9-12

The perpetually angry left

The political left in this country has been angry for so long now that when the term "The Left" is used, it's understood that they're angry. The phrase, 'the angry Left' is redundant.

Just take the Left's childishly angry response to the recent Tea Party protests. The big thing for Lefty bloggers and pundits is to use the gay bashing term "tea baggers" to describe the protesters. Those protests, by the way, were probably some of the least angry protests in human history. The Left's reaction to the protests were far angrier than the actual protests. Lefty thinkers like Jeanie Garafolo's angry charge that every protester is merely a white supremacist had more vitriol and anger in it than the sum total of all the protests themselves. So it's childish gay bashing jokes and cartoon like levels of anger from the Left as usual in response to the Tea Party Protests.

And now the (far) Left is downright hysterical that Obama is hesitant to prosecute former members of the Bush administration for essentially being too successful in thwarting an attack on American soil in the immediate days following 9-11 by using enhanced interrogation techniques that were at the time fully legal. If the angry, backwards looking Left wants to conduct kangaroo courts and show trials like a banana republic regime persecuting those whom with which they disagree politically, I say bring it on. I can't wait to see what happens when the American people see that the Left has now taken to punishing and prosecuting certain public servants in the Bush Administration in order to satisfy a political vendetta. Public servants who were in good faith doing what they could to successfully protect us. The whole thing is pricelessly irrational.

All of this anger and hysteria on the left begs the question, why in victory is the Left still so angry?

To answer that question let's consult an article penned by Byron York, frequent commentator on NPR, the ultra right wing talk radio network that I listen to daily.

These should be happy times for liberals and the Democratic party as a whole. They control the White House and both houses of Congress, while opposition Republicans are leaderless and lost. So why do some Democrats, particularly those farther to the left, appear so angry?

If you doubt it, just watch a few minutes of MSNBC, where the recent nationwide series of "tea parties" to protest federal spending and taxes set off an angry, almost manic response. The most telling came on Keith Olbermann's program, during which the actress Janeane Garofalo, who plays an FBI computer geek on “24,” denounced the tea parties as "racism straight up."

"Let's be very honest about what this is about," Garofalo said. "It's not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes…This is about hating a black man in the White House."

Garofalo linked the tea parties to what she described as a peculiar feature of the conservative brain. "The limbic brain inside a right-winger, or Republican, or conservative, or your average white power activist -- the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person," she explained. "And it is pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring." (The limbic brain is the deep portion of the brain that mediates, controls and expresses emotion.)

Now, it's possible Garofalo was joking; she used to do comedy. But she didn't seem to be joking, and her comments were consistent with a long and dishonorable history of attributing political conservatism to mental abnormality. And as she spoke about the alleged anger on the right, Garofalo herself seemed visibly angry. Why were she, and Olbermann, and many others on the left, so apparently troubled by a virtually powerless opposition?

I asked William Anderson, a friend who is a political conservative, a medical doctor, and a lecturer in psychiatry at Harvard. "They are angry, but I think they are also scared, and I think it's because they have a sense that their triumph is a precarious one," Anderson told me. Democrats won in 2008 in some part because of the cycles of American politics; Republicans were exhausted and it was the other party's turn. Now, having won, they are unsure of how long victory will last.

"They see that they have a very small window of opportunity to do all the things they want," Anderson continued. "They see the window of opportunity as small because they know in their deepest hearts that the vast majority of the American people wouldn't go for all of the things they want to do." So they are frantic to do as much as possible before the opposition coalesces. And the tea parties might be the beginning of that coalescence.

Then there is the question of self-image. Watching Garofalo and Olbermann discuss the tea parties, it was impossible to avoid the sense that they saw themselves as two good people talking about many bad people. "One of the things about narcissism is that it looks like people who are just proud of themselves and smug, but in fact narcissism is a very brittle and unstable state," Anderson told me. "People who are deeply invested in narcissism spend an awful lot of energy trying to maintain the illusion they have of themselves as being powerful and good, and they are exquisitely sensitive to anything that might prick that balloon."

Again, the tea parties could represent a threat. What if the protesters weren't racists, weren't violent, weren't mentally defective? What if their point was legitimate, or even partly legitimate? Those are questions better batted down than answered.
Finally, there is the sense of anxiety and fragility that stems from the liberals' newly-won power. They control everything in government, and some fear what the responsibility of governing is doing to them.

