The Horror of it All (UPDATED)

So "Allah" wrote some post railingabout the boffo box-office that Michael Moore's latest crockumentary is doing in Manhattan. He was ready to write off the entire city as a bunch of leftists. I was all: "It's not that simple. Look at the 5 boroughs as a whole. Giuliani. The neo-conservative movement started here. Blah blah blah."

Then, in the space of a couple of days, the following things happened: First, some guy at the Cheyenne diner, where I am the most regular of regulars, was opining on how it was such a great film, even though he knew it was "sort of propaganda" (heh), and how there's this thing where if you disagree with Bush administration policy you're called "unpatriotic". (As an aside, if any reader of the leftward persuasion happens to come by at this point, could you please give me a single concrete example of this ever happening? That is, a single example of someone being called "anti-American" or "unpatriotic" or some equivalent simply for disagreeing with Bush administration foreign policy or with going into Iraq. Not for rejoicing in the death of American contractors or soldiers, or for glorifying those killing our soldiers as "freedom fighters" or "Iraqi minutemen" but simply for disagreeing. And, I'm not talking about some idiot in a blog comment box using this kind of rhetoric here. I'm talking someone of some consequence saying it, like a member of the administration or a conservative pundit of some repute. Just one example. That's all I'm asking.)

Second, Jon Stewart, who I ordinarily respect and enjoy, was on Larry King over the weekend, and Larry asked him what he thought of Michael Moore's latest crockumentary. The transcripts not up yet so I'll have to paraphrase from memory. His answer was something like: "I saw it. I don't agree with everything in it, but I think it's important to see, because the administration has had all these shifting rationales. First it was Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then that didn't work out so it was, 'We're gonna liberate these people'. Then that didn't work out so now it's 'Well. We're in a war, and people shouldn't talk when we're in a war'. So, I think it's important that Michael Moore is spurring debate and starting conversation.'

WTF!? This is simply the most fatuous, empty statement I have ever heard this person make. First of all, both the weapons of mass destruction angle and the liberation/humanitarian angle were advanced by the administration from the beginning. On the "people shouldn't talk", again: One concrete example please. But that's just standard lefty boilerplate. It's disappointing to see Jon Stewart mouthing it these days, but what can you do? The really jaw-dropping part of the statement is the idea that Michael Moore is providing some kind of public service. To begin with, Jon Stewart must live in a parallel universe if he doesn't think these issues are being debated now. Has he been to a book store? Turned on the TV? Anti-Bush screeds are a growth industry. The anti-Bush industry is probably one of the biggest reasons for the economic turnaround, yet another reason to support Bush, so he can keep it going. But forget that, how could making the most dishonest, propagandistic, vitriolic political film possible be good for the state of political debate in this country?

Third, today while I was on the train going for a much-needed visit to my shrink, I heard a middle-aged woman out of nowhere loudly say to her husband, "Farenheit had a record opening." Husband, "Well, it's about time." About time that what? Puerile agit-prop became a way of financing a fancy Manhattan lifestyle?

Fourth, this evening in Tribeca I saw a guy wearing a T-shirt that said "A Vote for Bush is a Vote for Bin Laden". This prompted me to comment at Allah's site, "I think I'm going to lie down and quietly die now." I mean really, you know the drill as far as what I say here? Have any conservatives ever . . .? Could you imagine the reaction if any Republican, anywhere was ever caught wearing a shirt saying 'A Vote for Kerry' . . .? etc. etc.

I think I'm going to lay low. Things are getting really ugly, and this movie is really riling people up and bringing out the worst in them. I was telling my girlfriend tonight that if Bush can't win convincingly, because I actually care about this country more than I care about any invidual politician, unlike Moore's acolytes, I actually hope he loses. With all this inchoate rage out there, which Michael Moore is so cynically exploiting, if there is another 2000 election type of situation, and Bush wins again, it could tear this country apart. Much as I think a John Kerry presidency would be a disaster, I would still prefer it to the massive civil unrest and domestic left-wing terrorism that would likely result if Bush wins narrowly.

