Is Anyone Even Listening To Leftist Elites Anymore?

NATO AIR

Senior Member
Jun 25, 2004
4,275
285
48
USS Abraham Lincoln
Ouch! Hanson, with brutal honesty, tears apart the last legitimacy the Leftists have in the wake of the successful Iraq elections.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200502040750.asp

The Global Throng
Why the world’s elites gnash their teeth.

Do we even remember "all that" now? The lunacy that appeared after 9/11 that asked us to look for the "root causes" to explain why America may have "provoked" spoiled mama's boys like bin Laden and Mohammed Atta to murder Americans at work? Do we recall the successive litany of "you cannot win in Afghanistan/you cannot reconstruct such a mess/you cannot jumpstart democracy there"? And do we have memory still of "Sharon the war criminal," and "the apartheid wall," and, of course, "Jeningrad," the supposed Israeli-engineered Stalingrad — or was it really Leningrad? Or try to remember Arafat in his Ramallah bunker talking to international groupies who flew in to hear the old killer's jumbled mishmash about George Bush, the meanie who had ostracized him.

Then we were told that if we dared invade the ancient caliphate, Saddam would kill thousands and exile millions more. And when he was captured in a cesspool, the invective continued during the hard reconstruction that oil, Halliburton, the Jews, the neocons, Richard Perle, and other likely suspects had suckered us into a "quagmire" or was it now "Vietnam redux"? And recall that in response we were supposed to flee, or was it to trisect Iraq? The elections, remember, would not work — or were held too soon or too late. And give the old minotaur Senator Kennedy his due, as he lumbered out on the eve of the Iraqi voting to hector about its failure and call for withdrawal — one last hurrah that might yet rescue the cherished myth that the United States had created another Vietnam and needed his sort of deliverance.

And then there was the parade of heroes who were media upstarts of the hour — the brilliant Hans Blixes, Joe Wilsons, Anonymouses, and Richard Clarkes — who came, wrote their books, did their fawning interviews on 60 Minutes, Nightline, and Larry King, and then faded to become footnotes to our collective pessimism.

Do not dare forget our Hollywood elite. At some point since 9/11, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Meryl Streep, Jessica Lange, Whoopi Goldberg, and a host of others have lectured the world that their America is either misled, stupid, evil, or insane, bereft of the wisdom of Hollywood's legions of college drop-outs, recovering bad boys, and self-praised autodidacts.

Remember the twisted logic of the global throng as well: Anyone who quit the CIA was a genius in his renegade prognostication; anyone who stayed was a toady who botched the war. Three- and four-star generals who went on television or ran for office were principled dissidents who "told the truth"; officers in the field who kept quiet and saved Afghanistan and Iraq were "muzzled" careerists. Families of the 9/11 victims who publicly trashed George Bush offered the nation "grassroots" cries of the heart; the far greater number who supported the war on terror were perhaps "warped" by their grief.

There were always the untold "minor" embarrassments that we were to ignore as the slight slips of the "good" people — small details like the multibillion-dollar Oil-for-Food scandal that came to light due to the reporting of a single brave maverick, Claudia Rosett, or Rathergate, disclosed by "pajama"-clad bloggers without journalism degrees from Columbia, sojourns at the Kennedy School, or internships with the Washington Post. To put it into Animal Farm speak: elite New York Times, CBS News, and PBS good; populist bloggers, talk-radio, and cable news bad.

In place of Harry Truman and JFK we got John Kerry calling the once-maimed Prime Minister Allawi a "puppet," Senator Murray praising bin Laden's social-welfare work, Senator Boxer calling Secretary of State Rice a veritable liar for agreeing with the various casus belli that Boxer's own Senate colleagues had themselves passed in October 2002. And for emotional and financial support, the Democratic insiders turned to George Soros and Michael Moore, who assured them that their president was either Hitlerian, a dunce, or a deserter.

Then there was our media's hysteria: Donald Rumsfeld should be sacked in the midst of war; Abu Ghraib was the moral equivalent of everything from Saddam's gulag to the Holocaust; the U.S. military purportedly tried to kill reporters; and always the unwillingness or inability to condemn the beheaders, fascists, and suicide murderers, who sought to destroy any shred of liberalism. Meanwhile, the isolation of a corrupt Arafat, the withdrawal of 10,000 Americans from a Wahhabi theocracy, the transformation of the world's far-right monstrosities into reformed democracies, and the pull-back of some troops from Germany and the DMZ went unnoticed.

What explains this automatic censure of the United States, Israel, and to a lesser extent the Anglo-democracies of the United Kingdom and Australia? Westernization, coupled with globalization, has created an affluent and leisured elite that now gravitates to universities, the media, bureaucracies, and world organizations, all places where wealth is not created, but analyzed, critiqued, and lavishly spent.

