| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| How the Left Became Such Rabid Hate Puppies |
| 2004-11-05 |
| WSJ columnist Hennenger comes up with some very interesting point in this column Slightly EFL and fair use This didn't happen last Tuesday. The color-coding of the 2004 election began around 1965 in the politics of the Vietnam era. The Democratic Party today is the product of a generational shift that began in those years. The formative years of the northern wing of the Democratic Old Guard go back to World War II. It included political figures like Tip O'Neill, Pat Moynihan and Lane Kirkland. It was men such as these whose experiences, both political and personal, informed and shaped the Democrats before the mid-'60s. Over time the party passed into the hands of a generation, now in their 50s and early 60s, whose broad view of America and its politics was formed as young men and women opposing the Vietnam War. That would include the party's current leading lights--John Kerry, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi. And its most influential strategists, such as Bob Shrum, Mary Beth Cahill and James Carville. The old industrial unions, whose members went over to Ronald Reagan, gave way to the more dependable public-employee unions run by John Sweeney and Gerald McEntee. These Baby Boomers--the generation of John Kerry, Al Gore and Bill and Hillary Clinton--transformed the world view of the Democrats, on everything from foreign policy to cultural issues. This new ethos--instinctively oppositional, aggressively secular--sank its roots deep on the East and West coasts, but it never really spread into the rest of the country, then or now. Early on, the military became a focus. Democrats belonging to the World War II generation believed that one "served." There was a nonpartisan pact of reverence for the services. After Vietnam, Democratic partisans worked hard, and successfully, to eradicate ROTC from elite, coastal campuses and to adopt an ethos that no longer revered the services, but held them suspect of doing harm. Bill Clinton's relations with the military were strained. John Kerry tried to use his service biography to erase the Vietnam-era legacy of Democratic opposition to things military. It didn't work. Expressed emotion matters greatly for this generation. The most notable phenomenon of the 2004 election was widespread liberal "hatred" of George Bush. Many wondered what sleeping volcano brought this lava to the surface. It came from the style of protest politics born in the 1960s. A famous liberal political phrase then was "the personal is political." Letting oneself become emotionally unhinged during a protest, as at Columbia, Harvard and Berkeley, became a litmus of authenticity. It became the norm, and it still is. But again, only for people who scream themselves blue. Another phrase heard often in the campaign just ended was, "I'm frightened." Admiration for childlike fears in politics received approval in 1970 from Charles Reich's bestseller "The Greening of America," a paean to youth and "a new and liberated individual." Reich's book, by the way, also popularized the notion then that something called the "Corporate State" was blotting out the Aquarian sunshine. This is the mindset that just produced the Democrats' weird obsession with "Halliburton," as if anyone would care beyond the people who were long ago baptized into the blue faith. But the politics of the Vietnam generation wasn't just about Vietnam. It was about changing everything, most notably the culture. This generation really opened up the culture. The old pre-Vietnam strictures on behavior and comportment--Tip O'Neill's old Boston Catholic world of Mass on Sunday and at least a working if not functioning knowledge of the Baltimore catechism--got hammered down till the moral landscape became flat and fast. Now you can drive anything at all into theaters, music or movies. This post-Vietnam culture of non-restraint, now almost 40 years old, produced Whoopi Goldberg's double-entendre jokes about George Bush's name at Radio City Music Hall, the Massachusetts Supreme Court's sudden decision on gay marriage, and hard-to-defend support for partial-birth abortion. George Bush, age 58, was a reproach. He personifies everything they have fought since they drove LBJ and Richard Nixon out of politics. And this week they are trying to discover why most of the people who live between the Hudson River and Hollywood Freeway don't agree with them. Expect documentaries soon about Christian evangelicals on the Discovery Channel. There is no hope that the Vietnam generation braintrust who just lost this election will ever understand Red America. Until someone in the party recognizes this, the tides of demography will inexorably erode the blue islands that remain on the map. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #21 The MSM and other leftist outlets since 11/2 have all indicated they've learned nothing from their losses so far. |
| Posted by: Ebbavith Angang9747 2004-11-05 8:21:42 PM |
| #20 Fisking Practice Lesson. Find the Eric Alterman recent article (5 points) and comment (up to 75 points). It's so easy to fisk that y'all will simply have to find your own additional articles if you need more points. |
| Posted by: dorf 2004-11-05 7:56:06 PM |
| #19 Not al New Yorkers are arch-radical fruitcakes ; ) |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-11-05 6:43:33 PM |