UPDATE:Wow do I thank Allah for that link and positive write-up yesterday. Because of it I hit what I think are new blog records yesterday: Over 1,200 visitors in a day, and I believe my first comment thread that went over 20. This is a lot more traffic than I got from other links that I thought would be a much bigger deal. So, young bloggers out there, remember that things in the blogosphere are not always as they appear. And, try to figure out some way to get Allah to link you, other than some played out "Allah Ahkbar" type formulation.

Great comments all around, even from those who actually had the temerity to disagee with me. Just to make things clear, what has me freaked out here specifically is the scenario predicted in this post at election projection , which has Bush winning the Electoral College and narrowly losing the popular vote, again! Seeing as how this exact same scenario playing out in 2000 seems to be at the root of the deranged Bush-hatred we see today, I shudder to think at the consequences of this happening again. Even though I think that John Kerry would make a terrible president, I would prefer a Kerry victory to that scenario. That's all I'm saying.

On my challenge to lefties to come up with any examples of conservatives calling people "anti-American" or "unpatriotic" simply for opposing the policies of the Bush administration, the only examples anyone had were the works of Ms. Coulter and Mr. Hannity (Actually, more accurately just the sub-title of Mr. Hannity's latest book which seems to equate "liberals" with Islamo-fascists), and a bunch of nasty remarks by blog commenters, who are of course normally known for the restraint and moderation of their rhetoric. I don't quite see how the opinions of a couple of right-wing pundits (both of whom are repudiated by many, many conservatives, including me), demonstrates the existence of a chill wind of oppression blowing across the land. But, so I'm not accused of "moving the goalposts" I will say that yes, you have found two concrete examples. The point is that a statement along the lines of: "Anyone who does such and such is automatically accused of such and such" is fatutous, unless you take it literally to mean merely that there exists some person, somewhere, who will unjustifiably make that accusation of "treason" or "anti-Americanism" or whatever. So what? Of course there is, just as someone who supports our endeavor in Iraq will be accused daily of being a "fascist", "warmonger", "idiot", and so on. As Drudge (not unironically) said to Moby: "Butch up!"

And, of course, often those whinging on about how their dissent is being crushed are often the same people who somehow believe that any criticism of America, no matter how extreme, cannot possibly be "anti-American" or "unpatriotic". Of course, they are also often the same people who think that any criticism of Israel, no matter how extreme, cannot possibly be anti-Semitic, while any criticism of "affirmative action" or of any aspect of black culture is automatically "racist", so go figure. It's not anti-American or unpatriotic to oppose a war or president. It is both anti-American and unpatriotic to think that Americans are collectively a bunch of ignorant, war-mongering fascists, unwittlingly duped by their idiot leader, or some such. These statements by Michael Moore - collected by Karol from this David Brooks column are anti-American. See the difference?

And, I'd also like to say that this particular Michael Moore crockumentary seems to be a new level of venality even for him, and that's what's bothering me. As much as I disagreed with the ideas and the methodology of his other work, there at least appeared to be some sort of sincerity behind his previous projects. This one is nothing more than a cheap, cynical attempt to exploit, fuel, and to cash in on this general uninformed, inchoate rage which has infected so many people. Contemptible.

Comments

[John Climacus]

Interesting thought, and original. I think you're more likely to have terrorism with a Kerry victory though. I'm no idealist but there is a part of me that still thinks, except among the hard core leftist idiots, the rage among the Democratic rank and file is based on misinformation, i.e. once they see Bush was right on Iraq and the Patriot Act, they'll see they've been duped.

[Susan]

I said the very same thing to my sister yesterday. I also think that much of the liberal rage these days stems from the 2000 election results (heck, just look at Mr. Unhinged Al Gore). I don't want another close call. I don't think I can handle it.
signed, a lonely Bush fan in Chicago

[Susan]

I said the very same thing to my sister yesterday. I also think that much of the liberal rage these days stems from the 2000 election results (heck, just look at Mr. Unhinged Al Gore). I don't want another close call. I don't think I can handle it.
signed, a lonely Bush fan in Chicago

[Ugly Truth]

" I would still prefer it to the massive civil unrest and domestic left-wing terrorism that would likely result if Bush wins narrowly."

