Sunday, October 12, 2008
Days of rage
Regarding some of the strong words from the crowds at McCain/Palin rallies and the press coverage thereof, this seems about right:
So we've had nearly 8 years of lefty assassination fantasies about George W. Bush, and Bill Ayers' bombing campaign is explained away as a consequence of him having just felt so strongly about social justice, but a few people yell things at McCain rallies and suddenly it's a sign that anger is out of control in American politics? It's nice of McCain to try to tamp that down, and James Taranto sounds a proper cautionary note -- but, please, can we also note the staggering level of hypocrisy here?
This asymmetry -- apologies for leftist threats and violence and shocked denunciation of the same tactics from the right -- has deep roots in the 20th century. "Revolution" has been a romantic ideal of the left since at least the 1920s, and the left has supported or at least apologized for the violence that goes along with it at virtually every turn. This was especially true during the late 1960s and early 1970s, when rank vandalism took on a romantic aspect. Privileged college students would rally against the Vietnam war on a warm May afternoon, and the next thing you know they would be taking over administration buildings with guns and trashing local shops run by the townies because it was so important to strike back at "the system," an all-purpose enemy that justified almost any outrage. Many thousands of our most highly-educated Americans, generally well-off kids like the young Bill Ayers, participated in these crimes, although most less violently and with more anonymity than Ayers. Some of these people realize today that their version of adolescent self-discovery caused great harm, but many of them rationalize what they did because it was in the service of some higher cause. Today, many of those rationalizers are professors in universities or, I suspect, important figures in the mainstream media. Either way, they confer a certain respectability on leftist violence that simply is not available to the right.
13 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Oct 12, 07:19:00 AM:
I humbly submit any commentary on the asymmetry at work here represents overthinking. Glenn cuts to the chase, citing a "staggering level of hypocrisy". The only thing a lefty enjoys more than engaging in staggering hypocrisy is making frequent and loud accusations of it, followed by self-satisfied smugness.
By 
Thingumbobesquire, at
Sun Oct 12, 07:54:00 AM:
Honorable men ?
If you recall the congressional testimony during Oliver North Iran Contra hearings, one thing that conspicuously stood out was so many Republican "character witnesses" incessantly referring to North as an "honorable man." Yesterday it was widely reported that John McCain stood up for Barrack Obama in like manner when some woman at one of his rallies assailed Obama as an "Arab." McCain, pulling the microphone from her hands, declaimed that Obama was an honorable man, or some words to that effect. Well now, it seems that the old saw "it takes one to know one" perfectly applies in this case. McCain, after all, dumped his ailing crippled wife for a young beer heiress and then went on to choose a ex-beauty pageant Governor as his running mate. Why wouldn't such a man admire how Obama parlayed his many years long connections with the Ayers family into a successful run for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination, all the while keeping it at arms length. What was it that Roosevelt said about Joe Kennedy?
By , at
Sun Oct 12, 08:34:00 AM:
Oh, come off this utter barking nonsense. Ayers' heinous acts are waved away because:
A) they were 30+ years ago
B) he's a figure from Obama's past, not someone involved in the campaign
C) Thus, very little relevance to ... you know, things that have happened during the campaign!
and as for assassination 'fantasies', did Glenn Reynolds make that up, or can he actually cite Democratic politicians fantasizing about such things? I call bullsh*t.
So, let's have some *genuine* examples of Democratic figures during, oh, this decade, "waving away" committed or suggested violent acts against americans. Eh? Not waving away debates about literally ancient history.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Oct 12, 09:22:00 AM:
"Ayers' heinous acts are waved away because:"
You honestly don't get it. After all these months, and you still don't get it. You simply don't understand why some people could be upset about Obama's and Ayer's associations.
I thought that liberals were supposed to be the ones who were the sympathetic listener types who are good at understanding other people's feelings.
But maybe conservatives aren't really people, and don't deserve to be listened to...