| #18 The current wisdom on the left side seems to be that Bush won on the purely domestic god-guns-gays trio of issues. They immediately equate "moral values" with "evangelical Christian doctrine" (which conveniently ignores the moral issue of whether somebody betrays his buddies by portraying them as war criminals). No consideration of national security. No consideration of national sovereignty (except that it's probably not a good thing). No worries about being an anti-war party in time of war. Lots of talk about selling themselves to the rubes. Read the discussions at Matthew Yglesias's blog. (He says he's part of the "reality-based community.") Poster after poster says "I voted for Bush. Here's why. Here's what you can do to get my vote next time." All rejected. I wanted a non-moonbat opposition back, hoped this election would accomplish that, but if hope may spring eternal, it seems that self-deception does, too. Sigh. |
| Posted by: Old Grouch 2004-11-05 6:41:42 PM |
| #17 From everything I have seen so far, stories, talking heads, et al, I'm not sure that the Dhimmigogues "get it" at all. Most saying they "shouldn't point fingers at each other" - the "no one's at fault except those stupid voters" assessment. The primary "analysis" I've seen from them is not that they're out of step, not in the least, it's "how do we sell our agenda better" and how can we improve our turnout - as if a record vote isn't sufficient proof that they, actually, did very well in motivating both constituencies. "Nope. Nuttin' wrong with us... we just didn't screech loud enough to prove our BusHitler and cultural superiority talking points." The 2006 Congressional cycle might clarify things for them, but I wouldn't bank on it. I would dearly love to see them keep this up and become even further diminished in strength - i.e. everywhere that moonbattery isn't the daily norm. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-11-05 3:51:09 PM |
| #16 I commented a few days ago that this would be the last US prez election the MSM could steal. The reason is not so much that anyone with a modem can opionate and spin the news, its more that the economics of big media is shifting. They depend on ad revenue and the activities that generate the revenue such as classifieds are moving online. In the last week, there was a significant example here in OZ. Our largest grocer says its going to stop producing those glossy newspaper inserts that list the specials of the week. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-11-05 3:48:01 PM |
| #15 Dar - LOL! Re: sweater puppies, limit 2 per customer, please! (NSFW, Sorry Dar, lol!) |
| Posted by: .com 2004-11-05 3:08:12 PM |
| #14 Fewer hate puppies--More sweater puppies! |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-11-05 3:02:20 PM |
| #13 By understanding the enemy and yourself, you can engage in a hundred battles without ever being in danger. If you understand yourself without understanding your enemy, your chancing of winning are 50-50. If you understand neither the enemy nor yourself, you will always lose. - Sun Tzu, The Art of War, circa 400 BC I don't think we have much to fear, though we must remain vigilant, that the lefties will be able to get their act together as long as they continue to lie not only about their opponents, but lie about themselves and believe it. |
| Posted by: Don 2004-11-05 12:58:38 PM |
| #12 Some sociologists have theorized that since they couldn't live up to their greatest generation parents, they had to tear everything down. They hate their fathers, and some also hate their mothers. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2004-11-05 12:53:39 PM |
| #11 CF, It's what I call "soft bigotry" a term the president used during the RNC convention that very few picked up on. Basically means dems tell the poor, uneducated, and supposedly disenfranchised - "here, let me help you, give you more gov't cheeze, keep you on the dole because we know best, because you are too stupid, weak, and have been so discriminated against that you cannot think for youself." Essentially the reason most blacks have been on the dem plantation for the past 30 yrs. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-11-05 11:02:02 AM |
| #10 "It isn't just NYers; it's anyone whose sole source of news is their daily big-city paper, the broadcast networks or CNN." True, but I was restricting myself to my own immediate experience and trying hard not to overreach. Amen to that last part |
| Posted by: DanNY 2004-11-05 10:50:33 AM |
| #9 "It is amazing how many New Yorkers are simply unaware of anything other than the tripe spewed by the big three broadcast networks and CNN." It isn't just NYers; it's anyone whose sole source of news is their daily big-city paper, the broadcast networks or CNN. Ever try to carry on a meaningful conversation about current events with anyone who doesn't read blogs? It's impossible: they simply don't know anything. "But above all the bloggers must keep their eyes open for both the evidence of bias that so pervades the mainstream media and the good news that they are not reporting, and channel that evidence to the alternate outlets including talk radio. The importance of this civic duty cannot be overstated." I hope we've seen only the start of an explosion in blogging that will, before the next election comes around, end up completely stripping the MSM of its accustomed monopoly on selecting what news we see and telling us what to think about that news. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-11-05 10:38:36 AM |