Oh please! The Left are weaklings. They are only PHYSICALLY dangerous when they wield the levers of the State.

Here is a tread on that topic:
http://www.no-treason.com/Sabotta/16.php

[w]

...if there is another 2000 election type of situation, and Bush wins again, it could tear this country apart...

please, hang in there. the only thing that will split apart is the democtratic party. this has been building for twenty years (i used to be a democrat). this is their rockefeller/goldwater moment. don't give up, don't give in, DON'T DRINK THE KOOL-AID

[pdf]

So when somebody says "A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bin Laden" in a blog comments section, it's A-OK (I've seen it literally dozens, and maybe scores, of times; it's quite a tenacious meme), but when somebody prints the converse on a T-shirt, it's a crisis?

Oh, and in answer to your question above: I'm sure you're going to say they're not people "of repute," but Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have quite openly declared any belief to the right of Cheney to be traitorous. I refer you not only to Coulter's book "Treason," but to the subhead of Hannity's book "Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism And Liberalism." Clearly, the intent is to mark those three things as equivalent to one another.

I want Bush to lose not because of the war (no matter what the right-wing punditocracy says, the war will continue unabated under Kerry), but because of his economic and social policies. Plus, I'm opposed to one-party rule. If Democrats can't win back one of the houses of Congress, they've gotta take the White House. Balance must be restored.

[Eric]

pdf:

Obviously, I'm saying that I don't support such stupid, extreme rhetoric from either side.

[pdf]

>Obviously, I'm saying that I don't support such stupid, extreme rhetoric from either side.

These days, reasonability is never obvious, from either side. Everyone is a maniacal partisan until proven otherwise.

[Ugly Truth]

Let me cut and paste from the essay I linked to:

"Our would-be fifth columnists are no threat. Despite the boasting and bluster they indulge in on their message boards, they are afraid of weapons and are mostly unarmed. And, more importantly, they are cowards. Their anti-government veneer will vanish when a Democrat is elected President again - then they'll worship law n'order as they did during the Clinton years. All they can do is provide harmless amusement.

And it's so satisfying to see their fear."

http://www.no-treason.com/Sabotta/16.php

[Eric]

Ugly Truth:

I agree that members of the far left are generally physical cowards on an individual level, and are less likely to carry guns; but I'm not talking about open conflict here. I'm talking about terrorism, which is a tactic of the cowardly. There's quite a history of is left-wing terrorism in this country: Kathy Boudin, Weather Underground, etc. I think that if despite the efforts of George Soros, Michael Moore et al, Bush wins the election, especially in a manner that is at all disputable, the left-wing crazies of our day may feel inspired to take things to the next level.

[Rex Stetson]

“a vote for bush is a vote for bin laden”. Jeez. Like, I’m totally sure they agree on foreign policy especially. Both pro-Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, both want Washington DC hit with a suitcase nuke, etc. How moronic. At least he could have said something like “ A vote for Bush is a vote for War/death/the rich/big oil” which would have been a more intelligent. I can only think that he must mean that a vote for Bush promotes anti-american sentiment that Bin Laden would capitalize on, which granted is a pretty complex statement to reduce to a t-shirt effectively. Still, it’s a real oversimplification of one tiny part of the whole geopolitical picture.

He might have been making a comparison between Bush and Bin Laden’s methods: they are both perceived to be wealthy religious people, politically motivated agressors who use blowing up buildings and killing people to achieve their goals. But this is even a flawed analogy. One might as well say “a vote for Churchill is a vote for Hitler” or “a vote for Sharon is a vote for Arafat” .. Assuming that Al Qaeda is even conducting a Clauswitzean war that is meant to achieve political ends “by other means” the way Bush is. I suspect it’s more of a political “statement”, an end in itself. Again, it’s apples and oranges. Nonsensical slogans like that sound like those brave new world/v for vendetta/1984 "nightmare totalitarian future" brand of newspeak: freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, etc

Even if what mr t-shirt was saying was true, wouldn't the converse ( or is it inverse, I always forget) br true: would a vote for Bin Laden then be a vote for Bush?

