I don’t really care, frankly. I just want to defeat them.
I’m talking about liberals, of course.
Dennis Prager, who makes note of the recent Jounolist revelations, (with their nasty death wishes and violent fantasies, to their nicknames for conservatives, “Nascar retards”, and rat-fu**ers”), is interested in the reason why:
Here are three possible answers.
First, the left thinks the right is evil.
Granting for exceptions that all generalizations allow for, conservatives believe that those on the left are wrong, while those on the left believe that those on the right are bad, not merely wrong. Examples are innumerable. For example, Howard Dean, the former head of the Democratic Party said, “In contradistinction to the Republicans … (Democrats) don’t believe kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”
Or take Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who, among many similar comments, said, “I want to say a few words about what it means to be a Democrat. It’s very simple: We have a conscience.”
Has any spokesman of the Republican Party ever said anything analogous about Democrats not caring about the suffering of children or not having a conscience?
Second, when you don’t confront real evil, you hate those who do.
You can see this on almost any school playground. The kid who confronts the school bully is often resented more than the bully. Whether out of guilt over their own cowardice or fear that the one who confronted the bully would provoke the bully to lash out more, those who refuse to confront the bully often resent the one who does. During the 1980s, the left expressed far more hatred of Ronald Reagan than of Soviet Communist dictator Leonid Brezhnev. And, when Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” the liberal world was enraged … at Reagan.
Those (usually on the left) who refused to confront communism hated those (usually on the right) who did. They called the latter “war mongers,” “cold warriors,” charged them with having “missile envy” and with loving war.
Today, the left has similar contempt for those who take a hard line on Islamic terror. The liberal and leftist media routinely place quote marks around the words War on Terror. To the left, such a war is manufactured by rightists for nefarious reasons (oil, self-enrichment, imperialism, etc.). Indeed, the Obama administration has actually forbidden use of the term “Islamic terror.” America is at war with a nameless enemy. The real enemies the Democratic administration is prepared to name are the Republican Party, tea parties, Fox News and talk radio.
Third, the left’s utopian vision is prevented only by the right.
From its inception, leftism has been a secular utopian religion. As Ted Kennedy, famously quoting his brother Robert F. Kennedy, said, “Some (people) see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say why not?” That exemplifies leftwing idealism — imagining a utopian future. There will be no poor, no war, no conflict, no inequality. That future is only a few more government programs away from reality. And who stands in the way of such perfection? Conservatives. How could a utopian not hate a conservative?
I think it’s a combination of all three.
I often wonder how many of these lefties would admit to being communist or terrorist sympathizers/ enablers. It’s certainly true that to the leftist brain, the only real enemy is conservatism.
Stanley Kurtz, meanwhile wonders what’s wrong with calling them what they are:
What is so strange about the idea that President Obama might be a socialist? True, it would be a big deal if the president of the United States considered himself an opponent of the capitalist system, especially when he’s consistently dismissed and denied the socialism charge. On the other hand, the idea that a committed socialist might play a prominent part in everyday American politics is not particularly surprising.
As I’ll show in my forthcoming book, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, this vision of socialism has long shaped President Obama. (I announced the book yesterday. You can see the cover and a description of the book’s argument here.) The point is that the notion that Barack Obama is a socialist is too often dismissed as a lurid and impossibly extreme scenario, as if being a socialist had to mean throwing Molotov cocktails and demanding instant revolution. On the contrary, Harold Meyerson’s regular columns in The Washington Post show us that, even if their long-term goals are radical, it’s entirely possible for sophisticated socialists to participate in the everyday back-and-forth of American politics. This is the way to think about Obama.
People really need to get over their squeamishness about rebranding the Democrats….these guys are Socialists…. Social Dems, or Democratic Socialists. Charles Krauthammer has been calling Obama’s policies and ambitions “Social Democrat” for over a year, now.
Newt Gingrich schooled a shocked Bill O’Reilly on that score, months ago. It’s way past time to be shocked by this.
Ed Driscoll: JournoList: The View from Inside the MSM’s Cocoon
AoSHQ: Howard Zinn, Commie Bastard