August 27, 2004

the Pressure Cooker Theory of Hydraulic Release
Posted by McQ

That's Charles Krauthammer's name for his theory about the relatively quick emergence of the left's virulent hate of George Bush. You see, it all began in Florida and ended with the Supreme Court. Despite mountains of evidence showing no matter how many times and ways the recount had been done the result would be the same, the left rejects the result. Anger boils:

The hostility, resentment, envy and disdain, all superheated in Florida, were not permitted their natural discharge. Came 9/11 and a lid was forced down. How can you seek revenge for a stolen election by a nitwit usurper when all of a sudden we are at war and the people, bless them, are rallying around the flag and hailing the commander-in-chief? With Bush riding high in the polls, with flags flying from pickup trucks, the President was untouchable.

The Democrats fell unnaturally silent. For two long, agonizing years, they had to stifle and suppress. The forced deference nearly killed them. And then, providentially, they were saved. The clouds parted and bad news rained down like manna: WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill and, most important, continued fighting in Iraq.

Stripped of his halo, Bush's ratings went down. The spell was broken. He was finally once again human and vulnerable. With immense relief, the critics let loose.

The result has been a virtual avalanche of fear and lothing. "Hate" has unhinged the left:

It is not often that a losing presidential candidate (Al Gore) compares the man who defeated him with Hitler and Stalin. It is not often that a senior party leader (Edward Kennedy) accuses a sitting President of starting a war ("cooked up in Texas") to gain political advantage for his reelection.

The loathing goes far beyond the politicians. Liberals as a body have gone quite around the twist. I count one all-star rock tour, three movies, four current theatrical productions and five best sellers (a full one-third of the New York Times list) variously devoted to ridiculing, denigrating, attacking and devaluing this President, this presidency and everyone who might, God knows why, support it.

In a word, it has become "toxic".

The subject of one prominent new novel is whether Bush should be assassinated. This is all quite unhinged.

What if Bush is reelected? If they lose to him again, Democrats will need more than just consolation. They'll need therapy.

Actually I think if they lose, they'll need more than therapy. I'm of the opinion we'll see a preview of what we can expect if they lose in the streets of NY during the RNC convention.

I mentioned in an article the other day when writing about irony of Kerry's antiwar past and the probability he'd almost be forced to prosecute a war in the face of a gathering anti-war movement. But there was a paragraph in the op/ed I cited which makes me uneasy.

The anti-war movement in this country today is precisely where it was in its earliest stages of Vietnam. This nation is about a year away from serious antiwar activity, especially if Bush wins re-election and the pent-up bitterness that now drives the national Democratic Party has no productive outlet.

I happen to agree with this assessment. Jim Wooten, who wrote the piece in which it is found, has articulated something I've been thinking about for some time. If they lose, considering the virulence of the hate being spewed by the left, what will be the outlet for that hate but an anti-war movement? How else, with the presidency out of play for four years and a probable hold by Repubicans in Congress, will they vent this almost nuclear-powered hate?

We'll see ... but I certainly don't think its going to be pretty.

TrackBack

Comments

There is another very easy way to let off the steam; the mainstream media could start reporting the truth!

I was thinking the other day about the way the country is divided, and I really think that the media is largely responsible. Instead of telling the truth about the false voting scandals (every single study of the ballots has determined that Bush would have kept winning the recounts no matter how they were counted) and the civil rights violations (the only road block was 20 blocks from the voting station and the only uniform police officers in voting stations were there VOTING) our media has bent over backwards for the past three and a half years to whip up anger about those allegations without ever admitting that they are false. Instead of openly acknowledging that the president not only didn't lie, but the people accusing him of lying have been proven to be lying and to be doing so for book deals, they continue to let people make statments about the president's lies unchallenged as though it's taken for granted. Our media is a shameless propaganda factory for the left and I only hope that there is a backlash that puts them out of business.

Posted by: Dacotti at August 27, 2004 04:16 PM

The Dems have hated Republicans for a long time. Look at the vitriol spewed at Reagan. They have been slandering the GOP as racist, sexist, homophobic, hate-filled, mean-spirited, despoilers of the environment and exploiters of workers and customers, etc., etc., for decades.

The big change has been the increasing GOP victories in Congress and state legislatures for the last 10 years. The pattern of failure has caused the hatred to be multiplied by frustration. I think that we would be seeing the same level of vicious slander from the Dems even if Bush had won without the Florida chadfest.

Posted by: stan at August 27, 2004 04:26 PM

"The anti-war movement in this country today is precisely where it was in its earliest stages of Vietnam."

That's got more than a little truth in it. Not just because we hear the echoes of an "immoral" war, "engineered" by a "cynical" politician.

Vietnam and WOT anti-war activists also have in common : 1) a leftist, statist world view; 2) an utterly unfathomable feeling of guilt about, even a hatred of, America; 3) and most dangerously, the blue-flamed purity of self-righteousness. Just as those who thought themselves the absolute exemplar of Rennaisance Man felt they were duty bound to throw blood on returning Viet vets and shout "baby killer!" at every uniform; so can "activists" delude themselves they are noble freedom fighters, instead of the criminals they are, for intentionally injecting chaos and fear into a political convention in order to prevent those whom you oppose from being heard.

Also echoing the 60's, I'm afraid the left's feelings of moral supremacy will grow as it is increasingly thwarted at the polls. If they continue in the same breathless wolf-crying, the point will come when they believe their own rhetoric. And then they can justify as an ultimately moral act any sort of horror.

