‘Bottom Rail on Top’
Civil War historian Bruce Catton relates a story in his powerful book Glory Road about Confederate prisoners being marched northward through Virginia, passing a plantation where several slaves had gathered near the road to watch the procession.
One older slave viewed the scene with immense satisfaction, calling out to the dejected southerners, “Bottom rail on top, now.” His reference to the fact that the ante-bellum south had ceased to exist and that the world had turned upside down probably didn’t go over very well with those southern troops.
Nor will the idea that the tables have now turned and Democrats have been handed the ammunition to refer to Republicans as “unpatriotic” and America haters.The liberals must be feeling the same kind of grim satisfaction that old slave felt when they toss around the epithet that conservatives are anti-American, after having endured this calumnious charge for a couple of decades.
What goes around comes around is a cliche that is especially true in politics. And it appears to me that opposition to Obama has so unhinged some on the right that, while the charges are ridiculous on their face, they will probably resonate with some Americans who have had just about enough of this silly, childish gameplaying when it comes to quantifying patriotism.
As the only conservative in a family of 10 children, I have always been comfortable attesting to the fact that liberals love America as much as conservatives do. To me, it was never a question of patriotism, but rather strength vs. weakness, common sense vs. suicidal idealism, and reality vs. wishful thinking. I believe that people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck - who, along with other pop conservatives, regularly make the point that liberals and Obama hate America - are so besotted with ideological fervor and blinded by unreasoning partisan hate of their opponents that they are unable to think rationally about exactly what liberals are saying when they criticize America.
Is it proof that the left hates America when they opposed the Iraq War? There are genuine pacifists on the left who hate all war. There was also a legitimate case to be made not to go to war with Iraq. I didn’t agree with it then and don’t agree with it now, but Iraq was a war of choice, and to take an honorable disagreement over policy and twist it into a charge of anti-Americanism is a stretch.
Having said that, the left has never been honest enough to admit that some of their opposition to the war was as shallow and dishonest as the right’s opposition to Obama’s failure in Copenhagen and his receiving the peace prize. To deny the element of partisanship - which is just as virulent and hateful as that on the right - inherent in many of the critiques of the war emanating from blogs and other partisan pundits is hypocritical. Wanting Bush to fail was just as prevalent on the left during his term in office as the right wanting Obama to flounder today.
Of course, this is the problem with politics today and anyone who can’t see it is too partisan themselves to admit it. The idea that one side or the other is to blame for this sorry state of affairs is ludicrous on its face.
But I would never say that the rank partisanship demonstrated by the left or right and directed toward the object of their disaffection means that either side is unpatriotic, or hates America. There are certainly some on the fringes of both sides that fit that description, but for the vast majority who allow excessive ideology to dominate their thinking, there is no question of love of country. Nor is there any litmus test that would gauge the depth of one’s devotion to America either. That fantastical notion that you can measure something like patriotism is irrational.
Then what of the idea that the left has now adopted the right’s tactic of accusing the opposition of hating America? The New America Foundation’s Michael Cohen writing in Politico has some thoughts:
Twenty-five years ago, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick famously lambasted Democrats as “blame America firsters” and a party plagued by “self-criticism and self-denigration” of America. It was a speech at pace with an emerging political stereotype that suggested Democrats weren’t quite patriotic enough and didn’t love their country as much as Republicans did. This image of Democratic weakness and self-doubt became one of the most effective attack lines for Republicans — and Democrats’ greatest political liability.
But today the tables are turning. Democrats have narrowed the Republican advantage on national security. They are seen as more effective when it comes to improving global respect for America and working closely with the country’s allies. And in a poll result that would have raised eyebrows only a few years ago, President Barack Obama is more trusted on foreign policy than he is on the economy and health care. Today, more than seven in 10 Americans consider him a strong leader.
A look across the aisle tells a more sobering tale for Republicans. Conservative leaders have been lambasted for cheering America’s defeat for losing the 2016 Olympics and disparaging an American president’s receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Others can decide whether charges of unpatriotic and un-American behavior launched by the Democratic National Committee against Republicans are appropriate, but the very fact that the DNC felt it had the ammunition to launch such an attack speaks volumes about the changing political dynamics of national security.
I would quibble with Cohen about one thing; Kirkpatrick was not accusing liberals of hating America but of blaming America first for most of the world’s problems. This fits into the idea that liberals criticize America when they believe that the nation is not living up to its high ideals. Kirkpatrick’s critique was that this sensible, patriotic notion had been tossed aside in favor of an ideological, and wholly nonsensical school of thought - advanced by the Communist Euro-left - that tensions in the world were created by American policy and American actions.
The reason it resonated with the voting public was because Kirkpatrick’s charges were true. Ignoring Soviet mischief making around the world to which America was reacting most of the time, while pointing to real or imagined shortcomings in our own policy (or going so far as refusing to delineate a moral difference between the superpowers), was the standard critique on the left until well into the Clinton years. They didn’t love America any less than anyone else. They simply allowed ideology to cloud their judgment.
Sound familiar? It should. It is this same notion that is driving the right over a cliff. Of course they don’t hate America. But in their ideological zeal to lay the president low, they have taken the position that anything bad that happens to Obama - even if it reflects badly on the country - is good.
From a political standpoint, it’s “bottom rail on top” as the Democrats have been handed the ammunition to make conservatives look like they are cheering against America. I would hasten to add that you could easily oppose President Obama’s efforts in Copenhagen by simply pointing out that handing billions to the Chicago political machine to spend is akin to handing the keys to your car and a bottle of Chivas to a drunk teenager. And I have seen several solid criticisms of Obama’s peace prize from the left. You don’t have to hate the president or America for that matter to believe Obama didn’t deserve it.
But many on the right went overboard - way beyond rational criticism and ended up gloating over Obama’s Olympic failure, and trashing the president in a very personal way over the peace prize award.