Their president of hope and change has chosen not to prosecute the authors of the Bush-era "torture memos." He is escalating the war in Afghanistan. He seems determined to bail out the nation's richest bankers. For some on the left, it can be difficult to abide those actions and still maintain the image of one's self atop the moral high ground. So they lash out at the easy target presented by the tea parties.

And that is how political triumph can produce anger and unhappiness. Don't be surprised if there is much more of both in the days to come.

-Byron York Washington Examiner 4/20/09

7 years

Rescue workers remove a Father Judge, a parish priest from one of New York's fire halls. Father Judge was administering last rites to a firefighter who was killed by one of the many bodies that fell to the ground after people leapt from the tower to their deaths, when he too was struck by a body and killed.

It seems to me that if President Bush is solely responsible for the sub prime mortgage crisis and for high gas prices, as some would have us believe, then he is also solely responsible for keeping America safe from terrorism for 7 years.

I for one have never bought into the narrative, that has been peddled for years now, that George W Bush is worthless. He has done more to confront the threat of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism than any other world leader in history. To me that is far from worthless, it's priceless.

Dismissed

As of today, the matter of the NSA wiretapping program is settled. Another trumped up controversy dismissed.

Clintonian Revisionism

With the mid-term elections scant weeks away, political operatives everywhere are scrambling to raise issues and dig up dirt on any candidate under the sun. From Mark Foley to down and dirty political TV ads, the gloves are coming off. Along with all of this, I am seeing an emerging strategic trend, which is being adopted by mainstream Democrats. In a combined effort to polish the Clinton legacy and to re-cast Democrats as tough on matters of national security, there seems to be a growing effort to re-write or at least revise certain chapters of the history of the Clinton Administration.

Lately, there have been two fallacious thrusts of this Clinton Administration revisionist history, one more egregious than the next. First, during the now famous Fox News Sunday Chris Wallace interview, Clinton did everything he could to suggest that he had done everything possible to kill or capture Bin Laden and that his administration did a tremendous amount to thwart the plans of Al Qaeda. Secondly, and more recently, Democratic operatives are attempting to re-write the Clinton Administration’s handling of the People’s Republic of North Korea (DPRK) and their acquisition of nuclear technology and weaponry. Both of these Clinton failings are being recast as triumphs in order to “take back” national security as a winning issue for Democrats. The theory being that if Democrats can revise enough of the history of the Clinton Administration, they can achieve three important goals. If successful, Clinton’s somewhat sordid legacy can be repaired, the Democrats take a winning issue into the elections, and Hilary Clinton’s stock rises as somehow being tough on terror because her husband was (even though he wasn’t).


The facts on both of these issues have been known and touted by conservatives for years now, rarely if ever challenged. To must of us, it seems rather unusual to suddenly want to re-debate issues long since resolved. In the Bin Laden case, I was of the understanding that neither the Bush Administration nor the Clinton Administration had done nearly enough to prevent terrorism pre 9-11. Even though Clinton had many more opportunities and more time to fight Al Qaeda than Bush did, the issue, politically speaking, I considered to be a wash. It stands to reason that not much political mileage can be made on an issue where both sides of the aisle essentially failed. In a way, the whole country failed. We all failed to see Al Qaeda terrorism as the threat that we now know it to be. For example, the American public most likely would not have been behind a pre-emptive military attack on the Taliban, which now in hindsight would have been a brilliant move. So hindsight being 20/20, both administrations can be blamed for failing to prevent 9-11. To me, at least it seemed, that if blame were to be doled out, then the Clinton Administration would receive the lion’s share. I never imagined that Democrats would attempt to point to what Clinton did against terrorism pre –9-11 as a winning issue! A truly bizarre strategy over an issue, which I assumed, was a wash.

