November 08, 2004


A friend of mine noticed something in a friend of his (whom I also know), that I'd been noticing in a number of people that I mercilessly mock. Friend-of-friend is a died-in-the-wool Minnesota liberal.

This friend-of-a-friend had had a dream - her husband was being hauled off to a re-education camp out west somewhere.

Pal remarked "People dream about what is in their own subconscious. No Republican has ever talked about sending liberals to camps". Well, maybe J.B. Doubltless once in a while, but that'd be an aberration.

"I think she's projecting her own beliefs on us".

That rang a bell.

Bear with me here.

I was listening to Fast Eddie Schultz today, as I was driving around doing some business.

For those who don't know, Eddie Schultz is a know-nothing former conservative blowhard who switched horses a year or two ago and became a blowhard, know-nothing liberal talk show host.

Eddie is a dim bulb; he was a terrible sportscaster, a fourth-rate conservative host, and if I were a liberal (koff koff) he'd embarass me.

Today (the show was a rerun from last week), he croaked "That's what it's all about to them, ..." (conservatives are always "them" in Fast Eddie Schultz' world) "...God, Guns and Gays".

So. To 51% of the American people, it all comes down to Bible-thumpin', Shootin' and Gay Bashin'. To them. (Oy. Now I'm doing it).

Last week, Slate released a series of articles, "Why Americans Hate Democrats". It included a irredeemably smug and blinkered piece by a frequently-adequate novelist, Jane Smiley. The piece was a treasure trove of Smug-Blinkered-Liberal-Watching joy. The basic thesis: "Conservatives are too dumb for the rest of us.

This particular bit was the big daddy:

Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell.
Er, yeah, some Christians will do that.

But I've heard no Christian - certainly no Christian that anyone would take seriously if they weren't digging for ammunition to use against All Red-State Christians - say any such thing about the election.

But I have heard plenty of the secular, obverse equivalent; commentators from the left with jeremiads about how spurning their "gospel" was a sign of how far we'd fallen, of the horrors - indeed, the hell - we'd endure for rejecting The Word.

Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it.
And yet there's a reason that people become more conservative as they grow up, get out of their teens and twenties, have kids, buy houses, and start paying taxes. Liberalism is simple; Dennis Kucinich's message is easily digestible by any six-year-old; "Everybody should have what they need; people who have more should share. Fighting is bad, and you should stop right away. Guns are icky. People should do what makes them feel good, and nobody should be sad" It's when you grow up that you learn nuance. That's what creates Poli Sci majors from Macalester. Then you grow up a little more, and learn to wrap nuance around reality. It requires conscious thought at a level that'd baffle a six-year-old.

And still seems to baffle many adults: "I believe in God. You're free to believe anything you want, but I vote my conscience, and that's something God drives.

I believe in the citizen's right to defend him or herself. War is always horrible, and should always be the last resort - but it's not the worst thing imaginable. The worst thing is what people in Iraq went through, and the people of North Korea and Darfur are going through now - having a war fought against you and being unable to defend yourself.

I have no problem with gays, truly - but I need some convincing before I vote to change the institution of marriage, and if you'd rather find a friendly judge than convince me to vote with you, then you won't like my vote when I finally get my chance".

Simple? Sure. But it takes some thought to reach the simple solution. More than, say, "If you don't agree with me, you're a bible-thumping, gun-toting yay-hoo!".

Smiley continues:

Next, they tell you that you are the best of a bad lot (humans, that is) and that as bad as you are, if you stick with them, you are among the chosen. This is flattering and reassuring, and also encourages you to imagine the terrible fates of those you envy and resent. American politicians ALWAYS operate by a similar sort of flattery, and so Americans are never induced to question themselves. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter—he asked Americans to take responsibility for their profligate ways, and promptly lost to Ronald Reagan, who told them once again that they could do anything they wanted. The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be told what to do—they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable.
Viewing oneself as a chosen, above reason and criticism... this?

The "best of a bad lot" join the good people. The sinners - and to the left, being called "ignorant" is the only sin - are cast into the pit (which, to a liberal, is called "Mississippi" or "Alabama", or, now, "Jesusland". Flattering? Sure.

Sign that one may be unteachable? After 2000, I predicted that the left would have to run back toward the center. The moonbat left had not served the Democrats well - racing to the far left has never won the Democrats an untainted election (voters in 1976 were voting as much against Watergate as for Carter's dimbulb agenda). I was wrong.

But it's conservatives that are unteachable. Go figger.

Steyn notes:

In affirming the traditional definition of marriage in 11 state referenda, from darkest Mississippi to progressive enlightened Kerry-supporting Oregon, the American people were not expressing their "gay-loathin' ", so much as declining to go the [sneering Guardian reporter] Kelly route and have their betters tell them what they can think. They're not going to have marriage redefined by four Massachusetts judges and a couple of activist mayors. That doesn't make them Bush theo-zombies marching in lockstep to the gay lynching, just freeborn citizens asserting their right to dissent from today's established church - the stifling coercive theology of political correctness enforced by a secular episcopate.
In other words, people applying "complex thought" to an issue, as opposed to saying "If you're not with us, you're a moron".
As Americans were voting on marriage and marijuana and other matters, the Rotterdam police were destroying a mural by Chris Ripke that he'd created to express his disgust at the murder of Theo van Gogh by Islamist crazies. Ripke's painting showed an angel and the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Unfortunately, his workshop is next to a mosque, and the imam complained that the mural was "racist", so the cops arrived, destroyed it, arrested the television journalists filming it and wiped their tape. Maybe that would ring a bell with [another arrogant Guardian reporter] Oliver James's mum.

As ironic as the fact that the party of "Free Speech" is the party that pushed the hardest for the "Campaign Finance Reforms" that took ordinariy citizens out of the free speech business, but delivered it gift-wrapped to George Soros.

As ironic as the "Party of the People"'s contempt and distrust of the people, and exclusive reliance on judges to get their agenda passed.

As ironic as the party of the First Amendment pushing to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine, which would shut down conservative talk radio - the only broadcast balance to the mainstream media's corrosive, pervasive leftward bias.

As ironic as the party of people who proclaim a partisanship for peace sending gangs of thugs to harass GOP offices.

As ironic as a party full of people awash in hatred for Republicans in turn accusing Republicans of being awash in hate.

God, Guns and Gays? It should be "Faith, Trust and Respect", which I'll take over Pusillanimity, Pandering and Projection any day.

Posted by Mitch at November 8, 2004 05:31 AM | TrackBack

2a. Freudian Projection
The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.

"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

"The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."

"Attributing one's own undesirabe traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."

"The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."

"People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."

"Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."

Posted by: Sharpshooter at November 8, 2004 03:22 PM last thing: the word that comes to mind (regarding my previous post) is HATE.

Dem's/leftist's wrote the book on that one.

Oh yes, an Ludwig vonMises had a good writeup on that in his 1944 book "Liberalism".

Sixty years later, not a damn thing has changed except that now the purveyors of hate completely dominate the Democratic party.

Posted by: Sharpshooter at November 8, 2004 03:25 PM

Projection is what a good deal of Ann Coulter's book, Slander, is about. If you want to know what Liberals are up to, and what they think of people, listen to what they accuse Conservatives of. Once I understood this, I "got" why libs are so terrified of conservative judges: they assume that our side will be as activist as theirs has been. Their "Bush hatred" is as irrational and emotion based as they claimed our "Clinton hatred" was. And of course, libs have been calling conservatives stupid for decades.

The word for these guys isn't "unteachable", it's "insane". They keep doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

Posted by: mlp at November 8, 2004 06:15 PM