Cohen cogently points out the danger for the right in this kind of behavior:
The problems for Republicans are threefold: First, many on the right seem overtaken by a visceral dislike of Obama that is faintly reminiscent of Democratic attitudes toward President George W. Bush. This partisanship is manifesting itself in dangerous ways. It’s one thing to oppose Obama’s initiatives; it’s quite another to be seen as rooting against American interests.
Second, Republicans continue to engage in the same sort of knee-jerk attacks on Democratic “weakness” and naked appeals to American militarism that, while once resonant, have lost their political luster.
Third, Bush-administration-era views — and political appeals — on national security continue to dominate the GOP.
“Faintly reminiscent?” Holy Jesus, someone kick Mr. Cohen in the shin and tell him he can wake up now, that a 9 year nap is entirely too long. From where I’m sitting, it is all eerily familiar - down to some of the same language being employed today by the right that was de rigueur on the left during the Bush years.
But Cohen has correctly diagnosed the right’s problem. Quite simply, the country has moved on with the election of Obama. Are we going in a direction the American people support? Evidently so, if polls and surveys can be trusted. Until the president’s policies prove themselves to be as naive and overly idealistic as many critics believe them to be, he will no doubt continue to receive the support of the people.
Conservatives are stuck in a time warp. In many respects, the right has failed to appreciate where the country is today relative to where it was in the Bush years. They have yet to get their legs under them following the Obama tidal wave that rolled over the country last year, and this is reflected in our inability to develop a cohesive strategy to oppose him. The arguments are there - logical, hard hitting critiques of everything the president is trying to do have appeared in all the usual magazines and think tanks.
But as far as translating those arguments into an effective opposition, we have failed. With the movement in full throated howl against anything and everything Obama, fear and loathing have become the right’s strategy du jour.
And the left is finding it easy pickings to turn the tables on their conservative foes and make them appear to hate America as well as the president.
Truer words were never spoken, especially on the ideals part. What enraged me about Iraq wasn’t going to war, if you can stomp your enemies why not do so. It was going to war and working so hard to lose it.
It may not have been rational, but it made me so mad in 2005 I tried to re-enlist with he notion of keeping one 18 year old from having to go in what was clearly by then a foolish and poorly fought war.
The single greatest thing LBJ did was sacrifice the Democratic majority in the South by signing the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It made me a Democrat for life.
And while I could never vote for a Republican, it doesn’t affect how I feel personally about a person who is one.
I don’t hate anyone. I do hate torture. I don’t hate George Bush. I do hate getting 50,000 troops maimed and then providing a wretched system to care for them.
I support what you’re doing for one main reason: OKC, because if the GOP follows your advice they will start winning elections again. On the other hand, if they keep falling further into the abyss of anger, I believe the results will not be good. For anyone.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 10/14/2009 @ 10:35 am
Its all pretty much as you say, and why discourse in this country has gone so far down its all become a shouting match, when either side is so caught up in a visceral hatred of the other you can never find common ground.
Funny how the tables have turned so quickly, with the Right and Left now in the place each was in last year or the year before, but without acknowledging it or able to use it to their advantage. Both sides are still playing stupid political games, and in the end, both will end up losing (though the one that loses last will be considered the winner) but in the bigger picture its going to be this country that loses the most.
I don’t know if a viable third party would help much of this, or just diffuse the anger some, still it’s something I would rather see as the candidates in either party tend to be of the same mold.
Comment by boyo111 — 10/14/2009 @ 10:49 am
I agree with you that the tone of today’s debate is eerily similar and from a certain perspective and could be called a mirror image of the opposition given the Bush administration but for several discrepancies. The first being the left never gave Bush a chance to succeed or fail. I remember Bush’s inauguration in 2003 when he took the traditional walk down the last part of Pennsylvania Avenue as Presidents throughout the 20th had done before him. NOT! Thousands of protestors met Bush with eggs and other types of rotten produce thrown at his Limo such that he could not take that “stroll” - but the same event 8 years later was hailed as a historic moment for the Obamas. That historic moment was greeted by all Americans, left and right together as the historic moment that it was. And within days, Obama’s attitude of “I WON” bagan to take hold.
I take exception to your characterization of the Obama tide that overcame the country during the last election cycle. From where I sat it was more of an “Anti-Bush” torrent - but even that was only to the tune of 53% of the vote going to Obama, not the 90% vote his “I WON” attitude is acting like he got.
As far as the look and feel of the opposition to Obama, again I will take some exception - not a complete departure. I was at the Washington DC Tea Party and took pictures throughout the day. That evening and for the next couple of nights, what was seen on MSM gave you the impression every poster carried there was obscene, racist, or a crude comparison of Obama and Hitler. The place where I had staked my claim allowed me to see virtually all of the procession from the Freedom Plaza as it entered the Mall. For every poster that seemed off color, there were hundreds that were not. I tell that tale to relate to you the power of a tainted media to the perceptions gathered by the average citizen.
The same is true for the protests at the Town Hall meetings accross the country. I can only speak of what I saw but I went to Steny Hoyer’s town hall meeting in Waldorf MD. The next day, the local media related a couple of incidents as representative of the entire meeting. The media did not protray the attitude of the entire meeting. In fact, one of the instigators of one of the incidents got boo’d out of the hall by all of the attendees, supporter or opponent alike.
And as far as his efforts on behalf of the 2016 Olympics, I can refer to your own words regarding Obama’s filed attempt to gain the Olympics for his home town of Chicago:
“Partisanship aside, I think it’s time to start worrying about this fellow. It’s hard to coldly analyze a president that you see as an opponent but I am also something of a student of history. This man was unprepared for the presidency - moreso than anyone before him. He had also failed to demonstrate any leadership skills prior to being elected. Perhaps then, it shouldn’t be that much of a surprise that he either doesn’t know how to lead or is incapable of doing so. His own party is wondering about him. We’ve got very little coming from the White House in terms of substance - it’s all glitz and glitter with Obama campaigning for his agenda rather than doing the hard, slogging scut work of actually getting in the trenches and leading the troops toward the goals he sets.”
