Politics and Hatred: The Truth About Cons and Libs

As occasionally happens, I became obsessed in responding to a comment left on this writer's editorial about the brewing Galagate scandal involving Senator Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senatorial Campaign. What began as a quick response in kind on a Left-wing blogsite, has become an editorial.

It seems that a Mr. Jeremy Thompson, author of the Op/Ed "Website-building conservative activists use David Rosen to get at Senator Hillary Clinton" on the blogsite Loyal/Opposition believes that those of us on the right are filled with an incoherent, raging, hatred for the Clintons. He uses my blog, among others, as an example of this mythical hatred. Quoting directly:

"The fact that Republicans are hanging their hats on the truthfulness of a convicted confidence man and drug trafficker [sic, in actuality, Paul was convicted of possession, not trafficking] shows how deep their hatred for the Clinton's continues to run. This hatred is exemplified at The Tin Ear [that's me (thank-you, thank-you, no applause please)], which rattles off a series of other fruitless claims brought against the Clintons. (Hillary the Felon? Does Hillary Have Reservations at the Graybar Hotel?)"

Grateful for his interest and in an effort, hopefully, to enlighten him about the conservative pundit (and conservatives in general), I have undertaken this humble effort to correct his unfortunate misconceptions about us conservatives.

I believe that Liberals are guilty of projection. Allow me to explain.

Those on the Left, in general, hate Conservatives simply because they do not agree with their Liberal agenda. Since Liberals believe that they are the only ones who see the world, its problems, and solutions correctly, for you disagree with them after they have carefully explained their reasoning, you must be ignorant (usually described as uninformed) or you must be evil. In the Liberal psyche, there is no room for any other alternative. Therefore, if you disagree, you are held in contempt, to be pitied and taken care of (for your own good), or you are to be hated (because you are evil) and must be defeated at all costs. To Liberals, this paradigm makes perfect sense and as such (projecting their behavior and attitudes onto others), it would only be logical for Conservatives to think in exactly the same manner, ergo Conservatives, disagreeing with the Clintons as they do, must hate them.

This projection of Liberal attitudes and actions upon conservatives can be seen in the many different accusations they make against conservatives, e.g. President Bush lied to us about WMD to get us into a war so that we can seize Iraqi oil (the old worn out oil motive), or to avenge the planned assassination of President Bush XXI. To Liberals, this has to be the case, simply because it is what they would do in the President's place. President Bush doesn't believe in the welfare state, therefore his is evil and wants to destroy Social Security. President Bush believes in self-reliance, therefore he is cold hearted, mean spirited, and therefore evil. President Bush believes in the accumulation of wealth, and in privately held property rather than the "equitable" redistribution of wealth and property to those in need, therefore he doesn't care about the poor, and so is to be hated.

This reactive disconnect comes about due to the underlying motivators for Liberal and Conservative choices. If you learn nothing else, learn that the Liberal's decision making process is essentially an emotional process. All of their reactions to candidates, issues, and solutions are emotional reactions. That is why all of their proposals tend to be "feel good" solutions and inevitably lead them to throw money after a problem rather than examining options logically and dispassionately selecting the best solution (the Conservative's approach). This also explains why labels are so important to them.

The importance of these labels, generally used to distinguish minorities and special interest groups, leads them to be continually changing as attitudes (and apparently the winds) change. "Handicapped" therefore becomes "physically challenged," not because the term is more accurate or descriptive, but because they believe "handicapped" is demeaning to the so afflicted (that term may not be PC). The old distasteful segregationist terms "colored" or "negro," became "black," as an understandable reaction to their history of being discriminated against. That later became "Afro-American," which then became again "black," and now I think the term is "African-American." Today, "Hispanics" no longer like that term, because some of them are more of "Indian"-oops-"Native-American" extraction than of Spanish extraction so they prefer the term "Latinos."

Using the wrong label can lead to various responses from indifference to open hostility. To most Conservatives, this can be very confusing, because they attach no emotion to these labels. If they use the "wrong" label, there is no disrespect intended, they do so innocently. Liberals fail to understand this, and also the fact that, should the occasion arise that a Conservative wished to denigrate or insult an individual, they can do it with a skill and wit that is devastating. If a Conservative insults you, you will probably never know it because they will not use the kind of obvious labels (NAZI, racist, homophobe, bigot, etc.) that the Left seem to favor.

Of course the opposite of all of this is also true, Conservatives have an irrational (given our experiences) expectation that Liberals will react to logical proposals in a reasoned, unemotional, manner. This invariably leads to Conservatives being blind-sided by their opposites. As an example, I return to one of my original President Bush positions, private accounts for Social Security. Any dispassionate, logical examination of private accounts reveals that they would be very good for younger citizens (their targeted group). Ownership, higher returns, and inheritability are all obvious advantages over the original system. The Liberal reaction to this is completely unexpected for Conservatives. The irrational fear that this will mean the end of Social Security, that President Bush really wants to destroy Social Security and that investment is too risky for people to try with their retirement funds, is astounding to Conservatives.

So, I say to you Mr. Thompson, you are under a gross misapprehension if you believe that I "hate" the Clintons. As a conservative, I leave the hating to those of you on the Left who do it so well. My opinions and observations result from my years of watching the former President and the Senator, and their behaviors while in the White House and after. That they are sociopaths, one can easily deduce from their lack of admission of wrongdoing, their complete lack of contrition for their actions, and their lack of any acknowledgement of his guilt, beyond that required to survive the former President's having been convicted of a felony, his disbarment by the Arkansas Bar, and having been impeached for his crimes. He remains the only President in America's entire history to have brought that level of shame upon the American Presidency, yet he seems to have absolutely no remorse or even recognition of having done any wrong (sociopathy). Any hatred I have is for their behavior while in the White House and the policies that they espouse, not for them personally. In fact it is very probable that I would enjoy a dinner with Bill considerably more than one with Tom Delay.

As to the remainder of your valiant but ultimately futile defense of Senator Hillary Clinton, I can only say that it defies credulity that so many controversial activities have occurred around her, and she has remained ignorant of them all. We are speaking, are we not, of the archetypical "Über-woman?" Beyond this current Galagate, I am referring specifically to the "sudden" appearance of the missing Rose Law Firm files, lying on a table in plain sight, in the second floor reading room of the White House, after an extended search for them failed to turn them up. Then there is the collection of 400-900 (depending on who you believe) FBI files on the Republicans who opposed the Clintons, nothing suspicious there, eh? Oh yeah, how about the firings at the White House travel office, and of course there is the entire Monica mess and subsequent cover-up. Yes, I can see why you would doubt her orchestration, or even complicity in this attempt to deceive the FEC and the American people. Why indeed would any "reasonable" person suspect her of knowing, just because her Campaign's Chief Financial Director has been indicted?

This is the woman who is, "so strong and intelligent that she intimidates most men?" Another projection by the wimps of the Left (we oppose her not because her intellect threatens us, we oppose her because of her socialist philosophy of government), who are in awe of her. Why is it that these Liberal women, who are supposed to be so intimidating, always seem to be in need of protection from their critics when something untoward happens around them? Why is it that they suddenly seem to be struck weak and unaware of all that happens around them? Do you recall how frail and weak she suddenly became when the diminutive young Rick Lazio "assaulted" her with a deadly piece of paper inscribed with an agreement not to use soft money. Remember how the MSM excoriated him for "attacking her?" Certainly, anyone looking at him would instantly feel threatened by him were he to approach them.

I may be guilty, at times, of buying a pig in a poke, but I don't buy Senator Hillary Clinton's profession of ignorance. Senator Clinton is the consummate politician. She is as savvy as they come. She may be shallow, predictable, petty, and vindictive, but she ain't dumb.

As to your cheap shot about Tom Delay, again I quote:

"Going beyond the fact that this gentleman [Nick Danger at RedState.org] is, by his own disclaimer, a paid shill against Senator Clinton; he is neglecting to point out that Leader DeLay has already been slapped with three knocks from the House Ethics Committee, before the current rash of problems involving Jack Abramoff."

I can only respond with the fact that, unlike former President William Jefferson Clinton, Majority Leader Tom Delay has never been convicted of committing any crime (he has not even been indicted or formally accused), something your boy can't say, and unlike Senator Ted Kennedy, Congressman Delay hasn't killed anyone, a statement that Teddy can't make.

The truth about Cons and Libs? Cons think, Libs feel.