« From a man who can't carry a tune in a bucket... | Main | Arafat Still Not Dead »

Do the liberals have a prayer?

Several years ago, during the height of the Political Correctness silliness, there was a bit of a kerfuffle at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst about their mascot, the Minuteman. A group of students (I seem to recall them being predominantly female) protested to the administration that the Minuteman was "sexist and promoted gun violence." When the administration declined to change it to something more acceptable (perhaps "The Self-Sacrificing Collectivists"), one of their leaders was quoted on the news as saying "so much for our right to seek redress of our grievances."

I wanted to reach right through my radio and smack her. Or at least drag her bodily to a Remedial English class and attempt to cure her unbearable, arrogant ignorance.

There had been no infringement on her right to seek redress. She sought a hearing, and was given one. But to her, the idea of "seeking redress" was synonymous with "receiving redress." She couldn't comprehend the notion that her ideas would be listened to, and rejected.

I'm noticing the same sort of mentality in those who most stridently supported Senator Kerry's bid for the White House. Or, more accurately, who most forcefully opposed President Bush's quest for a second term. They keep coming up with new and more convoluted rationalizations for why they lost. Karl Rove is too great an evil genius, the voting machines were rigged, Kerry was too weak a candidate, and so on.

But the most common refrain is that "we didn't get our message out."

The conceit behind that thought is staggering. They are presuming that the innate truth, purity, and sheer goodness of their beliefs will convince anyone, if only they can grasp it. And, it logically follows, those who reject their wisdom are either evil or ignorant. Therefore, if after repeated explanations, they are either confirmed as either unrepentant evil or irredeemably stupid, and worthy of their contempt.

The simple possibility that we (speaking for myself, but by logical extension there must be SOMEONE else who agrees with me) have heard their message, understood it adequately, considered it carefully, and then rejected it is one that seems beyond their comprehension. And until they find a way to grasp that simple, un-nuanced concept, that people of good conscience can disagree on profoundly major issues, they are doomed to fester in the swill of their own sour grapes until they fade away until irrelevancy.

I don't want that to happen. I see practically every day what a one-party system can do to a culture (hello, Massachusetts!), and I believe America needs at least two strong parties if for no other reason to keep each other honest and on their toes. But the current leadership of the Democratic party seems hell-bent on strapping themselves tightly into their handbasket and taking the expressway to Hades.

As I've said before, I call myself a born-again agnostic. But a born-again Christian friend of mine once gave me this piece of wisdom. "God hears all prayers, and God answers all prayers. But sometimes God's answer is 'no.'" The Democrats better listen to that bible-thumping Jesus freak and put aside the loonies like Michael Moore and the loonies now running their asylum -- he's telling them the truth, and they need to hear it.

J.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Do the liberals have a prayer?:

» The Conservative NewsNik linked with Well, OF COURSE liberals have a prayer!

» Douglas Hill linked with Religious Morality vs. Secularism

» RANDOM THOUGHTS on Politics linked with A Response to the Right

Comments (48)

The thing I keep hearing fr... (Below threshold)

The thing I keep hearing from liberals is "How is Bush going to reach out to the 56 million Americans who didn't vote for him?"

The Office of the President has no obligation to reach out to anyone. The USA has no obligation to reach out to anyone.

Perhaps the liberal ideology is that "I am here, the country better take care of me."

What happened to John F. Kennedy's statement, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"?

Talk about prayers... I pra... (Below threshold)
Amber:

Talk about prayers... I pray that Hillary runs in 2008. It will confirm the Democrats haven't learned a thing.

Keep this a secret... but what would scare me to death is having somebody like Harold Ford, Jr. on the Dem's ticket. For a Democrat, I like him, and I think many others would as well.


Remember that agnostic mean... (Below threshold)
chuck:

Remember that agnostic means ignorant ( in latin I believe). That being said, I think the real problem for the left is that their message "did" get out.

Actually, Chuck, it's deriv... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Actually, Chuck, it's derived from "gnosis," meaning "knowledge." While "ignorant" is one possible interpretation, I prefer "doesn't KNOW" as a definition. I'm neither a believer nor a denier, I'm a doubter.

J.

Let's look at the National ... (Below threshold)

Let's look at the National Capital area. Washington, DC, schools are among the best financed in the country--and have the worst results.

Next door, in Prince George's County, MD, the schools are financed above the state and national averages, but have the worst results in the state.

Washington, DC, just elected an ex-con to the city council. Despite the nation's strictest gun laws, shootings are common and children are freqent victims. Most murders go unsolved. The city owned hospital was closed a couple of years ago. City leaders now want to give a half-billion dollar subsidy to baseball gazillionaires.

In Prince Georges County, the FBI and US Attorney are investigating county council members and the school superintendent for corruption. The county just passed last year's total number of murders with the execution of a 16 year old. The county-owned hospital is approaching bankruptcy. County and state leaders have paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to football gazillionaires.

What do these two unsafe, corrupt, incompetent jurisdictions have in common? They voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. Prince George's County local government and state legislature representation is 100% Democrats; Washington, DC, is not far behind.

If you believe the liberal mantra, these two places ought to be paradise. Instead, they are close to hell for our children. And the local pols all insist it is all W's fault.

Amber, Rep. Ford is a very ... (Below threshold)
Jim:

Amber, Rep. Ford is a very personable guy and he's very slick at sounding like a moderate. But check his voting record in congress and the things he tells his constituency during election time. He's a Liberal. Same as the new media darling from Illinois newly elected Senator Obama. When the news media lavish praise and good spin on someone, I'm always suspicious. Chances are they are Liberal-Left ideologues.

I don't think the Democrat Party or the MSM learned anything from the 2004 election. If anything, they kicked up their volume. Just look at whom they're considering as the new head of the DNC -- the sleazy Harold Ickes, an icon of the Berkley set.

The liberals LIVE to believ... (Below threshold)
Omni:

The liberals LIVE to believe that they know a better way of doing things than logic and experience would suggest; as they always have, they fail to grasp that theory is VERY different from reality, and that the average person can see that, and votes accordingly... which is exactly what happened on Tuesday.

Omni, you're right. Thomas ... (Below threshold)
Jim:

Omni, you're right. Thomas Sowell once wrote that the theory of socialism on paper appears better than the theory of capitalism. However, in practice capitalism is better than socialism.

A pastor of mine once said ... (Below threshold)
Lab Rat:

A pastor of mine once said "Imagine what would happen if God answered all our prayers just the way we think he should". The silence in the chapel was deafening.

Well, I for one would prefe... (Below threshold)
Jon:

Well, I for one would prefer that they learn this lesson after wandering the desert for 40 years. They been the majority party for 60 years. In the last 10 years they've been in sharp decline. It's their turn to be out in the cold for a generation. In 20 or 30 years they may come up with something worth listening to. I know I can wait.

Yah, this is an interesting... (Below threshold)
Bill:

Yah, this is an interesting issue. BTW, does anyone know of any moderate democratic sites? Because I've been scanning Kos and UD and so far they've come to four conclusions:

1. The election was rigged, particularly by Diebold
2. Hillary should run '08
3. Howard Dean should take over the DNC.
4. The party needs to move further left.

I'm not sure whether the more apt metaphor is finding themselves in hole, they started digging or finding themselves driving off a cliff they furiously pounded the gas pedal.

The whole "moral issues" thing falls right in line with this. While I'm not a big fan of defining "moral values" as support of the same-sex marriage bans, we had the immediate "It was the values" story quickly followed (at least in the blogosphere) by the "It wasn't the values" story. I pulled the numbers from CNN and found that in ten of the eleven states passing the bans, assuming every Bush voter voted for the ban (tenuous at best), that anywhere from 10%-27% of ban voters did not vote Bush. In other words, Kerry got a chunk of his votes IN SPITE of the values issue.

But my whole question is what is the DNC going to do? My impression is that to win the election all they really had to do was just run anyone who wasn't Bush but was a lot like him. Any Indiana Democrat would do it -- we voted Bush by 60% and incumbent Democratic Senator Bayh by 62%.

Is the DNC really controlled by Kos/UD types w/ PhDs that tried to get a few extra votes by pandering right, or is it controlled by more liberal-centrists that thought the far-left vote was worth its idiocy?

‘Cause if it’s the former I get scared at first, but giggly thinking about a filibuster-proof Senate in ’06…

To be literate about this, ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

To be literate about this, "gnosticism" is regarded among Catholics and religious academics as someone who avoids and/or denies the fact that Jesus Christ is the source of faith, and instead, relies on other sources. You can be a gnostic and be an atheist, and/or be an agnostic, but the terms aren't exclusive.

Such that, there are some who regard themselves as Christian -- they like the ceremonies, they are accustomed to the traditions, they tend to the duties because they always have, because their parents taught them to, etc., but they are not Christians, but gnostics, persons who simply act out or attend or similar, like to use the labels, but otherwise have no spirtual relationship with Christ as the source upon whom they depend.

Anyway, that's what "gnosticism" is to a Catholic.

I consider agnosticism and atheism as exercises in the Freedom of Religion, however, as to our political realm. That is, as Americans, we have the freedom to believe as we will, as we as individuals want to pursue. If you are an agnostic and/or an atheist, you are still involved in some sort of religious practice. And are exercising your Freedom of Religion.

Funny point that most liberals seem to make, however, is that they misperceive the Freedom of Religion to mean Freedom FROM Religion. You're free to believe as you will, but you aren't free to be free from the religious freedoms of others. Meaning, you aren't free to be intolerant of religious freedom. Liberals don't seem to get that part.

The simple possibility t... (Below threshold)
bains:

The simple possibility that we have heard their message, understood it adequately, considered it carefully, and then rejected it…

But, but, but, that's not what the illustrious economist Paul Krugman says, and it certainly isn't what the renowned columnist Maureen Dowd writes...

The left might be imploding, but don’t get too cocky about it – the right certainly is susceptible to the same pitfalls.

Bill: the internet liberal... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Bill: the internet liberals are not who categorize the average Democrat today, in my experience. They perceive Kerry as being "a moderate" to even "a conservative" while to the random, average Republican, Kerry is a communist among the left of the liberal left.