I admit as I did at the beginning of this comment that there are some eery similarities to the opposition being given to Obama that was previously given to Bush. But I believe a good deal of that “perception” is media driven. The real problem for Conservatives/Republicans on the right is how to set the tone of the debate and in the same way overcome the pervasive bias of the media and change the perception.
But I might be wrong.
Comment by SShiell — 10/14/2009 @ 10:53 am
For my part, the scary thing is that the “citizen of the world” types are now in charge. If you’re a citizen of the world, you aren’t a citizen of a particular country, and regard “love of country” as a form of dangerous, probably racist tribalism. Also, “citizens of the world” may do things that they see as “globally” necessary, but which weaken the country that happens to host them at the moment.
Given that I see exactly these sorts of arguments from writers popular with “elites”, I find it hard to dismiss them out of hand.
If you hate everything about your country, can you love your country?
Comment by Foobarista — 10/14/2009 @ 11:13 am
When I was a kid one of the highest aspirations one could have was to be educated, to be among the elite.
I personally don’t want my country to be run by plumbers. Honest, hard working and a fine fellow to go have a beer with. Not the person to be negotiating bilateral defense treaties with Russia.
I don’t want an average guy to be president (or woman for that matter). I want the smartest guy on the planet who is available for the job. Elite? Damn straight.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 10/14/2009 @ 12:03 pm
When a substantial minority, let alone a majority, of the Right actively roots for the defeat of the United States in a war get back to us. In the meantime, engage in all the intellectual dishonesty you wish.
Even a substantial minority of the Democratic Party wanted the United States military to lose Iraq. But you know that, and it doesn’t go along with your false little narrative, now does it? Unless, of course, you equate the Olympics with military conflict, in which you are one of the most ignorant sons of a bitches ever to delude themselves into thinking they were intelligent, let alone a member of the intelligentsia.
Comment by obamathered — 10/14/2009 @ 12:37 pm
That’s because in our version of the universe, that’s patently false and insulting to boot.
As far as wanting to lose, that might be better addressed to the former Commander-in-Chief and his Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who might be able to answer questions about not sending enough armored vehicles to protect the troops, who ignored a mountain of evidence that our war fighting strategy was an utter failure, and who together laid no plans for how to manage a Iraq after our lightning victory.
Thousands more troops are dead or maimed than ever had to be because Rumsfeld was incompetent at his job and George W. Bush only replaced him at the brink of utter defeat in a war that has lasted longer than WW I & WWII combined.
We marched by the millions to say don’t go, while the country was sold ties to Al Queada and weapons of mass destruction that were non-existent. We screamed for years that troop levels were too low we were ignored. It was pure hardheadedness and luck that the surge worked militarily.
Politically, none of the goals have been achieved and $1,000,000,000,000 has been wasted as surely as if it were shoveled into a furnace.
As a former soldier I am outraged at what has been done to the United States Army, the troops, and most importantly the military families ground done by back to back to back to back deployments. Meanwhile bloodthirsty chest beaters can’t seem to find their way to the recruiting office.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 10/14/2009 @ 1:13 pm
I want the smartest guy in the world - that I can trust to be on my side - to be negotiating with our competitors in the world.
There _are_ educated elites that I can trust, but I require more of them than just Ivy League credentials and the ability to wordsmith.
Part of my problem with much of the elite is it has such identical life experience: born to upper-middle-class and up parents, right kindergarten, right high school, did a zillion checkbox activities, went to Ivy or other “top school”, got good grades while doing a bit of drugs to “be different”, get law degree or PhD, work for a government agency, BigLaw, advocacy outfit, or Wall Street, become a senior bureaucrat or politician. They read the same authors, eat the same food, vacation in the same places, and are exposed to the same media.
Very few of them have much life experience outside this “pipeline”.
Does this define “smart”? Certainly those who make it to the end of the pipeline are “smart”, in the IQ-test sense of the word. But they have a very narrowly-defined view of things, and rarely are exposed to life-informed opinions of those who aren’t in the pipeline.
The problem is that, even though both parties are dominated by people who went through the pipeline, the country is still clearly going to heck in a handbasket. This systemic failure makes people increasingly question not just individuals in government, but the pipeline itself.
Comment by Foobarista — 10/14/2009 @ 1:45 pm
“It was pure hardheadedness and luck that the surge worked militarily.”
With that one statement, I question your claim that you are a “former soldier” with any credibility at all in matters relating to the military. I am a former military member recently retired and I was there. The surge was not merely the addition of troops but a complete reversal of tactics - COIN to be precise. Look it up. It was not luck nor was it hardheadedness. It was the work of highly trained and committed soldiers and Marines who believed in the mission.
How do I know they believed in the mission? Easy. Early in the war I told fellow officers the two keys to be able to determine if the war was going badly - re-enlistments and fragging. Re-enlistments were consistently off the charts throughtout the compaign - even in the darkest days of 2005 prior to the surge. And in the entire war there was only one single case of fragging and that occurred in the days preceding the invasion.
So keep your frigging outrage to yourself and heap loads of praise on the people who made it happen - not those back here who “marched by the millions” but the troops in the field!
Comment by SShiell — 10/14/2009 @ 1:58 pm
The introspection and ‘calling out’ of figures on the right who go too far is a great deal more than I ever saw happening on the left. The fear of the nazi right led to a culture of inspection and introspection regarding certain types of friends on the right that simply does not exist on the left because denazification has never had its equivalent decommunification applied to the left.
