In another excellent, thoughful post,
neo-neocon digs into the deeper layers of meaning behind the bumper sticker "Friends Dont's Let Friends Vote Republican". I agree with her and some of her commenters, that what lies beneath this seemingly humorous slogan is quite dark and disturbing. It's not because I am some humorless, stern ultraconservative with a stick up my ass. In fact, I love a good joke and have amassed a
small collection of really good ones on my web site, including the ethnic and overly sexual ones. There was a time when I would not think dark thoughts about a bumper sticker like that, but like for neo-neocon, things have changed for me in a major way after 9/11.
I used to consider myself a liberal, too, albeit more in the "classical" sense of the word - I always hated political correctness, race-baiting, and anti-capitalism of the left fringe of the Democratic Party. I wasn't a lifelong Democrat, because I became a US citizen merely a decade ago, but I can safely say that I was a lifelong liberal. Then, 9/11 happened. It was like striking a match in a darkened room: what seemed like a cozy, safe place full of smart, friendly people, showed itself to be a monster ball. It shocked me deeply, but at first I thought it was just an illusion, a trick of perception that more light would blow away. Unfortunately, it wasn't to be.
On 9/11 I found myself in Portland, Oregon, visiting a very long time friend of mine (we went back as far as high-school). We weren't nearly as close as we used to be - actually drifted apart quite a bit, partly due to the geographical distance that separated us (I live in the Midwest) - but we renewed our contacts and good vibes in late 1990's. I was a bit taken aback upon discovering that my friend had been pulled into the radical circles of the "artsy" Left (he made a ring with the head of Lenin for his late-teens daughter and proudly showed me a communist/anarchist bookstore that he frequented). It was a bit painful and perplexing, considering that we both were born and raised in the same "workers paradise" of Eastern Europe - but heck, friends don't have to "march in lockstep", right? Our political views are one thing, and our friendship quite another, right?
Wrong! When it became clear that I did not share my friend's and his cohort's conviction that "America had it coming" and that 9/11 was our (i.e. Americans') damn fault and a proper payback for slavery, imperialism, polluting the planet, capitalism, world hunger, militarism, genocide of the Indians, etc, etc, etc., he became vicious. From a friend he turned into a bitter and vindictive enemy, and it did not stop when I finally - and with great relief - flew back home on the first flight that became available a few days later. He demanded that I return all things that he ever gave me - which I promptly did; he kept sending me nasty letters, returning my responses without opening them, until I, too, stopped receiving his; he badmouthed me to our mutual friends (whom he eventually managed to alienate as well).
Why can't I see it as just an isolated incident - a single guy, perhaps mentally unstable, turning into a vindictive asshole because someone disagreed with him? It's not a proof that the whole Left is like that! Of course, that's what I thought for a while, but then more and more matches were being struck in the dark room, and the impression that I was in the middle of a monster ball was reaffirmed.
I happen to live in a liberal, college town in the Midwest and I've seen my share of examples of how the "tolerant" Left treats those who disagree with its worldview. There were not many "Bush/Cheney 2004" yard signs in this town, and those there were put up, quickly disappeared. Mine was left on my lawn, but torn to shreds. I consider myself lucky that worse things, like a stone through the window, did not happen in response to my abhorrent political stance. I saw a car on campus with a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker, whose side (the car's, that is) was badly scratched from front to back with a sharp metal object.
(That'll teach the Republican motherfucker some tolerance!) Proponents of the ballot measure to ban affirmative action were physically assaulted by members of the radical-left outfit BAMN (By Any Means Necessary - apparently, that includes violence) while collecting signatures under a petition. During the 2003 presidential election those that intended to vote for Bush hardly spoke about it with anybody, and when they did, it was in a hushed, conspiratorial tones, while glancing around to see who else might listen. It brought back very bad memories of being in the political underground in an Eastern Block state... I assure you, these people were not afraid of Bush's "fascist thugs", but of their own liberal, "tolerant" colleagues and "friends". Why do you think is neo-neocon hiding behind that green apple, afraid to broach the subject of her political conversion in her social circles? Why is
Dr. Sanity hiding in the closet, too? Oh, I'm keeping low profile as well. I'm sure there is a small legion of people like us, people who asked and answered for themselves difficult questions about their political identity, now quietly living in the midst of pathological, knee-jerk Bush-hatred. Are we all paranoid, or is the fear of ostracism, job loss, damage to property, physical and verbal abuse all too real? When I was still living under a totalitarian regime, one of my friends remarked bitterly:
"When you are afraid of criminals, you can always go to the police for protection. But when you're afraid of the police, who do you go to - criminals?" I did not know than that there existed a lower circle of Hell, one in which you have to be afraid of your co-workers, neighbors, friends, and people you pass on the street.
It is ironic that the Left is always first to yell "discrimination! intolerance!" at the slightest sign of opposition to its worldview. And every time you point out to them their own intolerance, they immediately throw back at you some example of that on the Right, no matter the difference in degree or prevalence. Case in point: one of the commenters to neo-neocon's post provides a link to a T-shirt you can buy on the Web, with a slogan advocating lynching of journalists. (Also, like the sticker, intended to be "funny".) Now, I've traveled extensively in the US and have
never seen anybody actually wearing that shirt, or even a shirt
like that one. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of aforementioned stickers, plus "Impeach Bush!", "Bush=Hitler", and similar signs in my town. Don't you think that there is a profound difference between linking to a Belgian Web site with child pornography and saying, "Belgians condone child pornography", and actually seeing people in Brussels with child pornography magazines in hand, and saying the same thing? Both statements may be ultimately unfair, but which one is closer to being true do you think?
Another case in point: the very fresh
Dr. Frish "kerfuffle". In case you don't know it yet, Ms. Deborah Frish is (now "was", since she allegedly quit her job as a result of the ensuing affair) a lecturer in psychology at the University of Arizona. She has just become (in)famous in the blogosphere for posting deeply disturbing, threatening comments like this:
if I woke up tomorrow and learned that someone else had shot you and your tyke it wouldn't slow me down one iota. You aren't human to me.
on a conservative blog of Jeff Goldstein. (It gets worse.) The
reaction of the Left? (scrool down to the Comments section)
Oh, but you conservatives didn't condemn the inflammatory rhetoric of Ann Coulter, either! Aside from the fact that this is patently untrue, as there were multiple condemnations of Ann Coulter on the Right (Glenn Reynolds issued one of them), don't you think that there is a
profound difference of degree between someone calling grown women "broads" and asserting that they were exploiting their husbands' tragic deaths for political ends, and someone who writes a parent of a 2-year old, threatening his child with death and sexual molestation?? One of the things that the Left is routinely being accused of these days is "moral equivalence" - wouldn't you say that this is a pretty good example supporting that accusation?
If there is one positive message in all of this (
This site is supposed to be devoted to good news about America, and you bring this?? - Ed.) is that the Left is on the losing side and will remain so for the foreseeable future. They think that the low poll numbers of George W. Bush translate into more votes for the Democrats, but I'm convinced that they are deeply mistaken. I am angry at George Bush for many things, including his recent attempt to sell us the amnesty for illegal immigrants as something else, and I doubt that I would vote for him again. But does this mean that I would vote for John Kerry, or Howard Dean, or any other Democrat? Hell no! I'm pretty pissed off at Republicans, too, but there are few choices worse than Ted Kennedy, or Nancy Pelosi, or Carl Levin. (Pat Buchanan isn't running for office, is he?) Democrats are their own worst negative advertising, and I do not see this changing any time soon.