If so, those lefties better start ramping up some aggressive support for the War on Terror/Islamofascism- so we don't all inadventantly end up supporting the far worse evil of President Bush! It's a slippery slope here, lefties- a little terrorist-sympathizing now could lead to a NeoCon/Bush win in November!!

Maybe we can give the anti-Bush crowd a t-shirt that could read:

Fight Terrorism or Bush Will Have To Do It For You!

[bender]

um - its time for us to all start wearing Reagen tee shirts..

[Dawn W]

Dear Young Curmudgeon,

I really admire your love for our country and your inclination to put what's best over partisanship. Something few are willing to do.

I think part of the reason you are down is that you are in NYC. Which is fringe-left-friendly. I live in Austin, TX which is also fringe-left-friendly. It's easy to feel isolated.

However, look at all the red states from the 2000 election. They will prevent civil unrest simply because they have a job to do - whether at the ranch, or at the plant, or at the store, or at the garage, etc. Reasonable, responsible people have to work for a living. A good portion of them also have children to raise. Work, parenting, and whatever's left for enjoying this fabulous country doesn't leave a lot of time for protesting, shopping for that A vote for Bush... TShirt, painting a BusHitler sign, or taking up puppetry.

As painful as the 2000 election was...and I was seriously depressed as a result of watching all the bad behavior in Florida...there is not a day post 9/11 that I don't thank God George W. Bush is president. As painful as this polarization is, it beats firemen picking parts of loved ones out of rubble. And I truly believe that is what this election will be about.

Remember: the media amplifies the voice of the moonbats. So then, when you bump up against it in real life it tends to give anecdotal validity to the media message.

Be strong. Steel yourself. Fight the GOOD fight.

And when it really gets bad, soak for an hour in the mental hot tub that is Protein Wisdom or INDC or Allah's place.

[Karol]

It's really not as bad as it seems. Yes, most of our fellow New Yorkers are morons but there is a big conservative scene. Come check it out! Allah should come too.

[fat kid]

It's like a political renaissance or something. There are all these people who are completely green, and totally new to politics, and everyone thinks their opinion is the most important thing in the world, no matter how naive/partisan it is. With the advent of the blogosphere, and the implosion of the advertising/tech sector, we're left with a bunch of creative out of work people. Unfortunately many of them are also of my demographic (and specific age group) - mid 20's, college grads - we caught the ass end of the tech boom after we graduated from college, got our 6 figure jobs, then within a year *poof* no more job, welcome to the unemployment line. Welcome to the "real world". These same people are the ones who looked to our leadership, and got mad - who else could they turn to? They were the match, the economic dump was the spark, MM is the gasoline.

With politics being the latest "hip" thing to be into, every new jerk with an opinion (myself included) jumped into the fray.

I honestly believe the combination of the tech bust, the marketing/advertising bust, the general condition of the economy, the nature of its recovery (jobless) and a principaled (republican aka easy to hate, we have no hearts) leadership has created a *VERY* unique situation, where in all the wrong pieces have fallen in all the wrong spots. At once. The net result? Angst. Distrust. Anger. Maybe even true hatred. Adding insult to injury: the very people who got f*cked in the above scenario, are by definition the vocal minority - the smart, edgy, hip, tech-savvy early adopters. They/we had a *lot* to lose, and they lost it.

No effing idea how we're gonna get away from this shit situation, but I don't feel this is some sort of trend - I do believe it's a fad. Maybe you're right, we do need another president, however even after this election, MoveOn is still gonna be collecting donations, and their job is to bitch, and the instant Kerry doesn't toe their line, they're just gonna let loose with another barrage of shit. Maybe then will people actually realize WTF *truly* happenened back in '02-'04, but until then, they're just too damn angry to be bothered with fact, and rational discussion.