Among many of the most popular Democrat sites, in my experience, such as it is, are a pro-Marxist group, an active involvement by ACLU people, just very extreme liberal perspectives (thus, every election they lose is "rigged" and such, an ongoing paranoia that can't ever explain why it is that Democrats are almost always those responsible for voter fraud and crimes against other voters not going the Demo way). The internet Democrats are an extreme crowd. Go read SLATE articles...see what I mean.

Very few people in the country outside of, say, Manhattan, areas of Massachusetts/Boston, L.A., San Francisco, Seattle...very few outside those areas are as extreme in their affiliation with what being a Democrat is, but the influence unfortunately for Democrats is from among the most pro-Marxist, communist element. Which is, actually, a beneficial thing for the rest of the U.S., who can continue to reject and identify that element. But it has pressed the DNC into some sort of area of extreme ideology that seems to the left of communist U.S.S.R., even to the left of Communist China (which, interestingly enough, is now discovering the joys of capitalism).

It will be interesting to see what changes occur once Castro is no longer a first-person influence. I anticipate that he'll become even bigger than ever, however, at some future time, as to personna and message. But communism -- point here -- seems to be the destination for the most active Democrats today, in the U.S. They have a standard of liberalism that is entirely rejectable to most Americans, and yet they continue to press for greater movement to the left.

Academia is helping, unfortunately. We really, really need an overhaul in America's public school system, something that includes civics and an emphasis on individual service, with some reality taught about the ravages created in our world by communism and extreme socialism, upon cultures and upon economics.

the most common refrain ... (Below threshold)
conelrad:

the most common refrain is that "we didn't get our message out."

After the 2002 catastrophe for the Democrats, George Will respnded to that mem. I think he said that he had gotten their message out 'with murderous clarity'.

This year, it looks as if JFK convinced 51 - 52% of the electorate 'I'm not Bush' (the only coherent message I heard).

To your post --> True that... (Below threshold)
Cyd:

To your post --> True that.

As my parents used to say: "Life isn't fair." You're not always going to get a "yes." Sometimes "no" turns out better for you in the long-run. Liberals can't handle being told "no."

Frequently it's seemed to m... (Below threshold)
htom:

Frequently it's seemed to me that the problem a losing campaign has had is that it HAS gotten its message out, and it's been rejected.

Bill said (about the libera... (Below threshold)
Omni:

Bill said (about the liberals' conclusions):

"4. The party needs to move further left."

It's funny how they think THEY are the smart ones, but the fact that it's their leftism that puts off the average American, and so cost them the election, is apparently beyond their ability to understand.

Frequently it's seemed to m... (Below threshold)
htom:

Frequently it's seemed to me that the problem a losing campaign has had is that it HAS gotten its message out, and it's been rejected.

Sharing the same religion d... (Below threshold)

Sharing the same religion doesn't constitute agreement. Therefore, God can't answer all of our prayers with "yes." It's physically impossible, and morally, too, since not everyone prays with the same intent, and nobody knows His plan.

Now, if you mean liberals as in the belief system, I think it's a lost cause. However, I think a moderately liberal Democratic Party could survive. The reason the two are going down together is because they've fused.

I'm not sure how good of an analogy this is, but I'm reminded of the Populists at the turn of the 20th century. They decided that they were 100% correct, and the problem was that they weren't being heard well enough, so they endorsed the Democrat. He lost, and the party died with him.

The problem isn't that liberals aren't being heard. The problem is that they're being heard, and America is sick of them.

Speaking as a Republican, I... (Below threshold)
AKBigBoy:

Speaking as a Republican, I'm kind of hoping that they pull their collective heads out of their buts within the next couple of years. One of the things that makes the Rep. party great is that we get ZERO slack from either the Dems or the MSM.

While this is unfair, in the context that they can get away with things that we can't, I think it keeps us at the top of our game and our arguments sharp. I'd hate to loose that, and besides I don't think the Rep. party has the corner on being right all the time. If the Dem party gets any loonier they'll veer so far left that only those under heavy sedation and those already dead will bother to vote for them. That'd take all the sport out of the game...

It's about premises, Jay. T... (Below threshold)

It's about premises, Jay. The Left's premises are:

1. . That they are superior to those who disagree with them in both wisdom and moral stature;
2. That, upon hearing the Left's message, anyone intelligent enough to cross the street alone would easily recognize its truth;
3. That therefore, their opponents must be either uninformed, stupid, or evil.

The progression is undeniable, I fear. Worse, as the "uninformed" possibility recedes further and further from plausibility, the Left's arrival at the verdict of "stupid or evil" becomes predetermined.

You can't argue a man out of his premises. "You cannot reason a man out of something he has not reasoned himself into." (G. K. Chesterton) There's only one curative for bad premises: repeated failure. Enough failures, and he who holds the bad premise will either change...or die.

For these reasons, the next twenty years will be painful ones, even if libertarian/conservative policies prevail. A lot of folks are going to have to do a whole lot of failing and self-recrimination before anything resembling rationality or harmony returns to political discourse in these United States.

There's a local talk show h... (Below threshold)
Jim:

There's a local talk show host in New York City -- constitutional scholar Mark Levin -- who's forming a group called Right-Wingers for Hillary. He wants Hillary to run in 2008 for obvious reasons. Also, there's talk of Clintonista Harold Ickes -- one of the sleaziest Dems around -- becoming the head of the DNC.