Posted by: Jumbo at August 27, 2004 06:21 PM

Well, if Bush wins and they have no outlet for their hate, too fricking bad for them. It can't be lost on them that they have most certainly created similar loathing towards them with their actions. They won't be able to swing votes if they go to a 60's style movement. The 60's are long over.
Something tells me they're gonna pay for a long time if they keep it up. How does the phrase "semi-permanent minority party" sound?

Posted by: shark at August 27, 2004 08:53 PM

It's going to be a parrallel universe to the Vietnam Experience. Parrallel except it will be a win, rather than a loss. The similarities are going to be constant, daily 'warfare' on 2 fronts. Spiritually, mentally, and culturally here in the states. Real warfare overseas. The difference between Vietnam and now is that Vietnam was a loss, everyone knew it was a lost cause with no out, and that's what it became.

This current conflict is being won, everyone can see the writing on the wall, and a resounding victory is what it will become. This is why the Left keeps screeching like a scalded banshee at anyone they think they can make listen. America keeps charging forward and winning inspite of the setbacks, attacks, and venom being thrown at us. I can feel it everytime I watch the news. The closest I can compare it to would be 'having the Lord on your side'.

Probably because He is.

The fight to free ourselves from the shackles we allowed to be put on our wrists 30 years ago are coming off, one way or another. It's awesome to behold.

BRING. IT. ON.

Posted by: Jamison Banks at August 28, 2004 03:28 AM

What happens if the converse becomes reality and Kerry wins? What happens when you reward bad behavior?

Just a thought.

Posted by: Sharp as a Marble at August 28, 2004 07:40 AM

This is not entirely relevant to the current topic, except in response to Sharp as Marble. It's still too good to ignore. Why has no one, including the conservative talk radio market, focused on the fourteenth amendment to the constitution and what it means for Kerry and his possible presidency? Look it up, see what section 3 says. It will shock you.

Posted by: Jonathan at August 28, 2004 04:16 PM

Aid and comfort to the enemy? You folks have been reading too many Ann Coulter books.

As for the topic of "Bush haters coming unhinged and in need of therapy" I fail to see any distinction between the Left's vitriol for Bush and the vitiol on the Right for BillandHillary.

You may want to keep the pressure cooker theory of hydraulic release in mind when: (1) the Plame Investigation, (2) Senator Warner's hearings on Abu Guhraib and Sy Hersh's book on same, (3) the Feith/Larry Alexander investigation: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9524480.htm
(4) Iraq fatalities hit 1,000, (5) more economic news of stagflation, (6) the neo-con meltdown startd by "America Alone" continues with "Where the Right Went Wrong" and (7) a reporter asks President Bush to explain his campaign claim that "I know what I'm doing in Iraq" all hit in the next couple of months.

Personally I've seen precious little evidence that Bush or anyone on his staff has the slightest clue what they are doing or not doing in Iraq. Their foreign policy brilliance has been extremely well concealed.

Posted by: Gary Boatwright at August 29, 2004 04:00 AM

Belonging to and defending an organization that considered the removal of public officials through murder is definitely insurrection. Having your picture in the North Vietnam war hero hall of fame because you "helped them win the war" probably constitutes aid and comfort, don't you think? And, to paraphrase Oliver North, John Kerry's either a war criminal or lied under oath. Which one do you want? I want neither.

Posted by: Jonathan at August 29, 2004 01:22 PM

Believe whatever you want, but this is one dead horse that ain't leavin the corral.

Posted by: Gary Boatwright at August 29, 2004 07:16 PM

I can't agree more about the media complicity in the division of this country. The liberal bent in the media is so so obvious.

Look at the classification of Presidents by the mass media:

DEMS

JFK: Saint. Genius. (Forget the sleazy encounters with Mafia girlfriend Judy Exner and Marilyn Monroe and his consorting with a german spy during WWII et. al.)
Johnson: Folksy down home guy, Genius politician except for his part in Vietnam, for which the liberal media hated him. (Forget the lining of his pockets, bribes, etc.)
Carter: A humanitarian genius, nuclear physicist (forget massive inflation and a cardigan sweater when it got too cold, not to mention his total impotence in the Iran Hostage situation)
Clinton: Genius, wonderful (so much to say..so little time.. dishonored the office of the president... took credit for economic growth foreced upon him by a Republican congress....so sleazy, and couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it..and the liberals have the nerve to call Bush a LIAR!!)


Nixon: Bumbling stupid crook (Granted was stupid and paranoid about "enemies", but his foreign policy initiatives were monumental..if only he had nuked Hanoi..)
Ford: Bumbling, stupid (a solid caretaker president..not flashy)
Reagan: Bumbling, stupid (gee.. the Berlin Wall came down, communism was defeated, the 80s economy roared)
Bush Bumbling stupid (gee, again... he said he was gonna lower taxes, HE DID... he said he was gonna fight terror, HE DID... the liberals just hate when a man actually does what he says and stands up for values.. and how many of the "educated" journalists graduated from Yale and attended Harvard Business School like Bush did?)

So lets see.. fair and unbiased reporting ..like the New York Times, Washington Post.. CNN.. et al have concluded that EVERY Democrat president was/is a genius and EVERY Republican was/is a bumbling idiot...

Yep... I can't see any conclusion except to see that the journalists must be right... they leave their biases and prejudices behind when reporting....

Yeah right.... and the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are coming to dinner at your house tonight

Posted by: kang at August 29, 2004 08:38 PM

I understand your perspective colmpletely. The Constitution of the United States of America is a dead horse. Yep. I got it. We should move on.

Posted by: Jonathan at August 29, 2004 10:48 PM