By , at
Sun Oct 12, 10:36:00 AM:
So anonymous liberal blogger: Could you inform us of the date when Ayers renounced his terrorist activities? I can’t seem to find that quote anywhere.
We are at the point where calling someone by their birth name is considered hate speech, huh? It is hateful if a candidate accuses another of “paling around with terrorists,” even when that is a factual statement. And it is inciting hate when people implore the candidates to do what candidates are supposed to do, which is to fight their opponents.
Let us look at what the left has seemed to ignore, all within the past decade, anonymous liberal poster:
Barack Obama, Sep 17, 2008: "...I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
Al Jourgensen is lead singer for a rock band: “As for the Bush name check, Jourgensen has been an outspoken opponent of the Bush family since 1993. To that end, Jourgensen's latest album, 'The Last Sucker,' features a grotesque picture of the current president on the cover. "If I would been old enough to make records in the '30s, I would have been against their grandpa, Prescott Bush, too, who made all his fortune by banking with the Nazis," Jourgensen says. "The family's pretty evil.
Harry Belafonte, Obama supporter, while in Venezuela: “Bush is a terrorist.”
Pete Stark is a Democrat and Bush supporter: “In one of the most brutal critiques of the administration’s policy toward Iraq by a member of Congress, East Bay Rep. Pete Stark said President Bush would be responsible for “an act of terror” by launching a massive bombing campaign to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.”
Alec Baldwin, Obama supporter, in Huffington Post 2006: “Cheney is a terrorist. He terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home indiscriminately.”
Memorial day 2008, Huffington Post blog, Democrat activist Bob Geiger: Dead Troops Remembered by President Who Had Them Killed." Bush is a murderer? Geiger says yes: "Make no mistake about it, George W. Bush is as responsible for the deaths of those men and women as if he himself had fired the bullet or set the IEDs that ended their lives."
A fellow Bush-hating blogger approves of Geiger's post and admits the ardor of his ill will toward Bush: "If he was walking across the street and I was driving my car…I just don’t know if he would make it."
20 Nov 2007 – Rosie O’Donnell, Obama supporter: "Bush is a war criminal."
Janeane Garofalo, Obama supporter: "Bush is a war criminal Sept 2007."
Democrat underground blog, on the topic of executing Saddam era criminals: “As long as we execute Bush and Cheney alongside them.” 14 Feb 08.
Democratunderground blog, Dec 07:” Bush kills Americans. Every policy he has endorsed, every bill he has signed, every war he has started, kills Americans.”
Entry in August 17, 2007 WashingtonPostblog, talking about Dick Cheney: “Impeach, indict, and IMMOLATE, not imprison!"
Multnomah Count council meeting Sep 07: "Audience members applauded the suggestion by one peace activist for a public execution of President Bush during Rep. Earl Blumenauer's Sept. 23 town hall meeting at Portland's Hollywood Theatre."
So, sensitive Democrat, are we really worried about hateful speech? Google search on “Bush is a terrorist” or “Bush is a murderer” and you will keep yourself occupied for hours. Sadly, your candidate kicked off his political career in the home of someone who really is an unrepentant terrorist.
By Andrew Hofer, at
Sun Oct 12, 11:08:00 AM:
By Andrew Hofer, at
Sun Oct 12, 11:20:00 AM:
By the way, there was also the movie "Death of a President".
Also when Howard Dean implied to Diane Rehm that Bush had been warned ahead of time by the Saudis about 9/11. Last I heard, Dean was a 'Democratic Party figure', not just a wacked out rally attender.
There was the plastic turkey nonsense.
And then a stream of slightly veiled invective from Moyers, Krugman and today's subject, Frank Rich.
And Barbara Streisand.
So there are several dozen cites. What now?
By , at
Sun Oct 12, 12:29:00 PM:
"So we've had nearly 8 years of lefty assassination fantasies about George W. Bush"
So we have a couple of comments on DU and the movie by a Brit, and that's "8 years of left assassination fantasies"? BTW, do you really want to go overseas to get your examples? It's a slippery slope. If the American left is responsible for the actions of a British writer, then it's fair to tar you guys with the behavior of lunatic, anti-Semitic European conservatives.