Jay,I don't know i... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Jay,

I don't know if I agree with your title but I generally agree with the gist of your post.

The Democrats did get their message out, most resonated and some were rejected. The 2 major messages that were pretty resoundly rejected which made the difference in this election were:

1. that John Kerry could fight a better, more effective war on terror that GWB

2. That John Kerry would provide tax relief to 98% of Americans while raising taxes on people like me who earn over $200,000 per year. People did not believe John Kerry on that point, I think because the Karl Rove team did a really good job of convincing people that John Kerry's tax plan was not credible and would raise taxes on virtually everybody.

Winning the point on the first one was crucial to winning the election. If you could not convince people that you could fight a more effective war on terror it is all over because that trumped every other issue for swing voters. Then as long as you believed that GWB was not going to be another Herbert Hoover on economics, there was very little chance of losing the election.

All that being said, there were messages that did resonate with the voters. They just were lower priorities than the war on terror.

I for one, hope and pray that the American people are right that GWB will fight a more effective war on terror than John Kerry would have and I hope he puts the majority of his focus on this effort.

I am very concerned about the lack of scrutiny of the container ships coming into this country and the lack of enforcement of our borders, especially from Mexico and Canada. There are many conservatives that our agree about our border problems and those are weaknesses that our enemies are exploiting already.

I am very concerned about not paying attention to North Korea and Iran as well as securing nuclear weapons around the world.

So before GWB spends 10 minutes trying to turn this country into a Theocracy, please lets get back to what GWB has said is his primary job, to protect the American people.

Dave (the other one)

The other thing I generally... (Below threshold)
Dave:

The other thing I generally agree with and I was quite nervous about it from the very beginning of this election is that a Democrat from the NE or West coast cannot win a national election. There is too much mistrust of particularly NE politicians in the mid-west and the south no matter how qualified he/she would be to lead this country.

The Democrats need to figure out a way to get a candidate like a governor from a Southern, Mid-West or Mountain West state. Because John Kerry spent so much time defending the fact that he was from MA. I beleive if there was a equivalent candidate from a different region of the country it would make a huge difference.

Outside of the NE there is huge distrust of Washington Insiders and politicians in the NE.

Dave (the other one)

OK folks, do we want to und... (Below threshold)
Reed:

OK folks, do we want to understand and continue on to a prosperous future, or do want to be satisfyed with platitudes?
It all comes down to "world view". The collection of pre-concieved notions about how the world works. These are the foundational beliefs that support all of our conclusions. There are only two baisic world views- liberal and conservative. Thomas Sowell traces the world views back to early 1700's.
Liberals are compleatly rational in arriving at their conclusions, but allso in compleate error due to their world view. We ought to understand this if we wish to advance our values.
this would be an excellent start:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465081428/104-7372253-7319122?v=glance

here is an example of what I'm talking about: Liberals say that man in his nature is inclined to be good, and we say he is inclined to be evil. therefore, liberals are against punishing criminals because we need to "Fix the enviroment" that caused him to turn away from his natural goodness. we would say that we should punish those who won't govern their impulse to do bad things.
if you are in error in your reckoning of the nature of man, it is unlikely that you will advcate good policy.

Reed,That view is ... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Reed,

That view is incredibly simplistic. Using phrases like there are only liberals or conservatives, there are only evil or good people doesn't address world problems any better than saying either you are pro-war or anti-war.

The world is not that simple and issues are much more complicated. There are many people who have conservative views on some issues and liberal views on other issues. Examples include immigration policy, abortion and healthcare.

For instance there are liberals who have conservative views on abortion due to their convictions. They may also believe in very liberal social services policies and may be anti-death penalty which is a liberal position.

There are conservatives who are against expanding government and then voted for the largest increase in government in a generation (prescription drug coverage).

I just is not that simple.

Dave (the other one)

The Other Dave, ... (Below threshold)
Cybrludite:

The Other Dave,

Psssst. The main reason the Dem leaders gave at the time for opposing Bush's Medicare drug benefit was that it wasn't a big enough give away.

"So before GWB spends 10 mi... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"So before GWB spends 10 minutes trying to turn this country into a Theocracy,..."
The hysterical belief that Dubya is trying to do that is one of the reasons why the Dems lost.

Francis -I have to... (Below threshold)
chad:

Francis -

I have to agrees with you. I am currently engaged in and losing a battle with a bunch of liberals of that ilk in the seattle tribe on tribe.net. The thread started with let the churches burn where the poster stated that GWB's win was due to the ignorant, the uneducated and the malleable. They can't accept the idea that maybe intelligent people disagree with them. Not all are that bad of course just like the conservatives have our share of nutjobs. Here is what I say needs to happen over the next 4 years -

1. We have to stabilize Iraq and fast
2. We need 6 more senate seats.
3. Get the Supreme Court packed with judges with a more constructionist bent.

Those are broad goals to helpachieve them-

1. We need conservative teachers in the schools
a. RNC set up a scholarship program damn it.
2. We need more conservative journalists in the MSM.
a. Blogs are great but they just are not as accessible as flipping on the car radio or channel 2 on your TV.
3. Conservatives have to start being more vocal in general. I think this election cycle showed that.
4. We need to avoid the same trap that the libs are falling into - assuming our opponents are just to stupid to understand.
a. Example - Missile Defense. North Korea is tailor made to show the need, but you never here it brought up that way.