I recall legitimate lefties going to antiwar rallies sponsored by International ANSWER (modern wobblies) because they were the only ones to get the permits. I can’t imagine anybody on the right going to an american nazi party event on that basis. People unselfconsciously wear Mao and Che t-shirts in a way that Goebbels and Himmler shirts could never be worn.
The charge of unamericanism is largely one of supporting foreign born models of governance and society over homegrown ones. Foreign laws being cited in american jurisprudence, euro-socialist ideas being imported onto our shores, and an admiration of the moral superiority of this or that foreign system is a big feeder of the opinion that the Left has been unpatriotic.
What are the foreign models that the right is supporting?
Comment by TMLutas — 10/14/2009 @ 2:10 pm
I wasn’t about to comment on this one simply because of my true reaction to this blog, which is the one that jumped the shark. But SShiel, I do want to thank you for calling out this fraud Bottoms. As someone else with, I imagine, just a tiny bit more knowledge than Bottoms has, a few more tidbits.
The left-wing initially claimed we needed more troops and then raised hell about the surge. Rumsfeld correctly decided that the Democrats would not accept commitment of more troops, particularly under his leadership. His departure was a requisite to the troop build up. The surge indeed was a reversal of tactics that had to be delayed because of the loyal (bullshit!)opposition.
When Gen. Petraeus (remember “Betrayus?”)was given the mission, it had nothing to do with luck, hardheadedness, or the Democratic Left’s psychic abilities gone south. It was precisely as you said–skilled soldiering.
Thank you for bringing a smidgeon of sanity here today.
How stupid is somebody who continues to visit a site he thinks has “jumped the shark?” If you think I have nothing of value to say, how idiotic do you have to be to read it?
ed.
Comment by jackson1234 — 10/14/2009 @ 2:43 pm
On that sole point, you are right, Rick.
Comment by jackson1234 — 10/14/2009 @ 2:48 pm
I believe it is foolish to compare President Obama’s failure to secure the Olympics for the city of Chicago and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the conflict in Iraq. It might be fair to compare them to the show throwing incident in Iraq. The President and his supporters have shown on numerous occasions before and after the election to have a fairly thin skin when it comes to criticism, but they have been and continue to be quite willing to lay blame quickly. They also have a habit of finding enemies everywhere. Oil companies. Insurance companies. Fox News.
No one has died or would have died as a result of losing the Olympic games to Rio. These events are relatively inconsequential in the world of politics. There is no enemy to give aid and comfort to in criticizing the President. I remember many democrat politicians publicly questioning the intelligence of the President, the strategy and tactics employed in combat, and the soldiers themselves while the country was actually fighting an enemy.
I think a reasonable comparison would be Afghanistan. President Obama campaigned on fighting more aggressively in Afghanistan. Will Republicans be more supportive of him than the Democrats were in Iraq? That will be a worthy test of blatant partisanship. Democrats have not been held accountable for many statements. I have a feeling Republicans will. Hopefully they will be more rational and circumspect.
Comment by Gregg — 10/14/2009 @ 2:58 pm
To me, liberals love America so much that they elected a leftist government and president that is running the nation into the ground—fiscally, socially, militarily, politically, business-wise, and internationally.
Just taking the fiscal side as an example, what do we do with a national debt that is 200% or more of the GNP in 2019? How about the jobs that have not materialized? Oh yes, let us scrape and bow before our foreign sources of credit and cheap oil, and blame American for all sorts of sins in front of the international community.
Either they do not see the damage they are causing the nation downstream, in which case they are too stupid and hence unfit to lead, or they do see the damage that is coming and cheer its occurrence, in which case they are diabolically unfit to lead the nation. Even simply holding these ideas in the forefront of their thinking is anti-American. Now they can act with their majority, and they are doing so.
I suggest that they do not love America as she is. What they really seem to love is THEIR OWN IMAGE of a Utopian America that we know from example is an impossibility that will lead ultimately to totalitarianism and chaos. It is the collectivist chimera that wishes to level the wealth of the people into poverty and regulation–all in their usually Godless perversion of humane causes! They are dedicated to killing the goose…
How anyone can say that this liberal mindset and direction signifies a love of country is beyond me.
Comment by mannning — 10/14/2009 @ 3:05 pm
Couldn’t have anything to do with the huge re-enlistment bonuses or the threats to soldiers that they would be called back under stop-loss anyway if they didn’t re-up so why not take the $20k?
Remember stop loss? When you sign up Uncle Sam has you for a full six years, active or IRR (Inactive Ready Reserve).
Unlike now where the services are flush with recruits the Army was so desperate they were calling back 40 year old grandmothers to fill the ranks.
You can question whatever you want, but the OP addresses that very point: Hysterical reaction to criticism that conflicts with your worldview. No Democrat could have been a soldier, we know this because chickenhawks like Rush and Hannity, and Beck tell us only Republicans are patriots.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 10/14/2009 @ 3:09 pm
Richard Bottoms:
Of course no one claimed a Democrat couldn’t be a soldier. I served with many. No, the guy you called out said you weren’t. I concur. Not even a socialist who served would have been ignorant and/or callous enough to equate the Olympics with a war, as Moran and you both insidiously did.
What’s “insidious” about it? And you and the rest are exaggerating. There is no equivalence between the two except as examples of excessive, idiotic ideological fervor overcoming reason and logic. I accuse both sides of the same thing - and you get all hot and bothered because I don’t agree with you that the left hates America?
You are a perfect, living example of which I write. You read into what I write exactly what you want to and ignore the argument itself. Why do you get mad when I say that liberals don’t hate America? It challenges your wacky beliefs - your entire ideology is based on the fact that the left is evil and hates America. Without that, you have nothing - your worldview collapses in a heap.
ed.
