Liberals have been apoplectic for a few years now. Actually, liberals tend to always be angry, bitter creatures, but through eight years of Bill Clinton they were a tad mollified. However, six of those years included a Republican majority in the House of Representatives so they had reason aplenty to foam at the mouth. They have been on the verge of bursting something in their brains the last four years. There is something inherent in liberalism that causes one holding to that worldview to feel overly victimized and threatened by disagreement (witness the vitriol that on occasion has spewed in comments on this blog because I deign to hold few liberal viewpoints). I simply do not see the same hand-wringing from conservatives or libertarians. For example, when Bill Clinton won re-election, how many conservatives needed counseling? When Bill Clinton appeared to have the upper-hand against George H. W. Bush prior to the election, how many conservative celebrities threatened to enter a monastery? How many libertarians wanted to move to Canada if John Kerry had won?
To be honest, some of the fear liberals have had over the past three years is well-founded. I have made it no secret that I strongly dislike the PATRIOT Act. I abhor the serious threat to our civil liberties this law brings. (I have yet, by the way, heard a liberal give a plausible reason for John Kerry voting for it and getting a “bye” from them on it; all the anger is directed to the president.) The threat may not come during the next four years. Who will be the next president? Who will be president after that? After years and years of “living with” the PATRIOT Act, will America be de-sensitized to its danger? Probably. This is a well-founded fear. Surely, then, liberals will fuss and fume about the recent overturning of a conviction of a 17-year old thief by the Washington State Supreme Court because a mother listened to her daughter’s telephone conversation with the criminal. The court decided that a parent does not have the right to “spy” on his child. Here is an article about it. Here is a quote from the article:
Now why is this happening? As with the Christmas controversy, which I explain in my column this week on billoreilly.com, there’s much more to this than just a legal decision. If you study all state dominated societies from the Soviet Union, to Nazi Germany, to Red China to Cuba, you will see those governments try to diminish parental power because it’s easier to mold young minds when state-sanctioned values don’t compete with traditional parenting.
Liberals reading this will not fuss and fume. The article is from Fox News host Bill O’Reilly. Since liberals hate Fox News in general and Bill O’Reilly in particular, they automatically discount anything he says. This is because they are tolerant and inclusive.
* * *
Similarly, I remember hearing a conservative on a radio talk show claiming that he would personally take up arms against the government if Gore won. And that other conservatives would do it with him.
I’m inclined to be amused by the discovery that people on the left can be just as irrational, but I can’t say I’m surprised.
People tend to be irrational when they feel powerless. Some people just word their frustrated comments with less of a filter than others.
— Jim Zoetewey Dec 16, 07:20 PM #
Do you remember which talk show host wanted to take up arms? That is the height of absurdity. It sounds like something Michael Savage would say. (Now there is a nut-case.)
I cannot understand this feeling of powerlessness that many liberals have. As a conservative (or am I really a libertarian?) I never felt as though the world were ending because “my guy” did not win in 1992. Even when it was obvious that Clinton would win re-election (heh…sometime during the Republican primaries…) I did not feel as though I had no voice. I simply cannot comprehend this phenomenon.
I find it quite amusing how the two main parties have begun switching philosophies. It appears that this is due to the shift in power since the Democrats are resigning themselves to minority status for the foreseeable future and the Republicans are starting to dig in their trenches. It is odd to hear Democrats speak of the need for fiscal responsibility and the evils of budget deficits while the Republicans continue to
buy votesspend as though they believed the government is the solution to the problem rather than is the problem (as Reagan said). I will not be surprised if in 2004 the Democrats nominate a religious conservative and/or a pro-life candidate (well, maybe a pro-life candidate will still surprise me) and the Republicans nominate a social liberal (similar to Arnold Shwartzeneggar).— jtr Dec 16, 07:56 PM #
By contrast, conservatives could at least see that they had the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives through most of Clinton’s presidency.
Democrats don’t have much of a chance to take the House or the Senate two years from now (from what I’ve read…). They just lost the presidency after unprecendented effort and surprising party unity (and after a disputed election in 2000 that Democrats believe they actually won)... Hence, a pretty understandable feeling of frustration.
As for the person who talked about armed rebellion… That wasn’t a talk show host. That was actually a caller I heard on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation.”
With regards to big gov’t Republican’s vs. fiscally responsible, state’s rights Democrats… Yeah. Watching both parties reverse themselves on certain issues as their level of power in gov’t changes amuses me immensely. It’d be interesting to study if such shifts happen every time the minority becomes the majority party.
Strange to think that the Republicans may well become the party of pork if the most recent spending bill is an indication of the future.
— Jim Zoetewey Dec 17, 12:02 AM #
— jtr Dec 17, 08:38 AM #
That being said, I’d be interested to know who still feels horribly unhappy about the election and take a look at their situation.
I know someone in my church who’s on the executive committee of the Kent county Democratic party. He’s far from despairing. Actually, he’s got a number of plans for the next 4 years that he’s pretty excited about.
I can’t help but wonder if the people who are still depressed about this are hanging around people/reading things that dwell on the worst aspects of the Bush administration exclusively and ignoring all other news.
If perhaps such people had been doing so for a long time prior to the election as well, it would make them far more likely to see a Bush win as something near apocalyptic.
I tend to view political party wins as a passing thing—whether I like the party or not.
— Jim Zoetewey Dec 17, 04:30 PM #