Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Are Liberals Just Nuts?
By Alan Caruba
Anyone who has tried to discuss, debate, or argue political issues with a liberal eventually concludes they are dealing with someone too deranged to be influenced by facts. The midterm election defeat of Democrats in the House and the narrowed margin of control of the Senate mean nothing to liberals whose explanations ignore reality.
Graydon Carter, the editor of Vanity Fair, explained the defeat in almost classic liberal terms. “Well, anger certainly continues to be all the rage in the corridors of American politics,” he pouted in an commentary titled “Man Up, America!” ignoring the fact that Nancy Pelosi--a woman--wielded the power in the House that produced the largest turnover of seats since 1938.
Ignoring the possibility that two years of legislative insanity that forced Obamacare on an unwilling majority of Americans, of stimulus bills that were nothing more than pork, of financial reforms that ignored the source of the mortgage meltdown, Carter concluded that “The general anti-Obama rage out there is palpable, adding that the “hatred for Obama” had “more to do with race than anything else.”
This “white, conservative and independent Americans are all bigots” mantra ignores the fact that Obama made history as the first black man to be elected president and that it could not have happened if a lot of white people had not voted for him, starting with the Iowa primaries in a very white State.
“What makes today’s fury more worrying,” Carter continued, “is the fact that angry right-wing extremists tend to carry guns in disproportionate numbers to their liberal counterparts.” Where have we heard this before? Oh yes, it was Obama talking about people “who cling to their guns and religion” instead of turning their lives over to an all-powerful central government.
Nearly a million “angry right-wing extremists” turned up in Washington, D.C. to peacefully protest passage of Obamacare without a single arrest or incident. They were summarily dismissed by a very arrogant White House that was too busy forcing “healthcare reform” on the majority of Americans to pay attention to how many of them were unemployed.
There is an aspect of psychology called “projection” when one accuses someone of the very characteristics found in themselves. “What do you call an electorate that seems prone to acting out irrationally, is full of inchoate rage, and is constantly throwing fits and tantrums”, asked Carter. We call them liberals.
Compounding the failure, refusal or inability to accept the reality that liberal, Democrat actions, led by President Obama and enacted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, we have learned that the Speaker has made it clear that she wants to retain her power as the new House Minority Leader.
Historically, House Speakers who have presided over a loss of power resign, but not Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, her letter to the Democratic caucus cited “the most productive Congress in a half century” without apparently taking any notice that its legislative program led to a loss of 61 seats in the House. “We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back,” she said, citing the programs that were responsible for a crippled party in Congress.
Under normal conditions, the current Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, would be expected to be elected by the Democratic caucus to replace Madame Pelosi, but there does not appear to be anything “normal” about those who lost or those who survived.
Pelosi wants the Democrat Seal of Approval for two of the worst years Americans have been through and, of course, Democrats have been in control of Congress since 2006, halfway through former President Bush’s second term. Stimulus hasn’t worked. Unemployment is higher now than when Obama was elected. Obamacare, passed by Democrats who hadn’t even been allowed to read the bill, and a multitude of other ills resulted in a massive rejection of Democrats in Congress.
What have liberals learned from this? Nothing! The swift decline of confidence in Obama is attributed to his skin color. The economic stagnation is the fault of Wall Street. The rise in healthcare premiums will be blamed on insurance companies, not Obamacare. The anger of the electorate is blamed on angry, white-wing conservatives even though Tea Party candidates did not all get automatically elected to office.
On the Saturday following the elections, Rasmussen Reports summed up the situation for Obama as follows:
“Still somewhat in shellshock following Tuesday’s elections, President Obama so far seems content to blame the messenger, not the message.”
“In other words, the American people would really like his agenda if he had just explained it better. We’ll see.”
“Voters have mixed feelings about the tone the president set at his first post-election press conference on Wednesday. Most, in fact, are not confident that the president can work with the new Republican majority in the House to do what’s best for the American people.”
“Just before Election Day, the majority of voters said the election was a referendum on the president’s agenda and that he should change course if Republicans win control of the House. But most also don’t expect him to make that change.”
Obama got elected on a message of hope and change, but voters did not like the change and are running out of any hope that he understands what happened on Election Day.
That’s what happens when liberals are given power and that is why the next two years will be continued resistance to the changes voters want. Expecting them to rationally interpret the elections is a waste of time.