I have no special training in marketing but I know what would work with me and so far the RNC doesnt engage in it much.

Jay,I'm literally ... (Below threshold)
rls:

Jay,

I'm literally amazed at the state of denial the Dems are in. How can anyone on the left look at the county map of the recent election and conclude that the only thing they have to do is "more of the same" except better? The largest turnout for the Democratic Party failed to unseat one of the most vulnerable incumbent Presidents in history.

Over 20 million Kerry voters were voting against GWB. Do they actually believe that those voters will vote for the Dem candidate in 2008? How do they expect MI, PA, MN, WI & NH to remain Blue when they were won with only 1-3% each? Do they not take into consideration the erosion of Congress in the last 13 years, including this latest election? They actually think that the way to increase votes is to denigrate the very voters they want to attract.

Ideology is not immune to the vagaries of the marketplace. Just as a manufactured product must win acceptance by consumers to be successful, so does ideas. A manufacturer does not continue to manufacture a product that does not sell - he either discontinues it or refines it and remarkets it. The marketplace of ideas has rejected the Liberal product-it needs to be refined or replaced.

Only 21% of voters in this last election described themselves as Liberals while 34% described themselves as conservative. I want the Democratic Party to be a viable alternative, I believe in the Liberal Agenda, just not in the Liberal methedology proposed to achieve it.

When the Dems say that the ... (Below threshold)

When the Dems say that the "values issue" was the cause of their defeat, I have to read the following between the lines: The Right is too blinded by religion and superstition to see the "real" facts and issues.

The antagonism between intellecualism and religion is as old as time. What the DNC won't admit is that most of Americans balance the two quite comfortably, not completely discarding either.

The reason for their loss is, in my opinion, twofold. First, they started about September 13, 2001, with their agenda to show Americans as "hurt" instead of "angry." Second, and most importantly, they resorted to some of the most offensive personal attacks that have ever been seen in a political campaign, the tone having been set with Whoopi Goldberg's "Bush" monologue. That tends to leave a really bad taste in most folks' mouth.

If they had not been as successful in vilifying the war in Iraq with their "NoWMDsHalliburtonCheneyNo911Connection1000SoldiersDeadQuagmire" portrayal, the election would have been to them an embarassment, not just a defeat.

Some of the Dems could even... (Below threshold)
Amber:

Some of the Dems could even learn from their idol's careers. Whoopi's 'Slim Fast commercials were quickly pulled, and last I heard, Alec Baldwin couldn't even hold his job on Hollywood Squares.

It's a beautiful thing when people can voice their opinions - with their pocketbooks.

[added] It's too bad Whoopi didn't do 'Sister Act,' then keep her mouth shut. I used to like that movie. [/added]

If you consider Churchill's... (Below threshold)

If you consider Churchill's quote:

If you're not a liberal by the time you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you have no brain.

No statement could be truer. If we're patient and the current "youngsters" don't have too many kids, then .... problem solved. Because a large number of conservatives were liberals at a younger age. I was. But when I started working and the powers that be started taking more and more of what I worked for and gave it to others indiscriminately I grew up.

You'll find more democrats among the very young and the very old. I think the reason is quite clear. The very young have no conception of the consequences of indiscriminate charity and the very old have been getting f**ked by the government all their lives and want a return.

Those in Hollywood have no excuse. And neither do the liberal "elite". And only dummies will keep doing the same thing over and over and expect to get a different result.

This is soooo true:<p... (Below threshold)
-S-:

This is soooo true:

- - - - - - - - - -
"So before GWB spends 10 minutes trying to turn this country into a Theocracy,..."
The hysterical belief that Dubya is trying to do that is one of the reasons why the Dems lost.

Posted by: Les Nessman at November 7, 2004 11:11 AM
- - - - - - - - - -

It's also a statement to the heart of what is so wrinkled and rankling about the European/UK liberal media...I just read something last night in the scotsman that was a sarcastic congratulatory piece to and about George Bush winning relection, that concluded with a "cautionary advisory" to readers to be prepared for four years of a "fundamentalist" "rule" of the U.S., suggesting some poison effect to other nations.

I mean, this is the outrageous and irrational perception by liberals, not only in the U.S. but also, apparently, in Europe, and it relates back to my earlier comments that it is religious intolerance (and irrational perceptions, obviously) about Christianity, specifically, that is motivating a sort of foam over by liberals and liberal media. They have some bent and twisted prejudice about who and what Christians are and it drives nearly everything from a point of subtext afterward by liberals, about almost everything.

The article wrapped Bush and his Presidency in some sort of "stupid blanket" of a person as a Christian doomed to be dim witted, unpredictably damaging, just a terrible piece in a highly flippant, "entertaining" tone (for liberals, easy to guess)...but it reveals the stupidity and absence of intelligence BY THE LEFT, by liberals, not about who and what they so fear instead.

