Some People Never Learn

I was scanning the Post-Gazette for editorials/letters to make fun of, and I happened to come across a column by E.J. Dionne Jr. that was pretty good fisk material. It's not on the PG site, but I tracked it down in its original location here. Check it out, and join me in wondering how some people find the doorknob in the morning:

Lessons for Democrats By E. J. Dionne Jr.

MIDDLETOWN, R.I. -- Except for the glorious victories of the Red Sox and the Patriots, 2004 was a disappointing year.

Hey, speak for yourself. I think it was a great year. The best of my life, in fact. Heh.

But bad years offer useful lessons. Here are a few:

• Relentlessness pays off. President Bush won reelection by ignoring the conventional wisdom that vicious attacks on your opponent don't work and turn off voters.

See, this is one of those instances where reality isn't as important as maintaining a leftist perspective. Those of us who inhabit the real world know that Bush had the more positive of the two campaigns, despite some of the most vicious attacks of recent years coming from the Democrats.

However, liberals believe that any criticism at all is an attack, since their world view defines anything they agree with as a fact, and anything they disagree with as a lie. Therefore, they all "know" that Bush ran a negative campaign of unprecedented meanness, etc. A bit of that "conventional wisdom" could've helped Kerry, though.

As soon as John Kerry won the Democratic nomination, Bush's campaign went on the attack and never stopped. It worked.

Notice, again, the assumption that people know all about this, eliminating the need to provide concrete examples of viciousness from Bush. Some ambiguous hints are included in the next part, but still...you'd think that if Bush ran such a hateful campaign, Dionne would be able to explain exactly what he did.

Kerry was painted as arrogant and privileged, compared with an arrogant president who was far more privileged.

This one sentence could be fisked from so many angles that I hardly even know where to start, but let's give it a try. First, we have the claim that "Kerry was painted as arrogant and privileged." That's a load of crap. There was no need to "paint" him as such, because he did all that himself. He was the richest presidential candidate in history, he wrapped himself rather arrogantly in his Vietnam service, he basically called the audience at the second debate a bunch of peasants...the Bush campaign hardly needed to do anything.

Second, Let's look at the claim that he was running against an "arrogant president who was far more privileged." We've already established that Kerry had more money than Bush, and if you look at his background, he certainly had a lot of privilege throughout his life, so...what exactly is causing the discrepancy here? As far as the "arrogance" meme, I believe that Bush has something known in most circles as "confidence."

Kerry was made out to be a flip-flopping liberal...

Once again, there was no need to portray him this way, as he pretty much did it all by himself.

...and never mind asking how someone can be a flip-flopper and an ideologue.

He ran a flip-flopping campaign in order to hide his liberal record. Again, that shouldn't require a lot of mental gymnastics to figure out.

Kerry, who shot people in battle and was wounded himself...

Wait, Kerry was in a war? Why didn't he mention this during the campaign? He could've won if he'd drawn more attention to it!

...was painted as weaker than Bush...

Due to his inability to take a solid position on any campaign issues, yes.

...the guy who said he supported the Vietnam War but was not willing to fight in it.

You know, it's really hard to believe that two months after the election, people are still clinging to this desperate fantasy that Kerry's Vietnam service would've made him a better president. Honestly, what difference does it make? The president doesn't do the killing during a war, does he?

The sheer negative genius of the Bush campaign is worthy of close study.

"But since I'm just pretending it exists, I'll have to make up a few ways we can study it."

Face it: Liberals and Democrats are way too sensitive to elite editorial page opinion that asks more responsibility from the side it supposedly supports than from the side it supposedly opposes.

WHAT? I'd read that again to make sure it says what I think it does, but my head would probably explode from contemplating that much cognitive dissonance. When did editorial opinions start demanding more from the left than the right? I must have completely missed that.

Liberals worry themselves sick that if they fight Bush's cockamamie idea of borrowing billions for a shaky Social Security privatization scheme, those editorial writers will savage them.

...Despite the fact that those editorial writers oppose Bush's idea, and one of them just called it "cockamamie." Is anyone else confused?

A lead opinion is likely to demand that they enter into negotiations with the president, even if the very act of doing so is certain to give Bush the upper hand.

I can't recall any editorials being that supportive of the president. Most of them are calling for Democrats to oppose everything Bush does, since he's apparently destroying the country with his crazy Social Security scheme.

Memo to Democrats: Forget the editorial writers and ask yourselves: What Would Bush Do?

You shouldn't tell them that. They probably think Bush would throw them in a gulag for daring to question him, so they'd do the same. I've actually seen this logic used to justify vandalism against Republicans.

If you are not as tough as he is, he will crush you -- again.

It's not about toughness; It's about Democrats having unrealistic ideas. Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that Bush won because people agreed with him, not because they had been conditioned to foam at the mouth at any mention of Kerry's name?

Memo to liberal commentators: Why bend over backward to demand of your own side what you don't demand of the right, or of Bush?

I believe they already asked themselves that question a looooooooooooong time ago, which is why they rarely criticize Democrats. What editorials have you been reading, E.J.?

• Cultural hypocrisy should be exposed. I cannot understand why liberals who regularly criticize the excesses of the economic market let conservatives get away with being the advocates of "traditional values."

Maybe because the left is composed of a good number of people who think that morals are outdated, being pro-life is evil, gay marriage is a civil right, freedom from religion is more important than freedom of religion, and kids should start learning about sex at the same time they learn the alphabet. Maybe.

When television networks and Hollywood exploit sex to make money, why aren't liberals asking why the free market so revered by the right wing promotes values the very same right wing claims to despise?