Comment by obamathered — 10/14/2009 @ 3:29 pm
Richard Bottoms:
No doubt there were hardships. However, there was the highest rates of re-enlistments ever recorded, something you blew off as a cash inducement. As for “bloodthirsty chestbeaters,” I will take them over America-hating poseurs who pad their vet status.
Comment by obamathered — 10/14/2009 @ 3:35 pm
So now, despite having worn the uniform of my country and moving my family from pillar to post for 13 years I hate America?
Meanwhile someone who skipped out on Vietnam because a carbuncle on his butt or cheerleaders for the war who come right out and say they don’t enlist in time of war because they have other priorities are fine examples of American bravery.
Did you even read what Rick wrote?
Comment by Richard bottoms — 10/14/2009 @ 3:49 pm
TMLutas Said: “the nazi right” ???
The Nazis (German National Socialist Workers Party) are a left-based government. Not right. As is the case for all statist governments.
The “right” is anarchy. The “left” is tyranny. The more government control a system has, the further to the left on the line it is.
Comment by John Galt — 10/14/2009 @ 3:52 pm
Rick Moran:
I hope that made you feel better. I obviously don’t get mad when you claim liberals like yourself don’t hate America because I know they don’t. No, I got mad because you made a profoundly ignorant comparison beween disloyal opposition to a hot war to ridiculing a president because he couldn’t snag the Olympics.
Of course, you won’t admit what you did because any pretensions you have to intellectual integrity would be destroyed–at least in your mind, because any objective reading of your OP bears out precisely what I claimed and you have denied.
Nothing in my world has collapsed in a heap. It certainly would take someone of considerably more intellectual heft than you to make that happen. But today your mask has slipped just in the event anyone had a doubt what you actually are. And frankly, regardless of your ideology, you should be ashamed of the false analogy you put forward. I realize you aren’t, but I can’t help be hold out hope.
It is not an analogy. I never intended it to be and you and other ideologues seem to be the only ones taking it as such. I am not comparing war to the Olympics. That is incredibly simplistic and shows you have a mind incapable of processing information correctly. I am showing a similarity in attitudes - it has nothing whatsoever to do with the examples given. There is no reason to give more or less weight to one example or the other. It is the attitude that is at issue - and I pointed out that both right and left suffer similar ideological delusions.
I can’t believe I have to explain it as I would to a ten year old.
And why do you brand anyone who disagrees with you a liberal? I can’t tell you how simple minded that charge is as it relates to me. You obviously haven’t a clue what a conservative or a liberal is - which is par for the course for someone so enamored of their own ideological conceits.
ed.
Comment by obamathered — 10/14/2009 @ 4:04 pm
“But in their ideological zeal to lay the president low, they have taken the position that anything bad that happens to Obama - even if it reflects badly on the country - is good.”
Is it really “ideological zeal”?
That doesn’t compute somehow.
There must be another reason for this hatred …
Comment by BellWeather Bill — 10/14/2009 @ 5:00 pm
Rick Moran:
It is not an analogy. I never intended it to be and you and other ideologues seem to be the only ones taking it as such. I am not comparing war to the Olympics. That is incredibly simplistic and shows you have a mind incapable of processing information correctly. I am showing a similarity in attitudes - it has nothing whatsoever to do with the examples given. There is no reason to give more or less weight to one example or the other. It is the attitude that is at issue - and I pointed out that both right and left suffer similar ideological delusions.
You didn’t explain anything. You denied something you obviously did. Jesus Christ, man, you wrote something incredibly stupid that even a ten year old could correctly interpret. And then you compound the stupidity with denial of the obvious. The only ones not “taking it as such” are left-wing ideologues only because they also think disloyal opposition to an ongoing war is analogous to the ridicule of a president over his failure to snag the Olympics.
As someone above wrote, the actual test of whether the Right will act as despicably as the Left will be if the president commits additional troops to Afghanistan and they then raise hell.
Again, it is a shameful comparison that at one time would have been beneath you. And since I think you are twitching to hit the ban button, the irony is that I opposed the Iraq invasion. Unlike much of the Left, though, I didn’t do anything to undermine the troops once they were sent.
I honestly can’t remember whether I snickered when Chicago didn’t get the Olympics, though. If I did, please forgive my unpatriotic behavior.
Comment by obamathered — 10/14/2009 @ 5:08 pm
I will never vote for a Republican ever, the areas where I find agreement on politics with Rick Moran are few and far between.
But he is a fellow countryman and we settle our differences at the ballot box and no where else.
That’s what has enabled this country to endure slavery, civil war, interment, and a host of other problems (and why the 1965 Civil Rights Act carries such importance for me).
We can disagree without being disagreeable.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 10/14/2009 @ 5:08 pm
Dear Rick
I am surprised that find the recent lack of civility amongst political supporters of each party so shocking. It is all part of the dumbing down and hypercompetitive nature of commentary on the internet (present website exempted). I ask you a rhetoricla question other than the topic discussed what is the difference between giving President Obama the “Rasberry” on his Olympic bid efforts for Chicago and what happens on the certain ESPN sport team sites? The difference is not much.
I must admit I was glad to hear his effort came to naught because it is about time that he learned that there is more to being president than just giving speeches. You need to legislate and bring others to your side which takes a lot more effort than just giving speeches. I am sorry to say President Obama has demonstrated his total lack of experience for the job from day one and I have to hope that these are first year jitters like President Clinton who got the hang of it at a certain level. Of course President Clinton had so much more elective office experience to draw on. President Obama has in the immortal words of his Secretary of State “a memorable speech and that is it”
On the other hand Presidents do grow in office President Clinton was not the same after OKC and I can assure you that GWB was not the same after 9/11/01.
I am not wishing for another case like the above to servce as an example of growth and development I am just very worried with President Obama that his first impression is his best impression and that is it. He has not wowed with his skills as President. He appears much better at running than governing.