Thus we now expect that the New York Times, Harper's, Le Monde, U.N. functionaries who call us "stingy," French diplomats, American writers and actors will all (1) live a pretty privileged life; (2) in recompense "feel" pretty worried and guilty about it; (3) somehow connect their unease over their comfort with a pathology of the world's hyperpower, the United States; and (4) thus be willing to risk their elite status, power, or wealth by very brave acts such as writing anguished essays, giving pained interviews, issuing apologetic communiqués, braving the rails to Davos, and barking off-the-cuff furious remarks about their angst over themes (1) through (3) above. What a sad contrast they make with far better Iraqis dancing in the street to celebrate their voting.

There is something else to this shrillness of the global throng besides the obvious fact of hypocrisy — that very few of the world's Westernized cynical echelon ever move to the ghetto to tutor those they champion in the abstract, reside in central Africa to feed the poor, give up tenure to ensure employment for the exploited lecturer, or pass on the Washington or New York A-list party to eat in the lunch hall with the unwashed. Davos after all, is not quite central Bolivia or the Sudan.

First, there is a tremendous sense of impotence. Somehow sharp looks alone, clever repartee, long lists of books read and articles cited, or global travel do not automatically result in commensurate power. So what exactly is wrong with these stupid people of Nebraska who would elect a dense, Christian-like George Bush when a Gore Vidal, George Soros, Ben Affleck, Bruce Springsteen, or Ted Kennedy warned them not to?

If the American Left is furious over the loss of most of the nation's governorships and legislatures, the U.S. House, the Senate, the presidency, and soon the Supreme Court, the Europeans themselves are furious over America's power — as if Red America is to Blue America as America is to Europe itself. Thus how can a mongrel culture of Taco Bell, Bud Light, and Desperate Housewives project such military and political influence abroad when the soft, subtle triangulation of far more cultured diplomats and sophisticated intellectuals from France, Germany, and Scandinavia is ignored by thugs from Iran, North Korea, and most of the Middle East?

Why would the world listen to a stumbling George Bush when it could be mesmerized by a poet, biographer, aristocrat, and metrosexual of the caliber of a Monsieur Dominique de Villepin? Why praise brave Iraqis lining up to vote, while at the same hour the defeated John Kerry somberly intones on Tim Russert's show that he really did go into Cambodia to supply arms to the mass-murdering Khmer Rouge — a statement that either cannot be true or is almost an admission of being a party to crimes against humanity if it is.

Second, political powerlessness follows from ideological exhaustion. Communism and Marxism are dead. Stalin and Mao killed over 80 million and did not make omelets despite the broken eggs. Castro and North Korea are not classless utopias but thugocracies run by megalomaniac dictators who the world prays will die any minute. The global Left knows that the Cold War is over and was lost by the Left, and that Eastern Europeans and Central Americans probably cherish the memory of a Ronald Reagan far more than that of a Francois Mitterrand or Willy Brandt.

But it is still more disheartening than that. In the 1960s and 1970s we were told that free-market America was becoming an anachronism. Remember Japan, Inc., whose amalgam of "Asian Values" and Western capitalism presaged the decline of the United States? Europeanists still assured us that a 35-hour work week, cradle-to-grave entitlement, and secularism were to be the only workable Western paradigms — before high unemployment, low growth, stagnant worker productivity, unassimilated minorities, declining birthrates, and disarmament suggested that just maybe something is going very wrong in a continent that is not so eager for either God or children.

Perhaps the result of this frustration is that European intellectuals damn the United States for action in Iraq, but lament that they could do nothing in the Balkans. Democrats at home talk of the need for idealism abroad, but fear the dirty road of war that sometimes is part of that bargain — thus the retreat into "democracy is good, BUT..." So here we have the global throng that focuses on one purported American crime to the next, as it simmers in the luxury of its privilege, education, and sophistication — and exhibits little power, new ideas, intellectual seriousness, or relevance.

In this context, the Iraqi elections were surely poorly attended, or illegitimate, or ruined by violence, or irrelevant, or staged by America — or almost anything other than a result of a brave, very risky, and costly effort by the United States military to destroy a fascist regime and offer something better in its place.

Yet as Yeehah! Howard Dean takes over the Democratic party, as Kojo Annan's dad limps to the end of his tenure, and as a Saddam-trading Jacques Chirac talks grandly of global airfare taxes to help the poor, they should all ask themselves whether a weary public is listening any longer to the hyped and canned stories of their own courage and brilliance.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com.
 
Great find, NA! I hope this makes for uncomfortable reading in the places where it is merited.
 
Reading the State of the Union Adress seems to suggest that the president is listening to the leftist elites. Espousing such elitist things as multilateralism, fiscal responsibility, and the increased use of soft power, I am a bit surprised no one on the board has called him a communist yet.
 
Huckleburry said:
Reading the State of the Union Adress seems to suggest that the president is listening to the leftist elites. Espousing such elitist things as multilateralism, fiscal responsibility, and the increased use of soft power, I am a bit surprised no one on the board has called him a communist yet.

Those arent elitist leftist idea. President Bush has been encouraging all three of them since 2000. Where on earth have you been? It was John Kerry who was critisizing the Presidents use of multilateral talks with North Korea. He critisized the President for doing it one on one. We wouldnt have any problem with national debt if the President hadnt inherited a recession and then if we hadnt been attacked on 911. Rebuilding the military and intelligence communities are priorities right now. And now in his second term the President is taking a hard line against the liberal spenders. its time to halt the growth of government. exactly as every single conservative wants.

As for sort power, the President has always advocated using every resource at our disposal to fight the war on terror whether its military or diplomatic. this isnt anything new. so why would we accuse him of communism for mentioning it?
 
My point was that this board has an odd view of what the "leftist elites" actually think and advocate. In a broad sense everyone is on the same side and, in general, believes in the same ends. The debate arises over timing and appropriate means. I spend allot of time with "liberal elites" and have never heard a single one of them espouse any of the things that they are accused of by the right. If civilized and intelligent discourse were to replace point and yell debate and what I call sports casting news I think that the right and left would find they agree on allot more than they formally believed. Ultimately our system affects us all, were not a sports team in which the right can "win" at the expense of the left. If either side errors than those errors effect us all. If there are very smart people on both sides of the fence than wouldn’t the country benefit more from those folks talking over issues rather than spending all their time discrediting each other?
 
Huckleburry said:
My point was that this board has an odd view of what the "leftist elites" actually think and advocate. In a broad sense everyone is on the same side and, in general, believes in the same ends. The debate arises over timing and appropriate means. I spend allot of time with "liberal elites" and have never heard a single one of them espouse any of the things that they are accused of by the right. If civilized and intelligent discourse were to replace point and yell debate and what I call sports casting news I think that the right and left would find they agree on allot more than they formally believed. Ultimately our system affects us all, were not a sports team in which the right can "win" at the expense of the left. If either side errors than those errors effect us all. If there are very smart people on both sides of the fence than wouldn’t the country benefit more from those folks talking over issues rather than spending all their time discrediting each other?

The left won't discuss the issues. Half the time they're trying to convince you they're actually not anti american communists, but when it gets down to it, that's what they are. There is no rational reason to embrace the state of perpetual fear the left endorses.
 
Huckleburry said:
Thanks for demonstrating my point.

See, if you cared about discussing you would have asked, "what perpetual state of fear?", or disagreed, or something constructive. Instead, you pull the equivalent of an adhominem attack. Why is that?
 
Huckleburry said:
My point was that this board has an odd view of what the "leftist elites" actually think and advocate.

Perhaps we do have an "odd view". But mine was formed by the statements and actions of leftists during the last three years. So thank the Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon, Ed Asner, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, the idiot mayor of San Francisco, Howard Dean, the ketchup lady, George Soros etc etc etc etc. My views are not something I cooked up from my favorite recipe for paranoia. My views have been "seared" into my psyche by your lib icons.

Huckleburry said:
In a broad sense everyone is on the same side and, in general, believes in the same ends.

That is simply not true.

Were the nutbars who attempted to block the loading of ships which were carrying supplies to our troops in Iraq on the same side as I? Nope.

Are people like the Dixie Chicks, who bad-mouth our president to foreigners in a foreign land on the same side? Don't think so.

What about kerry - the "war hero" of the left? What side was he on when he suggested that we have to let the UN decide our actions against terrorism. I don't think he was on our side.

Was kerry on our side when he called the newly elected PM of Iraq a "puppet"? Not only no, but hell no.

The fact is that the radical left is on no one's side but their own. They have become so desperate by being displaced from power that they will sell out anything - including their country - to regain that power. Like a drug addict, the radical left has come to depend on the power of politically correct speech codes, affirmative action, eco-terrorism and a cornucopia of government handout programs. When they lost the last election despite an orgy of vituperation against the President, despite fear-mongering about the draft, despite doom and gloom predictions in Afghanistan and Iraq, they turned into a pack of bitter, shell-shocked addicts on withdrawal. They care only for another fix of power and will do anything to get it. Even if it means selling out the country that they allege to support.

Huckleburry said:
The debate arises over timing and appropriate means. I spend allot of time with "liberal elites" and have never heard a single one of them espouse any of the things that they are accused of by the right.

First, the debate is NOT over timing and never has been. The left waits until Pres. Bush makes a decision, then they come out against it. If you doubt that assertion, then explain why leftist politicians made all kinds of dire statements regarding the threat of WMDs from Iraq during the CLINTON administration. (I know that's not something y'all like to discuss) But when Pres. Bush used the same data, the same intelligence, now he's accused of being a liar, duping the Congress and concocting a war for his own petty motives of revenge. If that's not good enough - explain why the left started a scare tactic about the draft. Explain why DEMOCRATIC senators introduced a measure to reinstate the draft. Are these the actions of people who have the best interest of the nation at heart? Are these the actions of people who are on the "same side" as those who seek to stamp out terrorism? Fat chance. And finally, let's talk about the social security program. Remember how we had a "crisis" in social security which needed to be fixed posthaste to prevent a meltdown of the system? Remember the DEMOCRATS under the CLINTON administration making dire predictions of the imminent failure of the system? Where the hell are they now? Oh, I know - now that Pres. Bush has suggested reform measures, suddenly there is no cirisis. What a bunch of whores. They're not on MY side and I hope they're not on yours either.

So it's not timing, it's simply all about the lust for power and the pathetic attempt to regain that power by any means possible. The left is making it as difficult as possible for the Republican administration to govern effectively. They are doing that in a shameless, traitorous campaign to cause any program sponsored by the Bush administration to fail and we will all suffer for it if they succeed.

Huckleburry said:
If civilized and intelligent discourse were to replace point and yell debate and what I call sports casting news I think that the right and left would find they agree on allot more than they formally believed.

That may be true. But the fact is that most of the hysterical screeching is emanating from the left. Leftists have called the President a liar, a murderer, a sponsor of torture, a thief, stupid, incompetent, and an entire litany of invectives too long to list. Conservatives were not that bad even during the attempt to impeach Clinton for perjury.

So if the left is looking for a dialogue, they first need to learn to shut the hell up and listen. Right now it appears to me that the leftist idea of dialogue is they stand up with a bull horn and if anyone else attempts to speak, they're out of line. Well 59 million voters emphatically gave leftist the finger in the last election. Leftists need to learn - and they can't lean while they're running their big mouths. If they want to learn, they need to learn to listen to the voters.

Huckleburry said:
If there are very smart people on both sides of the fence than wouldn’t the country benefit more from those folks talking over issues rather than spending all their time discrediting each other?

Yes, we would. And the fact is that there are plenty of smart people on both sides of the aisles in Congress. The only problem is that party ideology has trumped service to the nation. Perhaps the Republicans are guilty of the same thing to some degree. But there is no way that Republicans have engaged in anything approximating the virulent hatred being spewed by the radical left.

Huck, I suspect that your post was more reflective of your personal attitudes than the attitudes of the Democratic party. But it appears to me that moderate liberals who do not hate the administration or who do not despise their own country have lost control of their party. Rabid win-at-any-price hacks have taken the reins of the Democrat wagon.

Until you can kick these degenerate, power-crazed vermin out of the party and back under their rocks where they belong, the Democratic party is due for many years of REALLY lean times. 59 million voters rejected the leftist agenda. Four years from now, I think they will still remember what went on last year, the year before and the year before that. The shameful history of the liberal left will taint them and their candidates for years to come. And given the fact that the Democratic party may hand the leadership of the party to that loon Howard Dean, it appears that the prospect of having the Democratic party return to a saner state is dim. Very dim indeed.
 
First, the debate is NOT over timing and never has been. The left waits until Pres. Bush makes a decision, then they come out against it. If you doubt that assertion, then explain why leftist politicians made all kinds of dire statements regarding the threat of WMDs from Iraq during the CLINTON administration. (I know that's not something y'all like to discuss) But when Pres. Bush used the same data, the same intelligence, now he's accused of being a liar, duping the Congress and concocting a war for his own petty motives of revenge.
I wish more people would point this out to the "Bush lied, people died" losers, not that it would make a difference.
 
First, the debate is NOT over timing and never has been. The left waits until Pres. Bush makes a decision, then they come out against it.

Have to disagree here. Democrats were coming out opposed to the President's social security plan before he has even presented his social security plan. So they are coming out against the decision before he makes it. how ridiculous is that.
 
Avatar4321 said:
Have to disagree here. Democrats were coming out opposed to the President's social security plan before he has even presented his social security plan. So they are coming out against the decision before he makes it. how ridiculous is that.

LOL - true enough, but that's not the kind of timing to which I was referring.

:)
 

Forum List

Back
Top