Media and political movements such as that reveal the failure of liberalism as a social and political (and economic) group. It is that they assume that everyone else is limited in perception that they reveal their own limitations. And their limitations result in intolerance -- it is an intolerant academic mind who rejects change in knowledge based upon a presumed superiority: if you think you know it all already, you shouldn't learn anything else and your knowledge base is what others are to be compelled to achieve, not vice versa. Which just emphasizes the brittleness and the ACTUAL fundamentalists of our world: liberals.

But, interestingly, it was ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

But, interestingly, it was Democratic spokespersons and their candidate, Kerry (and Clinton, and, and, and...) who continued political campaigns in churches, and who continued (and still do) to try to use and rewrite Judeo Christian Biblical passages, to such an extent in this last campaign, and previous.

Kerry even said that he'd "probably extend/enlarge/increae" (paraphrasement there) the Faith Based Initiative...and relied upon his showups in various churches to campaign on his own behalf, and others doing similar for him...and yet, to read Democrats on the internet, Christianity is the bane of their existence.

All in all, I get the impression, as I did a while ago, that Liberals just work all sides of every issue to such an extent that their message is liquified to infinity. People with beliefs that are explainable and communicable congregate elsewhere, because of that.

Same thing applies to areas of economics, from an economic conservative's perspective. If Democrats continue in such sweeping and inexact, even contradictory campaigns and intentions, they end up driving others away, in search of sense and consistency.

Here's that article I was r... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Here's that article I was referring to (scotsman), and the height of the most offensive of their remarks (also most irrational statements, among many):

"Heroes and villains..."

"...US domestic policy's going to be dictated by extreme fundamentalists so the colonials might as well tear up that precious consitution of theirs and replace it with the Book of Leviticus..."


And, while looking over the news to find that article, I see this from the L.A.Times (can't say I am surprised, but it is a good example of a common perception among CA liberals about Republicans):

"Those Who Voted for Bush May Be In for a Big Surprise"

Los Angeles Times (subscription), CA - Nov 5, 2004

"Dear rural/exurban Christian conservative voters: Congratulations on your election victory. By going to the polls in unprecedented ..."


See? It always returns to this premise by liberals that is based upon religious intolerance to and about Christians. Everything else springs from there...resentment about what they feel they should be getting from the government, resentment about "war" despite when it is necessary for national defense, list continues on but it all seems to spring from the same premise: that they are intolerant and judgemental inaccurately about who Christians are and what Christianity is, or in their minds, "should be" without their own participation (meaning, there is much liberal dictate about morality and values but no to little personal commitment by individuals in the doctrine and beliefs themselves, thus, no personal experience but much unfounded "corrective" language and demands by liberals, is what I describe).

All in all, offensive to the rest of America and entirely offputting to many.

Great post Jay Tea. I among... (Below threshold)

Great post Jay Tea. I among the parlour pinkos who believes we lost because our message wasn't recieved by enough people. I don't think we had any trouble "getting the message out" however. It's obvious that the message we put out didn't connect with voters. John Kerry ran a horrible campaign until 2 months before the election. For me, a defining moment for Bush -- perhaps the moment that he saved himself from being defeated -- was during the first debate. Kerry criticized Bush for not having allies, and for turning Iraq into a mess. The whole message was that Bush was being dishonest (which he was). However, Bush replyed with something along the lines of, "How do I tell our troops that we are losing the war in Iraq? Why would allies join us if I told them that Iraq is a disaster? That's not what a commander a chief is supposed to do." Sure, Bush made a terrible decision in invading Iraq, however, I suppose that is irrelevent for a lot of Americans now; the point is that we are there. And many Americans didn't believe that Kerry would be able to win the war in Iraq as he kept insisting that we were losing it. They didn't believe that Kerry would gain the support of allies, as he mocked the allies who did join us, and again -- kept insisting that Iraq was a disaster. That does make sense; and liberals should reflect on points like that more often, instead of repeating the "bush lied" mantra. Sure it makes us feel better, but it nevertheless is a mantra for us, not for America. Like I said, our message wasn't recieved, even though we got it out to practically everyone. Again, thank you for this post Jay Tea.

I agree with BoDiddly's gen... (Below threshold)
Bill:

I agree with BoDiddly's general point, but I have to take slight issue with one statement:

"The antagonism between intellecualism and religion is as old as time."

His conclusion is that the Dems fail by seeing that American's "balance" them. I suggest this analysis actually buys into false divide set up in the "culture wars" for about the last 200 years.

Intellectualism and religion are hardly antagonistic. From the ancient Greek philosophers through Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Levinas, and plenty more, western religion has always maintained a steady stream of intellectualism.

There is an antagonism between religious intellectualism and secular intellectualism. This was exacerbated on two fronts -- the secular intellectualism attempted to answer the religious by simply calling it religious and therefore stupid while ignoring it, and at the same time the religious intellectualism tended to retreat into its own institutions instead of staying in the public arena.

On the modern front the first example that comes to mind can be found here.

Harold Ickes sleazy?? What... (Below threshold)
Pat Adkins:

Harold Ickes sleazy?? What was McAuliffe?

Let the Dems go. Maybe they'll get the picture soon.

Nick Lewis: However, what ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Nick Lewis: However, what you write there, conveys yet more of that message by liberals that the rest of America rejected.

