I mentioned in a post a couple months ago that I would take liberals more seriously if they would stick to criticizing conservatives for things they've actually done. I think I need to clarify that, because there have been a lot of examples lately. This is probably going to fit into the "Grand Theory of Leftism" that I'll have posted before I go back to school, but I felt like it deserved its own post as well.
You see, leftists have a tendency to attack their opponents for things that have never happened. Look at the pre-election draft rumors, for example:
LIBERAL: Don't vote for Bush! He wants to draft you and your children!
CONSERVATIVE: Um...didn't Bush say he opposes the draft?
LIBERAL: ... ... ... ... ... Don't vote for Bush! He wants to draft you and your children!
It's weird how they're able to do this. They make up a reason to criticize the right, and then they attack them relentlessly for doing something they haven't done. It's like the Salem witch trials. People were accused of being witches because they had supposedly danced with the devil in the pale moonlight... or something like that...then they were tortured until they confessed to doing it, even though they had never actually done it. Weird.
What's more, these accusations always seem to fit the liberal stereotype of the right. For example, a lot of lefties call President Bush a racist. He may have appointed a Hispanic attorney general and not one, but two African-American secretaries of state, but...he's still a racist!!!11!!1! And when you try to call them on it, they can't seem to deviate from the talking points:
LIBERAL: Bush is a racist!
CONSERVATIVE: How do you explain Condi Rice and Colin Powell?
LIBERAL: They're not really black. Bush wouldn't appoint black people to positions of power, because he's a racist!
It goes deeper than that, however. It seems like there's always a new reason for them to attack the right, and they stick to it as much as possible. How do they do it? Sometimes, it really seems like they plan ahead. Let's look at the draft again. It was proposed by Charles Rangel, a Democrat. However, as soon as it became an issue, liberals began accusing Bush of wanting to bring back the draft. I even saw one blog claim that the entire thing was done to prove to Bush how unpopular a draft would be, despite the fact that its supporters claimed it was a way to make the armed forces more representative of the population. Of course, the unpopularity angle seemed just as good after Rangel voted against his own bill, but on the other hand, the only two Congressmen who voted for the draft were Democrats. You wouldn't know that from listening to the left, but it's true.
For an even better example, look at how often liberals try to prove their patriotism. Why do they do this? Apparently, it's because us conservatives are fond of questioning liberals' dedication to this country. During the election, Kerry and his ilk constantly accused Bush of questioning his patriotism, and then all the good little lefty sycophants set out to prove that it is, in fact, more patriotic to oppose Bush than to support him.
There's only one problem: BUSH NEVER QUESTIONED ANYONE'S PATRIOTISM. Liberals questioned their own patriotism, then tried to prove that they were patriotic. However, this created the impression in a lot of people's minds that Bush and conservatives had, in fact, called the left unpatriotic. Bizarre.
And who always seems to be there advancing the latest leftist lies? You guessed it: THE MEDIA. A lot of times, they're the ones who set the agenda. For example, a lof of liberals have taken it upon themselves to prove that "red states" are full of hicks who only care about "moral values." Well, who ever said that they voted on values in the first place? I seem to remember that it was the media, almost immediately after the election, trying to prove that Bush only won because of anachronistic religious folk.
It's also interesting how quickly liberal arguments change based on this. As soon as the election was over, the left set out on a quest to prove that conservatives are dumb rednecks, and they changed the talking points accordingly. For example, during a discussion of the election, my extremely liberal TRF professor, in an attempt to sound fair and balanced, said something like, "liberals have always had an intellectual superiority, while conservatives have always had a moral superiority."
WHAT? If I'm remembering correctly, it's always been the other way around. Conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil, right? When did they switch around? Why, when the media said they did, of course!
I could write a lot more, but I think I'll end with one more example, which is one of the newest and most effective demonstrations of this principle. I'm talking about the attacks on Rumsfeld. It really does seem like the whole thing was orchestrated. Think about it. It started out with a reporter giving a question to a soldier. A question that was based on false information. Then, the soldier asked Rumsfeld the question, and although he gave a very detailed answer, the media only focused on that "you go to war with the army you have" quote, making it seem like he doesn't care about the troops. The liberal side of the political spectrum is now calling for Rumsfeld's resignation once again. All because of something he never did.
I don't think we'll ever figure out why the left does this, but knowing it's happening is the first step in preventing it. Thank you.
UPDATE
Oh, and Rathergate. That was another example.
They also jump on the administration for NOT doing things it HAS done.
One example from a number of months ago was the accusation, frequently repeated on liberal blogs, and just about daily on DU, that the President hadn't bothered to visit any wounded troops.
He had, in fact... just not with any media hoopla. I blogged about this back in April, after seeing far too much untruth being spread around.
Posted by: BD at December 21, 2004 11:29 PMWell, if you're going to judge all of us by what bloggers say... SHEESH!
Why the emphasis on the wacky criticisms when there have been plenty of legitimate beefs? For example, Democrat complaints about the armor issue were ignored for months. Remember the eBay body armor frenzy? The convoy mutiny? Kerry's comments in the debate? Rumsfeld had to be caught off-guard before he put in additional orders. I guess if we want to be heard, we have to publicly humiliate someone. That's no way to run a country.