As for stuff like the fake turkey: How about Clinton supposedly running drugs through Mena, killing Vince Foster, and the "Clinton body count"? You guys lost your sh*t during the Clinton years, and you have the nerve to accuse us of the same regarding Bush? Bite me.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Oct 12, 01:46:00 PM:
Actually, I (for one) think that the right did go off the rails during the Clinton years. It is tough to compare the pre- and post- blogging eras in this regard, but I think it is fair to imagine that if blogging had begun in 1992 instead of 2002 (more or less) there would have been some pretty awful stuff written about the Clintons.
Of course, that is the point: I remember no end of complaints from the chattering classes and furrowed-brow charges of incivility over all the harsh stuff righties were saying about the Clintons, just as there has been over the stuff said about Obama. Perhaps I am in an echo chamber, but I have seen next to no criticism about the extreme stuff said about Bush. And, yes, there is an enormous amount of it and not just from commenters on DU. Just listen to the conversations among actual adults in any college town coffee shop and you know it to be true. The hatred is real, and it is sustained by verbal expressions that are every bit as harsh as anything I have seen about Clinton or Obama.
One final note: The argument that it is somehow immoral to use Barack Obama's middle name is ludicrous. It is objectively hilarious that he shares the same name as one of the most evil men to walk the planet in the last hundred years. Unfortunate for Obama, but hilarious. If you doubt this, try to imagine what Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, or SNL would do if a Republican candidate had the middle name of "Hitler" or "Adolph." Opposition politicians and media personalities would use it every chance they got and it would be equally funny. I know it, you know it, and they know it. It is absolutely idiotic to argue otherwise.
By Andrew X, at
Sun Oct 12, 06:52:00 PM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By Andrew X, at
Sun Oct 12, 06:56:00 PM:
I was just reading NRO's 'Corner', a post about the genuine threat to free speech that comes from Obama.
Essentially, the campus attitude toward free speech would be foisted upon America as a whole, and the appalling fundamentals of campus "tolerance" fascism need no further description here.
But I did begin to wonder: I wonder if such a reality from an Obama Admin + Dem Congress would in fact provoke not just a backlash, but the kind of backlash that the left has used for 40 years to get where it is today. Namely, it is societal-wide restrictions on speech that would get what we have virtually never seen before: massive civil disobedience on the right.
Leftist speakers disrupted Code Pink style, endless lawsuits filed, simple and utter refusal to comply by large numbers of people, thus daring the law to prosecute them, organized Internet resistance on a massive scale (we are talking about laws regarding speech), basically all the things that anti-war types have been willing to use, complete with the same moral certainty that we do not care what a President Obama or his Congress rules regarding speech, the laws themselves are a crime and will be treated as such.
Not that I am looking forward to such, but I do think it has the potential to occur, and there is virtually no moral argument against any of it whatsoever that the left can mount.
In essence, many have said the left has an advantage in street politics simply because the right "have jobs and better things to do", and in general are just not the protesting types. A concerted attack on the First Amendment (that would be the FIRST one, mind you) could be what changes that.
"Dissent is Patriotic", no?
By , at
Mon Oct 13, 03:25:00 PM:
Consider "Do as you would be done by" or any other variation of the Golden Rule. Look on what the more extreme Left has done for 8 years or so. The activists on the Left have defined the lower limit of permissible action by the activist Right.
Why is "You get what you give" so hard to grasp in a political context? Why does every activist think they are different?
By Andrew Hofer, at
Mon Oct 13, 04:19:00 PM:
Ian - in case you hadn't noticed, nobody here is defending the Vince Foster stuff. And there were plenty of cites involving domestic democratic supporters and even politicians that you've completely ignored with "couple of DU" guys.
Bite yourself, frickin' hypocrite.