Comment by Kevin Brown — 10/14/2009 @ 6:02 pm
The problem with your analysis is that while there are unhinged righties in the entertainment media, there are also prominent Republicans who will publicly say that President Obama, or other democrats, have good intentions, love their country, etc. In the democrat party today, there are no such gentlemen or gentlewomen — and there hasn’t been for a decade or more. The only gentleman they had left, Joe Lieberman, was literally thrown out of the party, mostly for being a decent man. When democrat party leaders speak of their political opposition, it is ALWAYS with dripping sarcasm and vicious invective. When Republicans go too far with their rhetoric, other Republicans criticize them. Democrats never, ever criticize each other for their bad behavior, and the media never asks them to. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama routinely say just awful things about their political opposition, and then they go an television and whine about “incivility.” It’s ridiculous. The situation hasn’t even begun to achieve moral equivalency, and it’s simply dishonest to suggest that it has.
Comment by Anon — 10/14/2009 @ 6:39 pm
Would mind doing me the courtesy of that if you are going to criticize you at least use the proper name for the organization. It the Democratic party.
It’s exactly this type of juvenile silliness that is the problem here.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 10/14/2009 @ 6:44 pm
And why do you brand anyone who disagrees with you a liberal?
Because it is the easy thing to do and it makes him feel good, too.
Comment by Pug — 10/14/2009 @ 7:15 pm
…there are also prominent Republicans who will publicly say that President Obama, or other democrats, have good intentions, love their country, etc. In the democrat party today, there are no such gentlemen or gentlewomen — and there hasn’t been for a decade or more.
We’re good guys. They’re bad guys. It’s that simple.
Comment by Pug — 10/14/2009 @ 7:17 pm
Jackson:
The left-wing initially claimed we needed more troops and then raised hell about the surge. Rumsfeld correctly decided that the Democrats would not accept commitment of more troops, particularly under his leadership. His departure was a requisite to the troop build up.
What a bullshit rewrite of history.
Rumsfeld was an absolute incompetent. Mr. Bush was too stupid and too stubborn to accept that fact.
The two political names most closely identified with pushing for more troops early are probably Mr. McCain — hated by you right-wingers — and Joe Lieberman, who is a Democrat.
I was pushing for more troops long before either because it was painfully clear within weeks of the invasion that we were undermanned. And as I did that I had a constant chorus of loud-mouthed right-wing chest-thumpers like you telling me I was a defeatist and a pansy and an ignoramus.
And you want to try to pin that on Democrats? You’re full of it. Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush created the losing strategy in Iraq and they were given EVERY soldier, weapon and dollar they asked for. They stuck with that losing strategy, and only reversed course AFTER suffering a huge mid-term election beating. In other words, genius, it was AFTER Democrats increased their power that the surge occurred and only because it finally dawned on the idiot leaders of the GOP that they would suffer politically for the disaster they were creating.
And as an early advocate of more force in Iraq, and a supporter of the surge, let me educate you: the surge wasn’t a victory, it was a holding action to stave off utter defeat. What we have now in Iraq is not in any way, shape or form a victory. It’s just the best we could salvage from a stupidly botched occupation run by Republicans who cared more about putting party apparatchiks in positions of authority than they did about winning.
The last minute surge in Iraq, and indeed the entire poorly-prepared Iraq war, is a major reason we are up against a wall in Afghanistan today. Mr. Bush refused to increase the size of the military which was a mistake of historic proportions. We were and are undermanned to fight two wars.
We are in trouble in Afghanistan today for the same reason we are still in trouble in Iraq: Mr. Bush was incompetent. And now, just as with the economic mess, it falls to Democrats to try and fix the screw-up left behind by the previous administration. An effort we are undertaking with zero help from the GOP.
Comment by michael reynolds — 10/14/2009 @ 8:53 pm
I went to dnc.org. It looks like they like to be referred to as the Democratic Party. But the individual politicians are known as democrats. I don’t think it was juvenile silliness, just an oversight. Most right leaning commentators probably don’t spend much time on the DNC website, and republicans belong to the Republican Party.
Comment by Gregg — 10/14/2009 @ 8:55 pm
“It the Democratic party.”
Or,in foreign policy circles, the Dhimmicratic Party!
Comment by SShiell — 10/14/2009 @ 9:40 pm
Can someone honestly love America while hating a huge chunk of fellow Americans? I don’t think so.
I see a lot of hating by both sides, and not just by average, rank-and-file citizens. The venom oozes regularly from party leaders, special interests, and media. We are kept busy reacting to and blaming each other. The partisanship is most vividly on display in Congress. We need climate change in DC.
Maybe things would turn around if…
1. The Congressional delegations of both parties enacted a ‘coup’ and replaced their current leadership with moderate leaders who less dogmatic and more practical.
2. The President distanced himself from partisanship by announcing his determination to veto any sweeping bill lacking strong bi-partisan support. (By the way, I think Obama would stun the country if he did this and would quickly reverse his approval rating. People would think he really is post-partisan.)
3. The media stopped giving negative attention to extremists who welcome the publicity.
If none of the above happens, I think the best course is seeking a divided government by replacing as many Congressional Democrats as possible in 2010. America has generally prospered more under a divided government than under a one-party government.
Comment by Doug King — 10/14/2009 @ 10:21 pm
In the Democratic party today…
Comment by Richard bottoms — 10/14/2009 @ 10:57 pm
Lot’s of love on both sides. One side wants a more individualistic the other a more collectivist approach to a ‘better’ society. Intellectually you can actually find good reasons for both views. Some of you really get carried away by the daily news clutter. Pelosi, Palin, Limbaugh (Rush you blew it..had you bid for the Bears maybe some more love here…) and what have you. However, a serious debate looks different to what you currently see. Although some of the comments give me hope that we are not done yet, others not so much. I mean seriously, in what way is Rick a liberal, based on what statement. Obamathered, you probably don’t want Obama to be reelected…hint: constantly pissing people of who agree with you might not be the winning strategy or were you appointed to be the fiery purger whereupon from the ashes shall arise Phoenix Palin.