I wasn't aware that conservatives were supposed to support censorship of any views they disagree with. That's more of a liberal thing. You see, we believe that it's possible to tolerate something while still believing that it's bad for people.

The coarsening of the culture that traditionalist conservatives denounce is abetted by the very media concentration that economic conservatives defend.

O...kay. I believe that it's actually public consumption of the stuff that causes it to appear in the media. That's the whole "supply and demand" principle in action. Some conservatives, like me, want to infiltrate the entertainment industry and bring some cleaner content to the masses, but unfortunately, our culture is making today's crappy media content profitable. In fact, a lot of people complain that our entertainment isn't explicit enough, and that we're still too sensitive. Remember the Janet Jackson fiasco?

Why are liberals so tongue-tied in exposing this contradiction?

Probably because they'll lose their control of the media if they upset the current system. But hey, I'm just a communications major, so what do I know?

• Class matters. Bush and the Republicans condemn "class warfare" -- and then play the class card with a vengeance.

Wait for it...wait for it...let's see what Dionne considers the "class card."

Bush has pushed through policies that, by any impartial reckoning, have transferred massive amounts of money to the wealthiest people in our country.

AHA! I see what's going on here! Bush supports policies that cause liberals to play the class card ("tax cuts for the rich"), but despite the fact that he does this for the benefit of all Americans who pay taxes, it's considered class warfare by our brilliant columnist friend here. That's not the class card, E.J. It's just misrepresentation on your part.

Yet it is conservatives, Bush supporters, who trash the "elites," especially when it comes to culture.

Well, when wealthy celebrities condemn "tax cuts for the rich," it is kinda funny.

Class warfare is evil -- unless a conservative is playing the class card.

Class warfare is an ugly thing. That's why conservatives believe that being rich does not automatically make one evil, and being poor does not automatically make one noble. Individualism is a staple of our philosophy.

Somebody has to call this bluff.

As soon as this so-called "bluff" actually happens, I'll be the first to join you. How's that?

Why is it taboo to talk about a Wall Street "elite" that has benefited from Bush's tax cuts and would win big-time from Social Security privatization?

It could have something to do with the fact that those "elites" worked hard to get where they are, and some actually think they deserve to benefit from their hard work.

Why is it just terrible to point out that pharmaceutical industry and HMO "elites" were paid off handsomely in the Medicare drug bill?

I'm sure they'd keep making as much of an effort if they weren't making as much money for it. You really need to put some cynicism into your life. It helps you to deal with human nature.

Why is it so dreadfully radical to denounce corporate "elites" when conservatives can denounce "the Hollywood elite" with impunity?

I think you're confused about the definition of "elite." You seem to think that "elite" refers to anyone successful. However, when conservatives refer to the "Hollywood elite," we're talking about people who pretend to represent the underdog or the "little guy" while making more money than most of the people on this planet. We're criticizing celebrities who act like they're being brave and putting themselves at risk for speaking out against Bush, when in reality, they actually gain publicity every time they pull one of their uninformed political stunts. We're denouncing people like Michael Moore who pretend to be part of the working class while riding around in a limousine. Do you see the difference? DO YOU?!

Why does the right wing get away, year after year, with this double standard on elitism and class warfare?

More importantly, why is the Washington Post letting you get away with fabricating a double standard in the first place? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Liberals need to start criticizing conservatives for things that conservatives have actually done at some point. Political discourse would be so much more logical.

• Stand for something. Bush won this year because of those attacks on Kerry.

Right. It couldn't have been because of the war, or the economy, or anything else even vaguely related to his record. It was that vicious "anyone but Kerry" crowd that put him over the edge. Does anyone take this guy seriously?

But he also won because swing voters who didn't like him very much were nonetheless quite certain that he knew what he wanted to do and would try to get it done.

So, near the end of the column, Dionne finally admits that people did, in fact, vote on the issues at some point. I'm shocked, I tell you.

One line of attack against Bush is to say that his certainties are mistaken and that he never, ever questions them. That's true.

How do you know he never questions them? He probably doubts himself a lot, since he's human and everything. The problem is that you liberals want him to admit to making numerous mistakes only because you've convinced yourselves that your opinions are truisms. Therefore, it's "true" that Bush's certainties are mistaken, and he should admit as much, even though he's come to the conclusion that he's right.

...That could've been a lot clearer than it was. Holy crap. Anyway...

It's also inadequate. Those who oppose the direction in which Bush is leading us need to propose an alternative.

It's about time you said something I agree with.

They need to demonstrate that we could be much safer -- and fight a more effective war on terrorism -- if so much of the world did not mistrust us.

Well, you lost me already. If the world mistrusts us for...GASP...acting in our own interests (not to mention those of a few million people halfway around the world), then I say "screw 'em." We're not the United States of Europe.

They must create a realistic narrative about a more just and prosperous society.

Once again, a statement on which we agree, although we probably differ on how to accomplish that goal.

Policies on jobs, health insurance, child care, education and taxes should be more than a list. They ought to form a coherent picture of how things could be better, for everyone.

Let's see here...could it be that Bush won because he's managed to do that already?

The long-term need for alternatives should not stop the loyal opposition from being tough.

It's sure stopped them from being rational.

But the short-term need to be tough should not stop the opposition's search for alternatives. For Bush's adversaries, 2005 will be a difficult year. It also could be exhilarating.

If Bush's adversaries really knew what they were doing, they'd admit that a lot of their ideas have been tried and abandoned because they don't freakin' work. As long as liberals continue to believe that they only lose elections because they "can't get their message out," they will continue to be in the minority of the U.S. government.

And that's the way it is.

Posted by CD on December 31, 2004 08:10 PM
Category: Fiskings