| #8 Frankly, the problem is the inundation of left wing media sources in the major metropolitan areas. It is amazing how many New Yorkers are simply unaware of anything other than the tripe spewed by the big three broadcast networks and CNN. Add the NY Times in and the left wing has almost a clean sweep. For you who live in more rural areas you may not perceive how difficult the problem is. People are attuned to getting their information from their usual 'trusted' sources. The takeover of those sources has been subtly underway for a very long time and the bias has crept in through non-reporting of alternative news and views so that major blind spots have developed. When the majority of your news sources all lean the same way those blind spots become a permanent feature of your awareness. The ongoing ability of weblogs, talk radio, moderate networks (such as Fox), newspapers (such as the New York Post and the New York Sun) to fact check them in the future is imperative to rewinning or breaching these redoubts of disinformation. Do not make the mistake of thinking that this election is the end. We cannot rest on our laurels. We will face a much harder, perhaps insurmountable, battle in 2008 unless we can put the kibosh on the blatant propagandizing of the media and provide either an impetus for people to change their sources of information or devise a means to recapture the existing sources. I am heartened by the facts that Fox(cable) and the New York Post are increasing their penetrations of the NY market, but there is still a long long way to go in that regard. Another potential plus is that Fox(broadcast) in NY has hired a well known and respected anchorman in Ernie Anastis (formerly of CBS). If the Fox broadcast network (Ch 5) can capture more of the prime time news audience, fill in some of the void of the blind spots and stress their more moderate viewpoints that will help. But above all the bloggers must keep their eyes open for both the evidence of bias that so pervades the mainstream media and the good news that they are not reporting, and channel that evidence to the alternate outlets including talk radio. The importance of this civic duty cannot be overstated. Talk radio is an essential ingredient in this battle as the initial dissemination point, if the truth goes out on broadcast it is more likely to be picked up by other outlets. Fortuitiously, we hold a siginificant lead in the talk radio market. This election could and would have gone much differently without you all. Thank you from one in the trenches. |
| Posted by: DanNY 2004-11-05 10:21:34 AM |
| #7 My guess is the Dems will have their act together in 2008. The Republicans will not have an incumbant, and Hillary will be their standardbearer after her term is up in 2006 and she starts to form her exploritory committee. She has been pretty careful with her voting record and comments as a Senator. I think she'll see the anger can easily turn destructive and try to channel it. Bill's greatest project. The Republicans should not be scared, but they also shouldn't be too quick to write off the Democrats too quickly. If I'm wrong and they do go angry in 2008 I suspect they won't be around in 2012, they'll fracture. |
| Posted by: RJ Schwarz 2004-11-05 9:50:42 AM |
| #6 It will not pass away. There is a new generation of them who can be found all over the internet. "Bushhitler" wasn't coined by the 60 somethings. It was coined by their kids and grandkids. Wealthy spoiled surban and urban rich kids who are self selected voices of the people. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-11-05 9:46:20 AM |
| #5 Dont forget the Democratic obsession with 'Me! Me! Me!' - their vast selfishness. Oh they say they want to help the poor and minorities but all their programs are aimed at helping them stay beholden to the state (on welfare / disability / etc....) and not really 'helping' them advance in life. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-11-05 9:24:33 AM |
| #4 Once again, the Dems will argue amongst themselves: did they lose because they were too fanatical in their opposition? Or did they lose because they weren't fanatical enough? I suspect that just as they did in 2000 and again in 2002, the latter group will win that argument; and the Dems will drift even farther away from the majority of Americans. Frankly, I don't see much hope for the Democrats until this Vietnam-inspired generation of "Boomer Bolsheviks" passes into history. Which is why I'm no longer a Democrat. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-11-05 9:10:48 AM |
| #3 Living near water has a profound neurological effect. The brain atrophies and the spine soften in to a jelly. This is leftosis maximus, curable only with a concentrated dose of reality generally administrated by being the victim of an physical attack from one of the down trodden masses. Unfortunately the cure rate is not one hundred percent. |
| Posted by: Old Fogey 2004-11-05 8:43:52 AM |
| #2 Doh! Stop, rewind, reverse that, play. My dyslexia kicking in. |
| Posted by: domingo 2004-11-05 8:36:25 AM |
| #1 "The tides of demography will inexorably erode the blue islands that remain on the map." Let's hope not, and let's vote not. |
| Posted by: domingo 2004-11-05 8:34:53 AM |