Since the Clintons want to re-debate and blame game who did what when pre 9-11, all of the same cast of characters have re-emerged from those days immediately following 9-11 when the American public wanted to know what the hell happened. Members of the 9-11 Commission, Richard Clarke, and Michael Scheuer all principal players in the post 9-11 political drama, are now getting a renaissance of face time on the various television news outlets and programs. If one listens closely to Michael Scheuer , head of the Osama Bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999, it is clear that President Clinton had many more opportunities to kill or capture Bin Laden than the Bush Administration ever did. The disarmingly candid Scheuer, by the way, is no fan of the Bush Administration. In his initially anonymously published book Imperial Hubris , he takes The Bush Administration's characterization of Osama Bin Laden to task as overly simplistic and incorrect by saying amongst other things that, “It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Maida, not American culture and society.” While the nature of our enemy in Al Qaeda is a matter worthy of debate, the facts surrounding our opportunities to kill Bin Laden are not a matter of dispute, rather they are a matter of historical fact. The self-deprecating and humble, self described bureaucrat Michael Scheuer is about as straight a shooter as there is when it comes to the facts surrounding Bin Laden and American counter terrorism measures pre 9-11. Among other condemnations, Scheuer points out that President Clinton had "eyes on target" many more times than any other administration ever came close to having. To make a long and well publicized story short, what we find after only a little research is that in reality the bulk of any blame that should be assigned vis a vis 9-11 should fall squarely on the shoulders of the Clinton Administration. Again, the Bush Administration, like the American people as a whole, is not blameless. But because Monday morning quarterbacking and blame gaming are not productive endeavors, I had issued all parties involved even Clinton, a pass. That we now find Democrats wanting to make what Clinton did pre 9-11 somehow a winning issue, to me is laughable.


The other area of history that Democrats are attempting to re-write of late surrounds North Korea. However ridiculous it would seem to point to Clinton’s handling of Bin Laden as a positive, attempting to recast Clinton’s handling of North Korea as adept, takes the ludicrous cake. I thought this issue as well had been put to rest long ago. I had no idea that suddenly now, weeks before an election, Democrats would point to the Clinton Administration’s handling of North Korea, by literally handing them nuclear technology, as a positive. This somewhat controversial ad created by David Zucker, director of the Naked Gun movies and Scary Movies, sums it all up nicely. As history has proven, dealing directly with North Korea in bilateral talks brings us nowhere because, when North Korea eventually blows us off and breaks the framework of an agreement, the rest of the world does not care. Other countries like China and Russia laugh at us when crackpot despots blow us off. Having learned that lesson, it seems clear that any type of agreement that would hold up would have to be a multilateral effort which Bush has been attempting to undertake. A strategy, by the way, that one would think Democrats would be in favor of given their carping vis a vis Iraq. As usual however, Democrats are always in favor of doing the opposite of whatever it is that we are doing. Suddenly now Democrats are in favor of unilateral action when it comes to North Korea (and Darfur by the way). Also, Democrats are now suggesting that the reason that North Korea desires nuclear weapons and broke their agreements with us is because they were offended for being included in the “axis of evil” speech given by President Bush. The theory being that Bush is to blame for not coddling or cozying up to Kim Jong Il. It's amazing that Democrats still have not abandoned the strategy of appeasement when it comes to dealing with our enemies. It's as if Democrats are suddenly Rip Van Winkle, just now waking up from a slumber in which they were not aware of the last 20 years of history.

All of this goes to the idea that Democrats want to make national security their own issue. Their mentality is “not to get swift boated” again, meaning that because of the swift boat ads, defense and national security had been taken away from John Kerry as his own issue in the 2004 presidential election. It is of course silly to cite the largely truthful swift boat ads as the reason why Americans didn’t buy into Kerry as tough on terror, when the real reason was in fact that Democrats are in reality weak on terror. Meaning, It is not a question of spin and political ads as much as it of actual facts and voting records.

In the end, I believe it to be a losing strategy to attempt to re-write history by casting Clinton and the Democrats as all knowing national security gurus. A better strategy would be to actually vote for measures that are tough on terror, such as the wiretapping of potential terrorists, risk profiling at airports, and tracking the finances of terrorists. But because Democrats don’t actually believe in these and many other anti terror tactics, they (unless directly involved in a mid term election), cannot bring themselves to vote for them. So the strategy is: rather than actually be tough on terror, try to revise history to a point whereas the American people begin to somehow believe that they are tough on terror. At the end of the day, trying to confuse the American people into believing that Democrats are and have been tough on terror is a poor substitute for actually being tough on terror.