/fat kid out.

[Eric]

Karol:

I was originally saying the same thing over at Allah's, but something's changed since the movie came out. It's really had an effect.

[paul a'barge]

Welcome to the Culture War.

Iraq is just a battle in that war.

So, are you going to get over it, and commit to victory in the Culture War? If so, welcome to the fight. Otherwise, take something for the vapors and stand aside.

Bottomline? DIMocRATs are NOT patriotic and a vote for Kerry is indeed a vote for Bin Laden. And shudder all you want, but it's the truth.

Victory is defined as a dead Bin Laden and mute DIMocRATs.

[Matt]

I agree with Eric. Even the liberals I like seem to believe what Moore is saying. It's gotten to the point where communication is futile.

I feel like these days I'm about a few sentances away from ending up in a morgue. Or killing someone. Uber Rancor.

Dude, where's my countrymen?

[Dave in Texas]

I won't matter whether Bush ekes out a razor thin win, or stomps Kerry in a landslide - the symptoms you're describing will be just the same. What used to be the lunatic fringe is becoming more mainstream Democratic. Hell, they have to say something. What else do they have? The swing voter isn't going to listen to a moderate call for change.

It's about power, and wanting it back. Dems are using shrill because they are desperate. Funny, in a way, because in a way they still own the dialogue.

There were right wing nutbags in the 90s making movies too (but nobody paid attention to them, and reasonable conservatives shunned them, cause they were nutbags).

It really isn't that bad Eric. I remember the same rants in the 80s - and it was harder to pick on Reagan. Stay tough. In the marketplace of ideas, the good ideas win.

[Joel]

I hope that Bush wins convincingly. I think this is th emost mometnous election since 1860. Kerry will be a disaster for this coutnry. The thought of George Soros smirking makes me want to lie down and die.

[Eric]

In case a representative of the "fairness in condeming intemperate rhetoric brigade" happens by (I think Matt Welch deputizes them or something), let me make clear that I think paul a'barge's comments above are way, way over-the-top.

[spider]

>Everyone is a maniacal partisan until proven otherwise.

No, liberals and conservatives are maniacal partisans.
The rest of us have to sift through all the crap to get at some kind of objective truth.

[Sonetka]

I think Fat Kid has a good point. My husband and I and 99% of our friends are in the demographic he describes - albeit we didn't all get $600K jobs out of college. But there a good many of them right now who are un- or underemployed and who, to put it crudely, need to expend their energies on something, so some expend it on hating. We've lost a couple of friends over the Moore/politics in general issue. One of them (albeit one whom I doubt is ever going to have a full-time job anywhere, at any time) froths at the mouth whenever Bush is mentioned and seriously believes that the draft will be brought back and we'll all be minions of Obersturmfuehrer Bush. Put as many facts in front of him as you want, he won't believe it. Moore has opened his eyes. Sad, really.

[TmjUtah]

Crying 'balance' as a prerequisite for a stable democracy is ludicrous when one party clearly finds the constitutional limits of the government an obstacle and not a guide.

Partisan? No. Citizen.

[Ben]

Bush's policies are designed to keep America safe, and frankly they have worked so far. Changing those policies, especially to policies of appeasement, or handing France or the UN a veto on any defensive action we take, is endangering the lives of Americans. It helps the terrorists.

As a military and economic superpower, the only way we can lose this war is if we give up. And that appears to be the alternative offered by the left, if not the Democratic party. Blame ourselves, apologize to the world for living, and let the terrorists kill us. To me, that is Treason. That is unpatriotic, as well as stupid and insane.

The left may bitch and moan and complain about being called treasonous insane morons all they like. But they are going to have to admit sooner or later they have handed the right a sword with which to use against them. People are just calling them as they see them. Bitching about it ain't going to help. You on the left need to come up with a workable alternative, if you want to regain a perception as something other than what you look like right now.