Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats

Journal bmetzler's Journal: Doubling Down on a Losing Bet 13

Journal by bmetzler

The editorial by William Voegeli is a powerful message to those who speak with the voices of hate.

The list of credits for the Republican victory in 2004 would be incomplete without a line for Michael Moore--not Michael Moore the filmmaker and activist so much as Michael Moore the phenomenon. Fahrenheit 911 was the ultimate expression of the hatred and contempt for George W. Bush that existed long before this election year. The popularity of the film both reflected that hatred and intensified it.

President Bush benefited in two ways from being not only misunderestimated but misoverdespised. First, the volume level inside the liberal echo chamber drowned out all other voices, ruining the political judgment of the inhabitants. It has been 32 years since Pauline Kael expressed amazement that Richard Nixon could have defeated George McGovern when absolutely everyone she knew had voted for the Democrat. Over the past eight elections the Upper East Side--like sociologically similar precincts around the country--has become even more self-referential.

Only a hearing-impaired political class, for example, could have convinced itself that the hatred of George Bush was so widely shared that it would suffice for a Democratic candidate to defeat him by merely not being him. John Kerry spent most of the weeks between securing the nomination in March and Election Day in the grip of that illusion. As a result, it was always much easier to interpret his campaign as a long list of reasons to elect Kerry than it was to come away from it clear about the reason. Devoting his most important moment in the spotlight, the Boston Democratic convention, to the non sequitur that Kerry would be a good president in 2005 because he had been a brave Navy lieutenant in 1969 was the pinnacle of that failure.

The president was mocked and reviled in dinner parties, faculty lounges, and media coverage. The cumulative effect was strong enough that an intermittently sensible columnist, Richard Cohen, was able to diagnose the affliction in an article in September, then succumb to it six weeks later. First, he wrote that he could not bring himself to hate Bush, and criticized "anti-Bush alarmists" who "compulsively blame their own country." He warned that the "demonization of Bush is going to cost John Kerry plenty if it hasn't already. It so overstates the case against Bush that a levelheaded listener would be excused for thinking that there isn't one in the first place." By October, Cohen had completely forgotten his own argument; his last Washington Post column before the election called for impeaching the president. The names of the Americans killed in Iraq "would make up every one of my articles of impeachment. I would read every name from the well of the House."

As Cohen predicted, this kind of stridency put off voters who were not already invested in reviling President Bush. It is the second way Bush benefited from being loathed. Tom Wolfe said just before the election that "support for Bush is about not wanting to be led by East Coast pretensions....That is constantly done, and there is real resentment."

It is, for example, no mystery that Bush overwhelmed Kerry among voters who go to church at least once a week, considering that the role of religious faith in Bush's life was one of the favorite objects of derision for his critics. Red state voters understood that things they had in common with George Bush were just the things his harshest critics were sneering at, and it made choosing sides in that fight a lot easier. "Airheads are going to be the definitive swing voters on Nov. 2," Tina Brown helpfully explained, reminding her fellow citizens that Bush-haters who believe the president is an idiot also think anyone who can't see such an obvious fact must be an idiot, too.

Will the Bush-haters back off? Conservatives, as patriots, must wish for a change in the political climate. In his first inaugural address Lincoln said, "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies." The inevitable post-election blather about unity fails to make the crucial distinction. A healthy democracy does not require blurring political differences. But it must find a way to express those differences forcefully without anathematizing people who hold different views.

If the reelection of George Bush causes the people who hate him to express that hatred even more venomously, conservatives can lament the further damage done to the tone of national discourse, but have no means to interfere with the delivery of this political gift, the assisted suicide of the Democratic Party. The early indications argue that the Bush-haters are indeed going to double their losing bet. The day after the election, Michael Moore's website displayed a computer-generated mosaic of the president. Every "tile" was the face of an American soldier killed in Iraq.

Four Moore years.

In conclusion, I beg the readers of this JE: Keep up the hate. Stand together to let your voices be heard. Never back down. We want another Republican after President Bush and like you helped our efforts to reelect President Bush, you can also help us reelect the next Republican President. Maybe you can even convince Michael Moore to create another hate documentary. Thank you for your work, we appreciate the 4 moore years for President Bush.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Doubling Down on a Losing Bet More

Doubling Down on a Losing Bet

Comments Filter:
  • Is what happens when those who hate (and I still think there were easily as many Kerry haters as Bush Haters in the recently campaign) discover guns and move to the next logical level of hate based debate, civil war?
    • Um... they lose because most liberals abhor guns and don't own any (aside from the ones their bodyguards carry).

      Besides, they're appeasers, not aggressors, meaning they'd surrender faster than a Frenchman in a German bar. Especially if they started anything in the South.

      • Don't count on it- remember, there were plenty of libertarians switching to Democrat and voting for Kerry because they suddenly noticed that modern Democrats were for smaller, less intrusive government (after the third time Cousin Abdul got "detained" by Homeland Security without a lawyer for a few weeks). They're not the type to take this lying down.

        Heck, even Air America Radio (or at least, the Portland, OR version) has at least one "SUV Drivin' Gun Toatin' liberal" on the air. So no- counting on the a
        • Modern Democrats were for smaller, less intrusive Government? Is that with or without Government run health care?

          It's also unfortunate when an Arab gets detained for a couple of weeks. But this is new - oh, wait. No, it's not. The "Messiah" of the Democrat party, FDR, interned thousands of Japanese Americans, many of them citizens, in internment camps. What's even more tragic is that he did that while Soviet Agents (Alger Hiss) worked in his Administration... making the similarity between the left demoniz

          • Modern Democrats were for smaller, less intrusive Government?

            Only when compared with modern Republicans. Smaller armies, smaller police forces, more respect for civil liberties = smaller government.

            Is that with or without Government run health care?

            What Democrat is for GOVERNMENT run health care? Hillary's proposal left HMOs in charge, Kerry's proposal simply opened up the Senate's Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan to everybody. Neither one was GOVERNMENT run- it was GOVERNMENT PAID FOR, outsourced to pr

  • Exactly (Score:1, Insightful)

    by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) *

    "We want another Republican after President Bush..."

    Exactly. You don't care who gets elected, no matter how incompetent, because all you care about is your stupid party lines.

    Thank you. More proof that people voted for Bush because they weren't thinking about any of the issues. Elitist? Hardly. You made the statement above. I think my claims of ignorance are quite justified.

    • Hmmm (Score:2, Informative)

      by Mike Hawk ( 687615 )
      Well at least 40% of Kerry voters made up their mind to vote Democrat before the primaries were done. Funny how that, like most else, goes both ways.

      • Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Interesting)

        by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) *

        You have a statistic that just appeared out of thin air talking about people deciding to vote for a candidate when they knew everything there was to know about that candidate's opposition. I have a direct quote from the man in charge of this entry talking about voting on party lines before any potential party candidates are even named.

        Hmmm... credibility... credibility.... which one of those is more credible?

  • Maybe you can even convince Michael Moore to create another hate documentary.

    You mean he makes something that doesn't involve hate?

    I heard that Moore is already planning on "Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2"... Apparently, he didn't need much convincing. The article I read about this said that he was aiming to get his point across to the 58 million who (he says) didn't get his point before Election Day. I think he needs to realize that the vast majority of the people who voted for Bush this year (1) think Moore is

Slashdot Top Deals

You can't take damsel here now.

Close