Comment by funny man — 10/14/2009 @ 11:14 pm
John Galt - Go with the flow, friend. The vast majority of people consider the NSDAP a right wing party and the introspection/inspection/political hygiene they prompted occurred on the right, not the left. Even if your proposed categorization makes sense from an ideological point of view (which I disagree with btw), it makes no sense from a historical point of view. Mine explains the cleanup on the right post-WWII.
Either you’re nitpicking while agreeing with the larger point, in which case you can just go now, or you disagree with the larger point and are just using this example to discredit it, in which case you are historically challenged at best. What are you up to?
Rick Moran - I notice you’re responding to comments, but not responding to mine. Let me remake the comment a little clearer. You aren’t getting it right.
The charge from the left is all smoke and no fire because non-patriotic righties get drummed out of the right in a defense mechanism that the left simply has never developed. This political hygiene is good for the country and the left is currently encouraging the right to drop it because if you’re going to be hung for a goat, you might as well get a sheep too.
This dynamic is bad for the country and the right, so far, is resisting it. But it should be remarked on and condemned. You passed up an opportunity to do so. I hope that was by accident.
Comment by TMLutas — 10/15/2009 @ 6:13 am
“The single greatest thing LBJ did was sacrifice the Democratic majority in the South by signing the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It made me a Democrat for life.”
Strange
The two major bills regarding Civil Rights in this era were the Civil rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The voting for these acts were as follows:
Civil rights Act of 1964
The original House version
• Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
• Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:
• Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
• Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
• Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
• Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Voting rights Act of 1965
Senate: 77–19
• Democrats: 47–17 (73%-27%)
• Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6%)
House: 333–85
• Democrats: 221–61 (78%-22%)
• Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18%)
And, as an aside, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had to suffer through considerable fillibuster pressure from the Democrats (Robert Byrd of West Virginia prominent in this effort to kill the legislation). But a simple review of the voting will show you that the Republicans, not the Democrats, carried the day. Additionally, Johnson did not have a choice signing either bill because they were both veto proof, having passed with a 2/3 majority for both in the Senate.
I can only surmise that your devotion to LBJ and Democratic epiphaney is for LBJ personally pushing the two bills through and not the actions of the Democratic Party at large.
Comment by SShiell — 10/15/2009 @ 7:21 am
SS:
I think you’re making the point that the Democrats were very divided by race. Which was why LBJ was so courageous: he knew he was splitting his own party and he was doing it for good reasons.
The GOP votes shows that back in those halcyon days the party was one of tolerance. Of course what happened next is that the GOP moved quickly to exploit the Democratic split with their Southern Strategy.
In other words, LBJ took political risks to do what was right; the GOP exploited his heroism by doing what was wrong. Since that time the GOP has been the party of race-baiting and white resentment and the Democrats have been the party of civil rights.
Comment by michael reynolds — 10/15/2009 @ 8:14 am
“I think you’re making the point that the Democrats were very divided by race.”
No, my point is very simple - LBJs leadership caused the man to become a Democrat for life, not any action taken by the Democratic Party.
And regardless of your characterization, my own take is the GOP is the party of personal empowerment and the Democrats are the party of special interest “victims” and reparations.
Comment by SShiell — 10/15/2009 @ 8:37 am
Oh, for the love of crap, must we go into the 1964 civil rights vote.
Must we go-the northern liberal Republicans who voted for it are dead. Mostly. They no longer serve in the House or Senate. Teapartiers would likely declaim them as RINOs. Sheesh.
Comment by Rolfe — 10/15/2009 @ 10:31 am
To those who proclaim any civil rights legislation as a badge of Republican honor- Give me a break- it is to laugh.
Comment by Rolfe — 10/15/2009 @ 10:38 am
To use LBJ as the lifelong key to a party affiliation is rediculous! So the party leaves it moorings, veers sharply left, and you trot left along with it? Maybe that is what has happened to the Center-Left.
Comment by mannning — 10/15/2009 @ 10:54 am
These days the GOP is the party dominated by the Christian Right, and one very powerful special interest group: Big Business favoring tax loopholes and lax or non-existent regulation over the health, safety, and financial well being of regular folks at every turn.
Despite the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of tax exempt churches all freely open to any type of worship, the GOP promotes the victim status of “oppressed” Christians who see themselves on the brink of Stalin’s Russia instead of acknowledging they have the most secure religious freedoms of any peoples on the face of the planet.
The party of personal empowerment works to active restrict those powers if contraceptives are involved promoting abstinence over common sense birth control measure. Many prominent leaders are against not just abortion, but access to pill, and condoms for adult women.
The party of empowerment fights fair pay for women, minimum wage increases always, and extensions of unemployment insurance even in the midst of the worst recession in history.
And finally, the GOP has gone out of its way to insult and rebuke Hispanics as they drive towards a policy of immigration that acknowledges the reality of the willingness of their people to take the jobs others won’t. They wipe the butts of our elderly, clean our hotels, slaughter our animals, pick our vegetables, and do the most menial disgusting jobs in existence for pay little better than what you get at McDonald’s because it’s still better than what’s going on for them back in Mexico.
You can keep going on about reparations and such, like it’s still 1983, meanwhile the rest of the country and black America in particular have moved on. Young people have no experience with the grievances you still nurse over issues that were settle going on 20 years ago.
All your favorite bogeymen, Jackson, Farrakhan, and Sharpton are either washed up, dying, or irrelevant outside their own little geographic circle. Beyonce has more clout that Jesse Jackson and the most important black man in America today is living in the White House.
