therapy (it exists, and yes, it is ongoing). As their cars will tell you, Bush is still not their president. He never will be.
THE PHONY/CONDESCENSION FACTOR
The excesses of Moore, Kerry, Democratic leaders, and their allies in the press come with cost. After each excess, a muted, more staid persona must be offered. The angry, as Michael Moore did on The Tonight Show, must at some point dress up and appear calm. The problem with these reinventions is that the angry Democrat now looks like an angry Democrat who is trying to fool you. And in trying to fool you, he is assuming you're a moron.
The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported that the party was seeking advice from George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics and cognitive sciences at the University of California, who argues that the Democrats must develop a message that resonates more deeply with voters. In his latest book ("Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate"), Lakoff argues that Democrats should change their words. For example, the deficit should be labeled a "baby tax''; same-sex marriage should be referred to as "the right to marry''; and trial lawyers should instead be called "public protection attorneys." Message: we're angry, but you're so stupid that if we smile and change the vocabulary, you'll go along.
THE EFFECT
I was watching C-SPAN2 the other night and there was a panel discussion led by Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia. Kerry campaign advisor Mike McCurry observed that the election turned conventional wisdom about turnout and new voters on its head. Now, we could no longer presume that an increase in new voters would naturally help Democrats. The next day, my brother sent me an email telling me the story of his brother-in-law, a pharmacist, who wrote a letter to the editor about the election. Here are some excerpts:
I BELIEVE THAT THIS PAST ELECTION WAS IN LARGE MEASURE A REFLECTION OF A GROWING DEEP RESENTMENT ON THE PART OF MANY PEOPLE, MOSTLY IN THE SOUTH AND MIDWEST, TOWARDS THE MESSAGE AND THE MESSENGERS THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS THROWN AT THEM. THEY HAVE FELT UNDER A CULTURAL SIEGE FOR MANY YEARS AND ON NOV. 2 THEY BIT BACK WITH A VENGEANCE . . . . NOW LOOK AT WHAT THEIR FACE AND VOICE HAVE BECOME: SNOOTY, NOSE- THUMBING, SELF ANOINTED INTELLECTUALS, COARSE AND VULGAR FILM MAKERS, OBSCENE, VENOM-SPEWING T.V. COMEDIANS WITH AN AUDIENCE FILLED WITH THEIR CACKLING LACKEYS, HOLLYWOOD LIMOUSINE LIBERALS AND BILLIONAIRES TRYING TO BUY ELECTIONS. THE UNMISTAKABLE UNDERTONES COMING THROUGH THEIR HOWLINGS IS THAT IF YOU’RE FROM THE MIDWEST YOU ARE, SHALL WE SAY…..”QUAINT”, AND IF YOU’RE FROM THE SOUTH ,YOU’RE JUST PLAIN STUPID.
If you don't think the anger and extreme rhetoric of the Democratic politicians, the "softs," and the pundits are having an effect, talk to my brothers' brother-in-law in Missouri. In 1996, Bill Clinton carried Missouri by seven points. In 2004, Bush expanded on his three-point margin of 2000, carrying the state by seven points.
RADICAL THERAPY IS NEEDED
Peter Beinart is correct. The Democratic party has ignored the critical issue of our time by essentially taking a pass on the terror war. But Beinart never really comes out and says what needs to be said, which is that the Democrats - hard, medium, or soft - so loathed Bush that they would sign on to any ridiculous policy or proponent of same if they felt it would injure the president. Beinart takes passes at the disease ("Instead, Bush's war on terrorism became a partisan affair--defined in the liberal mind not by images of American soldiers walking Afghan girls to school, but by John Ashcroft's mass detentions and Cheney's false claims about Iraqi WMD") but, in the end, offers justification ("The left's post-September 11 enthusiasm for an aggressive campaign against Al Qaeda--epitomized by students at liberal campuses signing up for jobs with the CIA--was overwhelmed by horror at the bungled Iraq war").
Even Beinart's justification cannot derail his conclusion: "So, when the Democratic presidential candidates began courting their party's activists in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2003, they found a liberal grassroots that viewed the war on terrorism in negative terms and judged the candidates less on their enthusiasm for defeating Al Qaeda than on their enthusiasm for defeating Bush."
After the election, Michael Moore dressed up nice for Jay Leno. He was clean-shaven and well attired. But his advice to the Democrats (that they only need to tell a better story) should be considered in light of the next story Moore plans to tell - a sequel of Fahrenheit 9-11. “Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them,” Moore was quoted as saying in Variety. “They weren’t told the truth. We’re communicators and it’s up to us to start doing it now.”
And Howard Dean may be right - a re-introduction to Red states may be a nice first step in order for the Democratic party to reestablish ties. But until Dean and Moore and the entire Democratic establishment can acknowledge their anger, and actually dispense with it, new clothes, new introductions, and new strategies will be for naught.
In 1992, Pat Buchanan was given a major speaking slot at the Republican National Convention. It became conventional wisdom that his angry, red meat speech - which spoke of a culture war - turned off the middle and hurt Bush in his re-election campaign. USA Today called it "a debacle." The Cleveland Plain Dealer labeled it "hate spewing," Anna Quindlen called it "hateful," and Newsweek called it "hate speech."
That was one speech. In contrast, an entire angry fixation exhibited by the most vocal and prominent Democratic politicians, supporters, and pundits for four years goes by virtually unnoticed. In fact, the only time Buchanan was recalled at all during this election was when Senator Zell Miller gave a stern, forceful speech to the Republican convention. The press sees anger only when it is a Buchanan, a "white male," a Zell Miller, or even a mildly ticked off George W Bush in the first debate with Kerry.
At the UVA panel discussion, the effect of the Swift Boat Veterans was discussed by other panel members, including the consultant who worked with the group. McCurry, however, refused to discuss the topic. His disgust and, yes, anger, were so palpable that he would not address the question.
In therapy, the first order of business in treating the Democrats' "post election stress syndrome" should not be coping, but anger management. And that starts with acceptance.
footballfansfortruth.us |
