ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Sunday, September 04, 2005

Why The Left Delights in Misery - One Man's View

I can not escape the conclusion that The Left delights in misery in general and for America in particular. I sense, no discern, a cynicism behind this phenomina. It is time to take a hard look at this.

Why do I think that a cynical game is being played?

It seems to manifest itself in numerous ways. The commonality between the various incidents is not all that obvious. However, there is enough there to explore.

1. The Need to Be Offended
It seems that at every opportunity folks on The Left look for something to be offended about and react as though there were a constitutional right not to be offended. The latest, but by no means only, example is that The Revs, Jackson and Sharpton, are offended by description of the folks fleeing New Orleans as being "refugees." They insist they are "evacuees," and to call them anything else is offensive. It reminds of the poor Washington D.C. staffer who had the temerity, not to mention literacy, to call certain tightwad individuals "niggardly." That nearly cost him his job. Why do certain folks on the Left do this? The answer, it seems to me, is power. If the other fellow is offended by something I have said, if I have a conscience, I am put on the defensive. I ask myself if I have done something wrong. I examine myself, and I usually am able to see whether in fact I have been rude or insensitive. Some folks on The Left use this as an opportunity to attack and to assert their own moral superiority and set themselves up as a victom, yet again, of the society's lack of human worth. It has gotten to the point where they do not miss an opportunity to engage in this game, even after a disaster. The disaster, the misery, empowers them. This is cynical with a capital "C." I do not think anyone is offended by being referred to as a "refugee." I think certain folks have chosen to feign indignation. Their purpose in this is becoming clearer the more often it happens.

2. The Need to Besmirch the Motives Those with Whom They Disagree
Honest disagreements with many on The Left are not possible. The tendency to see evil intent behind anything done by anyone with whom they disagree is common among those active on The Left. Today my favorite The Democratic Underground ran a "serious" discussion on whether Karl Rove had in fact hidden Judge Rehnquist's body for several days and not reported his death when it "actually" occurred so as to bail the president out of a tight spot at a good time... like 11:00 on a Saturday night (a peak media hour and day to be sure). The Bush administration is "pure evil" as one writer put it. I could only wish this lunacy was an exception. It is not. The news today brought us "leaders" saying that the response to the disaster in New Orleans was slow because the victims were black... er, African American. That anyone could say such a thing with a straight face, let alone a "leader," can only result in amazement for most of us. The mayor of New Orleans stating, twice, that the CIA was out to get him is but another example. Again the misery. Again the victimization. Again the cynicism. We see this in in other areas as well. Teddy Kennedy perfected the art of "Borking." Judge Bork, according to Teddy, would bring back back-alley abortions, destroy privacy and generally bring judicial approval to a Nazi-like state if he were confirmed. That Bork had no such views or motives was irrelevant to Teddy and his fellow perpetrators. People who think and act like this are not the sort of folks with whom you can engage in rational debate let alone reach compromise.

3. Relishing America Taking Its Lumps
The delight in misery manifests itself no more clearly than it has in The Left's reaction to casualties in Iraq. If twenty men are killed in action or by a mine, their pleasure is impossible to disguise. They say something like, "We have have lost twenty men, see, we told you we should not be there." Were they thinking doing something worthwhile would come free of human loss? No, they were not thinking that. Rather what they were thinking was that they could USE the misery resulting from these deaths to advance their agenda. My sense is that they could not care less about the dead soldiers, though I could be wrong about that. What is clear is that they are using the dead to advance their aims. Again the misery. Again the victimization, in this case that of the dead soldiers. Again the cynicism.

These are but a few examples. I invite anyone who would like to offer further examples to do so. I also invite contrary views.

But for me, I've about reached the view that it's not worth it to try to do business with these people any more. I am sadly coming to the view that we need to do what we need to do and let the chips drop where they may.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn