Last week, the MSM and the Democrats spent a lot of time and energy attacking Karl Rove for saying,
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to . . . submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the . . . terrorist attacks against the United States."
James Taranto of Opinion Journal, today summarizes the Democrat's responses since 9/11:
Made MoveOn.org a center of their grass-roots political effort and a frequent speaking venue for former and current Democratic officials, including Al Gore, Robert Byrd and Harry Reid.
Embraced Michael Moore, giving him an honored seat at the party convention in Boston last July. When Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11"--surely the crassest effort to politicize the attacks--had its Washington premiere, many Democrats showed up, including the party's then-chairman, Terry McAuliffe, and its then-Senate leader, Tom Daschle. "There might be half of the Democratic Senate here," then-senator Bob Graham of Florida observed.
Nominated for president a man who opportunistically opposed the liberation of Iraq after having voted for it (or opportunistically voted for it before opposing it, or both), and who cast a protest vote against funding the troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Made a whole host of statements that reflect precisely the attitude Rove imputes to them--from Sen. Patty Murray's description of Osama bin Laden as a philanthropist who builds, among other things, "day care centers" to Sen. Dick Durbin's Nazi calumny. GayPatriot has a list.
A politician's primary goal is always to get elected, and then to get re-elected. Every other part of their job description depends on achieving the primary goal. This makes the behavior of the Democratic party puzzling. Obviously, for some Democrats, taking a position that is shared by only a small, relatively extreme, part of the electorate does not present a problem. Consider the two Senators from my state of New York; no amount of Bush bashing or denigration of the military would affect their chances of re-election. But the party as a whole should be able to recognize that at a time when American men and women are in harm's way, protecting us against some of the most vile, inhumane villains, who would like nothing more than to murder as many of us as possible, the continuing, exaggerated attacks on the military and the administration are unlikely to help them achieve their primary objective, which is to regain control over the mechanisms of government. Why have they apparently failed to notice how out of step they are with the American people?
I have written quite a bit about the Narcissism of the never grown-up 1960's left, a sizable portion of my demographic cohort. There is a trait of the Narcissist that may help shine some light on the problem.
The Narcissistic Character is typically extremely sensitive to the opinions and attitudes of others (think of the sensitivity of the Islamists who will riot and kill in response to a "dis" of the Koran) while they are also extraordinarily insensitive to the feelings and opinions of others (again, think of the Islamists who think nothing of desecrating the Bible, the Torah, Churches and Synagogues, or destroying a priceless piece of our shared human heritage when they smashed the giant Buddhas of Bamyan, Afghanistan.
I am not suggesting the Democrats are as pathological as the Islamo fascists, however, I am suggesting that they are so invested in their own narcissistic needs that they are unable to recognize how their rhetoric offends and affects others. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Defeat, Humiliation, and Rage), the Narcissist feels terribly humiliated when seen to be in error. Humiliation leads to rage. When rage is disowned and externalized (part of the pathological defense of projection) it often leads to paranoia. When rage is internalized, it leads to despair and depression.
The paranoid can never learn from experience; all he can do is add elements to his paranoid structure in order to explain new, confounding data. Consider the Islamists who, in response to the death and destruction wreaked by al Qaeda in Iraq, now spread the bizarre conspiracy theory that Zarqawi is an American agent. This preserves their fantasy that all Muslims are loving and holy, not evil killers of innocents.
On the other hand, the depressive can learn; in fact, depression is a powerful inducement to change since no one who is depressed wants to repeat the experience. Only by accepting that there are flaws in their world view can the Democrats navigate their way through despair and arrive at enlightenment.
It is not even necessary for the Democrats to give up all their self referential feelings of superiority and goodness; all they would need to recognize is that their approach is not working. At the moment, they appear to be unaware that they are marginalizing themselves. Can it really be that they are so unable to question themselves that they must resort to bizarre arguments that deny reality? Sadly, it appears so. It took Barry Goldwater's disastrous run for the Presidency in 1964 and LBJ's landslide, to allow the Republican party to reflect and begin the painful process of renewal. It will most likely require a similar debacle for the Democrats to take the same opportunity for reflection and change.
The most worrisome aspect is that by marginalizing themselves, they have removed a crucial check on the Republicans; one party rule is always dangerous and we are living in very dangerous times.
Recent Comments