It's a shared conviction by liberals that "Bush lied" and otherwise that "Bush made a mistake when he invaded Iraq" but that is not what many Americans believe, not how they/we/I reason.

As in, Bush wasn't mistaken with what was known when it was known in what he did (invade Iraq). The intelligence changed afterward, yes, people recognized that, but that doesn't discount why the invasion occured, neither in information or morality, to address that "Bush lied" meme used by Democrats. Such that, the U.S. was there/is there, so it does little productive, if anything productive at all, to later focus on "the woes" of being there but it makes all sorts of sense -- economic, armed forces morale, support in place, the entire process -- to keep steady to the course and do what we went there to do, what we are engaged in doing.

And, all the "Iraq is a mess" language was also a Liberal meme that Democrats relied on during this past election process (and still are) to "sell" their "message," but the problem is that the message is rejectable, and for a lot of the reasons I described in the earlier paragraph above. The "mess" emphasis accomplishes the same thing: denigrates support, undermines morale, emphasizes a negative, a losing perspective, and is not supportable OTHER THAN it's a supportable campaign meme for Democrats.

Which only made and makes Democrats, in fact, appear like, to use Schwarzenegger's borderline statement, look like "losers." In other words, the only people who used the "Iraq is a mess" meme during the recent election and present times are liberals, Democrats, who use it to attempt an advantage for DEMOCRATS in a political context, but it does nothing to serve or support the COUNTRY. Such that, it paints Democrats as opposed to a successful U.S. effort, as opposed to what's being attempted by U.S. military in efforts underway (implement democratic governments in Iraq & Afghanistan), so it is easy to conclude that Democrats work against the success of the country, easy to see why some conclude that Democrats aren't patriotic and such.

The "Iraq is a mess" thing isn't a shared assumption by all Americans, and it's not something that most people even believe outside of Democrat circles. If there's an ongoing emphasis on how bad things are, what's wrong with everything, then people lose heart, things sink, moods go dark, depression results.

Productivity and success and intent and all that, those things are best serviced by solutions, real ones. Not just political criticisms that benefit campaigns, taht represent "campaign messages" and "campaign operations" and such, but actual benefits to real people, political parties aside.

So, the message, in fact, that got out by liberals and that was rejected by many more Americans is that liberals/Democrats were not working to support the country, to ensure success and best use of resources under the circumstances, but to oppose all those...to denigrate, to ensure failure. So, it's right that people rejected that message, and I'm guessing they still will as to majority in voting.

And President Bush's statement in that debate, which I agree with, was moreorless to the heart of all that...that to speak to defeat assists defeat. There's everything to be gained in speaking to and about success, and about Iraq, it's going to be messy just because of the proportions of the difficulties. But so is building a freeway. It takes time to accomplish things of such huge proportions and you have to make an investment inorder to create results.

What I got from Kerry and the DNC and why even Dean is offensive to me -- I write, "even" because I realize that he enjoys liberal support as a popular figure -- and that is that the liberals know how to denigrate, criticise, suspise and offend, but that's where their message ends. People are offended by it. Some people experience an excitement at that, at criticism, denigration, suspicions and paranoia, but most people don't. Most people just disconnect from it and seek other group affiliations.

S,Again you are mi... (Below threshold)
Dave:

S,

Again you are mixing up the message on Iraq with the message on terrorism. First of all I would agree, that John Kerry made a big mistake talking about how we decided to go into Iraq and the fact that either GWB lied or he has inept advisors and poorly drawn conclusions to go into Iraq.

That message did not resonate and for a very good reason, we were already there so the American people did not really care whether it was a mistake/lie or not but they did believe it was not a good situation and was getting worse.

When John Kerry talked about how we were not fighting an effective war in Iraq that did resonate. And most Americans even quite a few Republicans are not happy about the way the war has been waged in Iraq.

The problem was, that John Kerry was portrayed by the Karl Rove spin machine as equally inept and that is all he had to do on that measure. The American people decided that after the election, no matter who is president they would fix Iraq, maybe 1 or the other a little better or a little worse but no disasters in the making.

Then it just came down to who do I trust on the war on terrorism? And as I have conceded, GWB won that argument with the American people by a large margin.

Again, I hope and pray they are right.

Dave (the other one)

- S - Dave - Kerry himself ... (Below threshold)

- S - Dave - Kerry himself didn't believe he could win by going negative...His own primary opponent forced him too(Dean)....both on the 87 billion vote and later in the main election...Looking back without all of the resources the Dems attacked with this time, including the 527's and a press that does everything it can to keep it close, even scammimg the polls, Bush would have won by an even greater margin.....

".....the American people d... (Below threshold)

".....the American people did not really care whether it was a mistake/lie or not ...."

I disagree. The American people DO care, and I believe that's what it all boiled down to. Nearly half thinks it WAS a mistake to go in the first place.

I am from the side that says it HAD to be done. All one has to do is a little research to find those reasons. Because Cheney said there was no "concrete" evidence that Hussein played a role in 9/11 does not mean it isn't out there. I don't think that because Hussein didn't actually fly a plane himself, he was not complicit. He aided and abetted the very organization that did. We have several bits of "concrete" evidence, but plenty enough to fill in the few blanks. People refuse to see what's right in front of their noses. Is it not enough to know that he supplied training, money, aide and comfort? Is it not enough that we find just what the oil-for-food cash was doing for Hussein? When MSM says (who, by the way, don't really say much) that Saddam skimmed money to build palaces, they're not telling the whole truth of where the money was going.