The party of the young, the party of tomorrow is the Democratic party.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 10/15/2009 @ 11:50 am
Richard,
the statement
All your favorite bogeymen, Jackson, Farrakhan, and Sharpton are either washed up, dying, or irrelevant outside their own little geographic circle. Beyonce has more clout that Jesse Jackson and the most important black man in America today is living in the White House.
is indeed true. I sometimes suspect some who take these guys serious have never really interacted with black Americans. I used to live in Detroit and I can attest that only a minority especially among young people took them serious.
However, the argument between us should really be about which form of government is more effective and I would disagree with you in that area.
Comment by funny man — 10/15/2009 @ 1:16 pm
Actually, neither is the party of personal empowerment, although you’ll find somewhat more “empowerment-minded” politicians in the R party than the D party, which is all about bureaucrats, lawyers, race-baiters, and sundry free-lunchers.
Nowadays, I mostly vote R, since the L party is a waste of time - and I see bible-thumpers as less of a threat than the various factions in the D party.
This in many ways makes me weird, since I’m culturally more in tune with the socially liberal D’s than some rock-ribbed conservative R’s, but I figure it’s easier to keep bible-pounders out of my bedroom than statists out of my pocket.
I’d prefer for the lot of them to go away, but am well aware that politics is like war: you may not be interested in it, but it’s definitely interested in you.
Comment by Foobarista — 10/15/2009 @ 1:22 pm
A perfectly reasonable argument.
More Republicans should try it instead of the whole Obama as Manchurian Candidate - Gurkha Assassin - Hillary Secret Lesbian killer approach.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 10/15/2009 @ 1:31 pm
You mean free lunch like tax breaks for oil companies, anti-trust exemptions for the insurance industry, tax havens for multi-nationals, defense contracts for weapons that don’t work, and support for firms that shield themselves from responsibility if their employees commit rape?
That kind of free lunch?
Comment by Richard bottoms — 10/15/2009 @ 1:37 pm
Richard,
don’t you know Obama is pretty amazing being Hitler, a communist, a Marxist, a Muslim, a racist (list goes on). My (cynic) assessment is that most people are not able to carry out a logic argument but still love going into the mud and start slinging (that is unfortunately not linked to political preference).
Comment by funny man — 10/15/2009 @ 1:38 pm
“More Republicans should try it instead of the whole Obama as Manchurian Candidate - Gurkha Assassin - Hillary Secret Lesbian killer approach.”
*Yawn*
Yeah, right - Whatever!
Comment by SShiell — 10/15/2009 @ 1:52 pm
My take on Obama is a whole lot simpler - HE IS AN EMPTY SUIT! And Hilary has more balls than all of the Dhimmocrats in the House and Senate combined!
‘Nuff said.
Comment by SShiell — 10/15/2009 @ 1:55 pm
SShiel,
‘empty suit’
like I haven’t heard that before.
*Yawn* Nuff said
If Obama would be like you describe him we should easily beat him. However, that won’t be the case, so instead of wishful thinking why not try realistic assessments. If the economy recovers it is his election to loose, fair or unfair that’s just the way it goes.
Comment by funny man — 10/15/2009 @ 2:57 pm
RM: who’s arguing for corporatism? And you think the Ds are any less into it than Rs? Support for free markets does not imply support for big business. In fact, it’s usually quite the opposite.
Corporations are, by definition, the ultimate whores. They exist to preserve themselves and produce cash any way they can get it. If they can get a better deal from Ds than Rs, they’ll do so, and they’ll make it sound like the regulations that cement their business models or the fat wad of cash they got from Congress is the socially responsible action in the history of the Republic.
Comment by Foobarista — 10/15/2009 @ 2:58 pm
“If Obama would be like you describe him we should easily beat him. However, that won’t be the case, so instead of wishful thinking why not try realistic assessments. If the economy recovers it is his election to loose, fair or unfair that’s just the way it goes.”
I do not disagree with your assessment - that does not change the fact that Obama is an empty suit tending to vote “Present” on any issue that is not on the Left’s watch list.
A major factor in 2012 will be the absense of the “Anti-Bush” fever which Obama pushed so hard and which powered the lefts’ get-out-the-vote surge, drove Independents to Obama, and even drew RINOs into the Obama camp. That factor will not be in play.
Regardless of the economy recovering, it is incumbent upon the Republicans to find an opponent for Obama worthy of the office and not because it is “His turn” (ala Bob Dole/John McCain). Without that, 2012 could turn into another 1996 - where Clinton won by default.
Comment by SShiell — 10/16/2009 @ 7:32 am
Five Star General George Patton said it best paraphrasing. “I don’t believe in paying for the same real estate twice”.
Harry Truman had the best policy of all Presidents.
Scorched Earth.
Think Iran. 10,000 degrees in 5 seconds or less. Israel, what are YOU waiting for? It’ll be over before Obama can finish his Breakfast!!
Comment by Chris Pedersen — 10/16/2009 @ 11:36 pm
Hey smart guy…. you better read bruces book again.. The REAL story reads…. A captured slave owner was spotted by one of his former slaves and the slave said ‘bottom rail on top’. By misquoting this you have given yourself ‘ and your argument’ a completely 180 degree view of the situation. This is no surprise however as the pretzel logic the right uses to blame Obama on all of the problems created by 8 years of their failures also is a 180 turn on reality!
Thanks for fleshing out that anecdote. Of course, I didn’t misquote because the quote is, as you point out, correct. As was the circumstances of its use. It still reflects exactly what my point in the piece was. Sorry you missed it. Or didn’t read it. Or couldn’t read it.
This article had absolutely nothing to do with blaming Obama for anything - which makes your comment look ludicrous and proves my point about excessive partisanship on both the right and the left.
ed.
Comment by commander — 10/18/2009 @ 7:29 am