© Alan Caruba, 2010
Posted by Alan Caruba at 2:52 PM
Labels: Congress, Democrats, liberals, President Obama
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Pelosi has been massively successful. In 2012, Democrats will win back a large number of those seats - but even if they don't and the GOP keeps the House, Obamacare remains. It's not going anywhere. As David Frum has pointed out, the GOP bet all its marbles on obstructionism and trying to run out the clock like in 1994, and this time you guys lost massively.
House seats come and go, but no Republican is going to vote to allow discrimination against pre-existing conditions again. Nor can the parts like the mandate be removed and keep the system economically feasible, as will be pointed out with great glee.
The GOP will try to fiddle with things and subpoena as many people as they can and probably start a bipartisan adjustment to get rid of such things as the 1099 provision. But Obamacare will remain. And it will be a legacy that Pelosi can be proud of, since she was central to it. More here: http://www.agbdavis.com/2010/11/repealing-obamacare.html
Holding office is about doing things, not just coming back to Washington over and over. Pelosi well merits leadership.
The members of the liberal intelligentsia, which is what they really are, and those for whom they are the leaders, are idealists. By definition that means that they are not amenable to rational argument.
Might as well try to describe the beauty of flowers to a person blind at birth, as present rational argument to an idealist.
So then, Alan, yes, they are just nuts.
@AD. You just make my case for me by asserting "this time you guys lost massively."
In reality, the GOP won an historic victory that has not been seen since 1938.
As a true liberal, you are immune to FACTS. And REALITY.
How does that prove your point, Caruba?
The GOP won a "massive victory" in the sense of a bunch of seats in the House. But those seats don't change anything and aren't legislation. They'll change back, in part or in whole, in the next election. Do those seats alter anything about the way the country will run or anything else? Not really, except that now Obama will be able to do somewhat less than he would have the latter half of his term.
Leading the country is about doing things, not just staying in power. Obamacare was passed. It will not be repealed. That is a massive loss.
How did you ever get so screwed up that you started thinking that politics was about nameplates and not about accomplishing things? How very sad.
Wow, AD is a walking, talking example of leftist denial. We'll see how significant this election was over the next two years....
Democrats lost somewhere over 600 seats in state legislatures. About 50% more than the previous record.
Just yesterday, a liberal friend explained that those who say they don't approve of Obama's fiscal policies are just hiding the fact that they don't like him because he's black.
I'll stipulate Pelosi's leadership, but I note that a leader is supposed to lead the kids OUT of the woods, not further INTO the darkness. It doesn't matter how skilled a leader a person is, when they're going the wrong direction.
It will be interesting to see if the PTBs allow any change. We have been given the illusion of being in control once again. But as in the nineties, the so called mandate will be lost in terms of anything happening that matters. Newt wouldn't do it then and they won't allow it now.
AD, if it about accomplishment in committing national economic suicide . . . then you are right.
"Accomplishment" merely means getting something done, without regard to whether the result of it is positive or negative.
Pelosi's "accomplishments" are vast, and are damaging this nation far more than I have seen any politician damage this nation before before in the last 70 years.
Succeeding in burning a great building to ashes is an accomplishment for an arsonist.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. The money has to come from somewhere, and taxpayers simply don't have it now and aren't going to have it in the foreseeable future.
The end result will be the bankruptcy of the United States.
What a great accomplishment indeed. Coalitions of nations that are dedicated to the destruction of the USA haven't able to come anywhere near it, try as they might have in the past.
Not a single element of proof from Larry about why Obamacare will be bad. Just a dozen bald assertions.
Go away. Morons are not welcome here.
Wow... I hate coming to a party late, especially when I'm already dressed for it. I'd like to commend you Alan for how you handled the obvious delusions of grandeur associated with the arrogant left. Moreover, I want to give a firm pat on the back to LarryOldTimer for your analysis in your last post. Well said, Larry! What started off as a discussion of potentially valid point-counterpoint debate turned into namecalling when the talking points of a liberal did not hold up to scrutiny. Isn't that always the case? There's that old saying(paraphrased): you know that you've won the debate when they resort to calling you names because they ran out of facts.
As an aside, I reblogged this article on the 12th, Alan. This post was one of my favorites that you've written of late. You done a great job bringing out perspectives on important issues that speak to a lot of us.
Thank you, Eric. Stop by any time, pull up a chair and make yourself comfortable.
Post a Comment