I don't think -S- is mixing up any message on Iraq and terrorism. They are complexly intertwined, but the same nonetheless. And the liberals arguing against this are contrasting their own pessimism of the war with optimism that Hussein didn't do any of these things.

In my book, this pessimism and optimism are misplaced. They should be the other way around.

Oyster,My opinion ... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Oyster,

My opinion as an American (this is not liberal/conservative) is that Iraq was much less of a threat than Iran and North Korea and that by diverting so many resources to a country that was contained by inspections and not focusing on the growing nuclear threats of Iran and North Korea we have unfortunately made this world not as safe.

I still maintain that Iraq was a mistake, but I understand that point is debatable and that there are arguments on both sides for and against going into Iraq when we did. By saying this, I am not saying that we should have never attacked Iraq, I just do not believe it was an urgent threat. I think we could have finished OBL off, threatened Iran and North Korea with credible threat of force then 6 - 12 months later gone into Iraq and done a better job with a better plan.

BTW, do you think it is a coincidence that North Korea and Iran flexed their nuclear muscles when we had 130,000 troops tied up in Iraq and no appreciable spare troops to threaten them without a draft during a re-election campaign. I for one do not. I think it was very calculated.

But look at the end of the day, the American people said we are in Iraq and we need to finish the job, and they decided to stay with GWB to do that.

You can point to a bunch of little things that may or may not link Iraq with terrorism but if you studied as I did the war college map of terrorists nations, Iraq was not one of them. Now after we invaded, there have been terrorists that have gone to Iraq but there was no terrorists threat from Iraq at the time of the invasion.

All that being said, we need to move forward from here, finish up with Iraq and contain North Korea as well as the terrorists around the world. Most importantly, and I think GWB's biggest failure is securing our borders both from cargo ships/planes as well as Mexico/Canada. With thousands of people coming over the border from Mexico a day that is a huge hole that the terrorists are driving a truck through, literally and it scares me.

Dave (the other one)

A few of random thoughts:</... (Below threshold)
Thomas Jefferson:

A few of random thoughts:

The president does have an obligation to reach out to the entire populace of the United States. That is his job. He is not just the president of those who voted for him. Also, he did not win by a huge margin. He was not given a wide mandate for his policies. Nearly half the voting population did not vote for him. That is not a ringing endorsment of him and his agenda.

I live in NYC. I was within a quarter mile of the WTC when it was attacked. I was caught in the dust and rubble. My city is the only one that has been under consant high alert since 9/11. We are the most likely target for another attack , we have had two attacks to date. D.C was also attacked. We know something about terrorism. We did not vote for George W. Bush. You could say we gave him a vote of no confidence on terrorism. Did you guys in other states ever think of that? Have you ever researched how little he has done in regard to homeland security? It is pure negligence. Then again you are probably less of a target, so what does it matter to you?

I noticed in this article a couple of smears about Massachusettes. I have to remind you that Mass. is the birthplace of democracy in this nation, the American Revolution began there, the Pilgrims landed there, the first Thanksgiving was there, The Boston Tea Party, the battle of Bunker Hill and Lexington and Concord, Paul Revere's ride. You could show a little respect.

Also, Mass. has one of the lowest divorce rates in the U.S. Lower than any of the states that passed amendmants restricting the freedom to marry. In other words Mass. shows greater respect for the sanctity of marriage in a demonstrable way than these states that simply pay mouth service to it and write bigotry and intolerance into their constitutions. The world didn't fall apart in Massachusetts when they allowed gay marriage. What are these people afraid of? Gay people work, pay taxes, and contribute as much to american society and culture as straight people and deserve the same benefits and status. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. We are all equally entitled to life, liberty, and happiness.

Also, to chuck from the beg... (Below threshold)
Thomas Jefferson:

Also, to chuck from the beginning of this thread.

Not everyone on the left is agnostic. To think so is ignorance.

If you look at Christ's words and works in regard to social justice, helping others, not judging others before being judged yourself, selflessness, care for the poor, the barriers that wealth presents to entering heavan, the blessings on the peacemakers, and the belief that no person should be left behind - he seems pretty far to the left to me.

BTW - nowhere in the bible does it mention Jesus as being anyone's personal savior. That is pure egotism, as if Jesus was your personal shopper or assistant. Jesus walks beside you, he doesn't work for you.

"Thomas Jefferson" (mind if... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

"Thomas Jefferson" (mind if I call you Tea Jay?), you're right about Massachusetts' distinguished history and the proud role it played in our nation's early days. But have you been there LATELY? I've lived next door to it all my life, I visit it way too frequently, and have had friends and loved ones (to various degrees) who are residents. The days of Massachusetts being a lynchpin of freedom and democracy are long gone.

And as far as the marriage (heterosexual and gay) issue, there is a big story that hasn't gotten much play behind it all... and someday I'll actually get off my lazy butt and write a little of it.

J.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy