Dan Riehl links to a leftwing blogger who ironically dubs his writing, “A black bourgeoisie perspective on U.S. politics” — If so, the hard left tone of his post is doing a remarkable job of keeping any sort of traditional definition of a bourgeois perspective in check.
Dan writes:
Here’s all the misguided and weak liberal rationalization you’ll need for the entire weekend. They’re beginning to panic because the American people are rejecting their new messiah. As if that wasn’t going to happen if he tried to convert America into some quasi-Marxist state. Somehow they believed Obama was going to be able to hide who he was during the election, but everything would be good if he could only win.
As if America wouldn’t catch on to him. That’s so foolish. These people are unrealistic to the max. The real clincher in this is that Obama would be the first guy to negotiate with genuine terrorists if he could. One of his best friends was one – Bill Ayers.
When Will This White House Learn You Cannot Negotiate With Terrorists?
Too often, this White House has sent the signal that it seeks common ground and conciliation with parties interested in its total destruction. From my point of view, negotiating with ignorance, fear, hate and irrationality is insane.
But hey, Ayers was just some guy in the neighborhood. And it’s a good thing our moderate, centrist president himself never studied a political philosophy that would cause him to believe he was actually at war with a vast swatch of the American people…
Speaking of which, Ann Althouse notices a similar tone emanating from Timothy Rutten in the L.A. Times, who writes:
[Q]uite a number of people … seem to believe that Obama intends to induct their children into — well, it’s not quite clear what they’re afraid of. The Web and talk radio are abuzz with various attempts to organize a boycott of Tuesday’s speech….
[There is a] process at work in the healthcare hysteria and, increasingly, elsewhere where the GOP thinks it can shove the Obama administration into a ditch. Republican officials … are playing a dangerous game with an unhinged segment of public opinion that regards Obama not as an elected official with whom they disagree, but as an illegitimate usurper of the presidency.
That paranoid fantasy is what’s really behind the ‘birther’ movement and the allegations that the president is — take your pick — a secret Marxist or a secret Muslim.
As Ann responds:
Come on! This is absurd. You’re stringing one thing after another and claiming it’s all part of a big scheme. That itself is paranoid ideation.
And this is the kind of fanciful anxiety that produces columns like this….
Good lord, somebody posted a comment on a website somewhere and in Rutten’s fevered brain it’s all: yes, yes, this is exactly the way it is…. this, this is the problem!!!11!!!11!!!
Get a grip, man.
These are the people who are stockpiling ammunition and keeping their children at home next Tuesday.
What people?! The people! The people! You know: THE PEOPLE!!!! The PEOPLE WITH GUNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSS………
Back in January of 2005, after a couple of months of listening to the media drone on about the horrid culture that would re-elect the eeeevil Bushitlerhalibutonreich to another four years, James Lileks wrote:
Once upon a time the major media at least pretended that the heart & soul of the country was a porch in Kansas with an American flag. Now it’s the outlands, the Strange Beyond. They vote for Bush, they believe in God, they’d have to drive 2 hours for decent Thai. Who are these people?
That the MSM continues this tone almost five years later, and then wonders why more people aren’t more concerned about their demise would make for a remarkable case study in cognitive dissonance.
I could think of an excellent title for such a report’s findings, but it’s already been taken.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member