More importantly, why are you still complaining now that a) Bush won, and b) the Bush campaign has misquoted liberals so often that there's hardly any point in discussing at all. How can I respond to your ideas, when you aren't truthful about mine? At some point we liberals realized that you're not simply misunderstanding, you are deliberately misrepresenting.
And is it just me, or does Bush talk like he thinks everyone else is stupid?
Posted by: gun-toting latte-swilling liberal at December 22, 2004 12:50 AMLadies and gentlemen, I believe we have a winner in the "Most Random Comment Ever" contest.
Posted by: CD at December 22, 2004 12:54 AMLIBERAL: Bush is a racist!
CONSERVATIVE: How do you explain Condi Rice and Colin Powell?
LIBERAL: They're not really black. Bush wouldn't appoint black people to positions of power, because he's a racist!
I think to liberals there's a new race out there. There's normal black people that vote Democrat like they're supposed to, and then there's Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas. They aren't really black, they're just really really suntanned.
For example, a lot of liberals have taken it upon themselves to prove that "red states" are full of hicks who only care about "moral values."
I happen to agree with that statement. Being a transplanted Yankee, I used to look down at hicks and rednecks... then I grew up. What, may I ask, is wrong with having "moral values"? I guess to someone without them it's the end of the world.
As far as the latest nonsense with Rumsfeld, the media can cry all they want that he should be fired. They (and most of the left wing) have been screeching that for months now. Whatever. Last time I checked, the only person who has any say is the President. He has shown remarkable restraint. I would've told them to shut their pieholes during the SOTU. I'm sure he knows whether or not his SecDef is doing a good job. It's not like the 4,836th media report saying Rumsfeld should be fired is suddenly going to wake up the President.
"Oh my gosh, Rummy sucks! How did I not see this? I'm so glad I watched MSNBC this morning!!!"
Plus I would like to know if any of the media geniuses have bothered to ask the military as a whole what they think of the "you go to war with the Army you have" line. They just assumed for us (how nice of them) that it shows that Rumsfeld doesn't care about the troops. Um, that phrase (which they are hyping up insanely) is absolute truth. I would like to see what these guys would've asked about the 101st being sent into Bastogne to stop an overwhelming German force- improperly clothed, not sure if they were gonna get food and water, some without ammo or even weapons. They went, willingly. It's not like the Army is going to sit idly by while some company back home makes armor plates. We have a friggin' war to win.
Posted by: Army NCO Guy at December 22, 2004 10:31 AMTo answer this question: "And is it just me, or does Bush talk like he thinks everyone else is stupid?" I say no, he realizes that some people in America aren't highly educated, and he wants his words to be understood by anyone who hears them. Is that so hard to grasp?
And then: "Rumsfeld had to be caught off-guard before he put in additional orders. I guess if we want to be heard, we have to publicly humiliate someone."
Additional orders? Publicly humiliate? The soldier who asked the question was in a unit with 810 of 830 vehicles up-armored when he asked the question. They wrapped up work on the remaining 20 the next day.
Throughout the entire Central Command AOR, upwards of 70% of vehicles (some 22,000) have been up-armored since August 2003. I don't know about you, but to me, having worked in military procurement, that represents an astounding rate of production. Someone cut through a lot of red tape to make that happen so fast.
Posted by: BD at December 22, 2004 02:01 PMI happen to agree with that statement. Being a transplanted Yankee, I used to look down at hicks and rednecks... then I grew up. What, may I ask, is wrong with having "moral values"? I guess to someone without them it's the end of the world.
Well, since I've lived in blue states for almost 20 years, I'll have to take your word for it, but I also think having values is a good thing. The key word is "only." The new liberal meme is that people only voted for Bush because of religion or gay marriage or something, and ignored all other issues. By mixing that claim with the "conservatives are stupid" line, they also manage to insult moral values themselves, as if only idiots would have them. So, yeah, no arguments here.
And can I just add that nobody has mentioned the subtle yet hilarious change I made to the comment template?
Posted by: CD at December 22, 2004 03:12 PMOh, and while I'm thinking about the comment template...NCO Guy, you can probably get some more traffic if you put a link to your blog in the "URL" box.
Posted by: CD at December 22, 2004 03:15 PMOkay, thanks. Pardon my ignorance, but, uh, what's that do?
And yes, I would love a cookie. Next time you should offer me a glass of milk too. ;b
Posted by: Army NCO Guy at December 22, 2004 04:08 PMWhen people click on your name, they can go to your blog.
And the "would you like a cookie" thing is funny on more than one level. Someone has to know why. It's browser humor. Come on...
Posted by: CD at December 22, 2004 04:12 PMI think I get it. Somebody clicks on me name, it takes them to me blog. Nifty. Me smart.
Posted by: Army NCO Guy at December 22, 2004 04:13 PMUh... one minute behind the power curve on that one. And yes, I get the thing about cookies. I did notice it earlier today, I was just trying to figure out if it had always been there and I just never noticed. I'm not the most observant guy in the world.
Posted by: Army NCO Guy at December 22, 2004 04:15 PMMore observant than me.. after reading that a change was made, and the random cookie mentions, it still took me a couple minutes to see it when I looked at it... because I was looking at the wrong part of the commenting area. OY! apparently this is what spending 8 hours in the kitchen does to one's mind.
Posted by: Katherine at December 22, 2004 08:07 PMCD, apparently Katherine is cooking us Christmas dinner. You gonna meet me over there?
Posted by: Army NCO Guy at December 23, 2004 10:21 AM