The Liberals are the New Gays!

Soon, perhaps, loveable, harmless, purposely apolitical liberals will team up with tolerant conservatives in a smash sitcom that "breaks down barriers", as in Will & Grace. Newly domesticated, these liberals will do funny, sitcomesque things like -- pack up their own fast food orders in hemp, recyclable, organic boxes they bring from home! Attempt to identify strangers using no race-based, sex-based, looks-based, or age-based language! Institute a "Bring a Muslim to Work" day!
It will be funny, we'll all laugh, there will be product placement, and trend stories will be written that America Loves Liberals!

For now, tho, they are hated, despised, and feared. In return, they hate all of America. In the aftermath of the drubbing they received Tuesday, they have turned on the stupid masses. Bush is not just a moronic criminal mastermind used by evil (Jewish) neocons, he's now a vampire. My leftie friends (meaning all my friends) are obssessed with the "Jesusfreaks & Hillbillies" that gave us four more years.

But behind all of this is a question: Where to go now? That is, do the Democrats turn left or center?

Well, let me continue with my liberals are the new gays meme. Back in the early 90s, when I was a long-haired radical gay activist going to "Queer Nation" meetings in college and then retreating to San Francisco to join ACT UP, we got to create lots of Reagan-hating agit-prop. We got to march in anger and feel the thrill of being a RADICAL. But not all gays were "radicals". Some were "assimilationists". Today, we forget this dichotomy, because the entire gay world has been taken up by the tender hug of Ikea, Details, and other market-capitalist forces. The gays have moved to the suburbs and have become just normal folks that want to raise kids who are a little bit more stylish than everybody else.

But back then, it was an Issue. The assimilationists wanted to wear sweaters, stay out of trouble, and move to suburbia. The radicals wanted to SMASH HETEROSEXISM, link up with people of colors, the working class, and oppressed nations. The radicals wanted revolution. The assimilationists simply wanted equal rights. The liberation or assimilation question is now quaint for the gays. But for the liberals, it lives. Is America basically an evil country that needs to be redeemed, that needs to be taken apart and put back together? Are the evil forces of market capitalism (Halliburton!), crony capitalism (Halliburton!), racism (Free Mumia!), military colonialism (No Blood for Oil!), etc, so entrenched in Amerikka that we need some sort of revolution? A domestic intifada, perhaps?

Or should the liberals make their peace with an essentially good America and work on polishing this fine apple of a nation, perhaps by expanding health care? Or improving social security?

The gays have won by moving to the suburbs and marrying. Let us not forget that in the internal struggles of leftist gay activism in the early 90s, marriage rights were taken up by the assimilationist wing. Andrew Sullivan (Who I called an "Auntie Tom" in those days) was the most prominent supporter. I believed the struggle for gay marriage was right on its merits (discrimination sucks, dude) but wrong in its direction (Who wants to be a part of America? Let's live in polymorphously perverse communes!). But a few lawyers and a few Ernie & Berts got together and now it's making its way thru the system (Massachusetts and Vermont take it up! Backlash occurs! The American political system will straighten it out in all its wisdom, I'm confident).

And now, more and more gays are just normal folks. Even Andrew Sullivan is making his lovely journey from Reaganite to Bushite to Kerryite, and more power to him.

So too the libs and the left must make their choice. What is it to be? To retreat to a cocooned commune of Amerika hatred? Or to surrender to the general goodness of America and assimilate? America will move forward. The question is whether the left will too.


Blair: Israel is the Problem!

So, Bush won. My friends are either enraged, shocked, or depressed. I feel terrified that Kerry -- an internationalist/defeatist if there ever was one -- got so close. But that's for another time. More interesting right now is the reaction on the other side of the pond -- Blair, our "staunchest ally" in the war on terror. Bush wins, and what does Tony Blair want to turn to now? Maybe the tide of Islamist violence that in one day shot, stabbed, and cut the throat of a liberal film documentarian in the streets of Amsterdam? And attempted to blow up a stadium in Madrid (they didn't get the memo about the appeasement, I guess!)? And just beheaded a Thai village leader who happened to be a Buddhist infidel? Naaaaaaaaaah. Not really important right now. For Blair, what is important is -- you guessed it -- Israel! That's the problem. Here's the Jerusalem Post's take on Blair's immediate demands from a victorious Bush:
British Prime Minister Tony Blair devoted much of a brief speech congratulating President George W. Bush on his reelection Wednesday night to a call for a new coordinated effort to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Describing the need for such a solution as the "single most pressing political challenge in our world today,"Blair urged the president to seek peace "between Israel and Palestine" with the "same energy" that he has pursued his agenda in Iraq. Blair placed this quest in the context of "resolving the conditions and causes on which the terrorists prey."

Blair's dramatic emphasis on the issue, and his pledge to work with Bush to advance it, underlined the British prime minister's desire to be seen as seeking a dramatic Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough in order to pacify the vast contingent of critics, inside and outside his own Labor party, of his firm alliance with Bush over the Iraq war.

What to say? One, that Blair is said to be Israel's "best friend in Europe" shows how outlandish the pro-appeasement views on the continent must be. Two, what kind of global strategist is Blair who takes advantage of a great tactical victory in the ongoing terror war -- the Bush victory -- by signalling that perhaps it is now time to turn on the pressue on the vulnerable beachhead of democracy in the Middle East, Israel? Third, that by coming out with his "demands" so quickly, Blair
signals that a fundamental misreading of the enemy has taken hold even in the power centers of those nations which actually have proven they have a will to fight. And that's disturbing.

This is what one has to ignore if one claims that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is the "root cause" of Islamist terror:

1. Al Qaida's OWN declared ideology of Total War on the West, of pushing America out of the MidEast, forming an Islamic Caliphate on the ashes of today's middle-eastern and Islamic nations, of having a "right to kill" millions of Americans, is actually covering up their real desire, which is a two-state solution in Israel and the territories.

2. That Indonesian jihadis who attack Bali nightclubs and roast hundreds of people alive, that Chechnyan jihadis that take over a school and shoot babies in the back, that Nigerian muslims that burn Christian villages, that Moroccan jihadis who attempt to blow up trains and stadiums and railroad tracks, that Pakistani jihadis that car-bomb Shiite churches, and a host of other Islamic terror throughout the world is ACTUALLY a cry for a two-state solution in Israel and its territories.

3. That a Wahabi network of charities, mosques, and schools built up throughout the entire globe which preaches a feral anti-Westernism, a total rejection of the non-Muslim, calls Christians and Jews sons of pigs and dogs, and inveighs against the infidel West and all their secular immoralities will suddenly change course with a two-state solution in Israel and the territories.

4. That by appeasing Palestinian terrorist gangs using a death-cult ideology and suicide-bombers to wreak havoc on civilian populations, that death-cult ideology will dwindle and disappear -- instead of, say, draw strength from its great success.

Ahh, but that is what the post-modern European elitists believe, who have no patience for the Christian "faith" of our president, but who have endless faith in the essential goodness of the terrorists who, after all, are really only fighting for the terribly oppressed people of Palestine, even if they don't actually come out and say it.

Why would Blair, at the beginning of a war which is seemingly going badly for the enemy -- with elections in Afghanistan, Bin Laden's strangely conciliatory video released last week, and the failure of any arab nations to fall to Al Queda-inspired coups -- announce that what we really need to do now is pay the enemy tribute? It's as if after the battle of Midway, Churchill demanded that Roosevelt remove the economic blockade on Japan to give the moderates more breathing space. Or, more precisely, it mimics the European reaction to Hitler's open demands in 1938 to be given the "Sudetenland" in Czechoslovakia. here is William Shirer on this strange European habit of appeasement:
Thus the plight of the German minority in Czechoslovakia was merely a pretext ... for cooking up a stew in a land he coveted, undermining it, confusing and misleading its friends and concealing his real purpose ... to destroy the Czechoslovak state and grab its territories .... The leaders of France and Great Britain did not grasp this. All through the spring and summer, indeed almost to the end, Prime Minister Chamberlain and Premier Daladier apparently sincerely believed, along with most of the rest of the world, that all Hitler wanted was justice for his kinsfolk in Czechoslovakia.3
The parallel is not perfect, of course. In 1938, Hitler assured the French and British that all he wanted was the Sudetenland. Al Qaida and the jihadis have made no such assurance this time around.

But no matter. The Europeans demand appeasement even when they get no "assurances". Their reflex is to feed the beast lest it become hungry. We shall see if the Jews will once again pay the ultimate price for the sophisticated sensibilities of the Europeans.


Dems gamed Exit Polls?

Best explanation of the Exit Poll Scandal of 2004? The patrician Michael Barone:
If somebody had slipped some Democratic operative the list of exit poll sites—40 to 50 sites in each critical state—he or she could have slipped several hundred operatives into the polling places to take the exit poll ballots and vote for Kerry. The results would have shown Kerry much farther ahead than he actually was and, broadcast through drugdereport.com and other sources, could have heartened Kerry supporters during the afternoon and disheartened Bush supporters. When I was active in Democratic politics, in 1964-80, it would have occurred to us to do no such thing. But Democrats these days are so filled with a sense of grievance and with a feeling of justification for employing any dirty tactics to win, that this is not unthinkable. If people can game the exit polls, there's not much point to having exit polls any more.


Tale of a 9/12 Democrat!

That's not a typo! Let me explain. I am genetically programmed to hate Republicans. No, I'm not black -- I'm Jewish! For some reason, we all vote Democratic. It's the social-justice thing, they tell me. Or the collective unconscious memory of restrictive country clubs! Besides my Dad, who was ostracized from the family, I'd never even heard of a Jewish Republican.

Here are my bona-fides -- when I was a little cherub who couldn't even drive I volunteered for Walter Mondale. I was not just a born Democrat, I had an inbred sympathy for obvious losers! I passed out Mondale-Ferraro pamphlets and had absolutely no embarassment at all! I knew in my heart that Reagan was an evil heartless man who was waging an assault on the poor. He was a trigger-happy cowboy! He created the homeless problem!

Things got more left from there. I discovered I was gay! That made me hate Reagan and Bush and Republicans even more. I joined ACT-UP in college and protested the system, raining special bile down on Reagan and Bush and all of them. I even hated Andrew Sullivan! (more on that later). I moved to a lefty city-state after college and joined a Democratic political consulting firm for a few years. So I've walked the walk and talked the talk! I fought for my party, I cried when Clinton was elected, I rallied around him when the evil Repubs tried to impeach him, and ranted about Bush stealing the election in 2000.

So the morning of 9/11, I woke up in my apartment on the Lower East Side of Manhattan a lefty Democrat. I was, no kidding, even living with a delightful French Arab girl named Jamilla. I was a UN-loving, multi-culti Bush hater even on 9/11 -- note this segment of my journal of that terrible day:

People are getting together at my friend Chad’s house. It’s his Birthday. He cancelled his party. But still, he wants to be together with the people he loves. I bike over there. The city is abandoned. Nobody is on the street. Most of the stores are shut down. I’ve never seen it like this. The cops have closed off my part of Manhattan. Is this how the world ends? I get to Chad’s.

It seems normal there. But everyone is watching the projection TV. Happy Birthday Chad! We all knew your birthday was a day that was going to live in infamy, hahaha. Bush is on the TV. I can’t watch him! He’s not my President! He looks overwhelmed. He’s trying to reassure us! Ha! Bush is trying to reassure us!

So I never liked Bush! (OK, OK, now I realize this is just a defensive pre-emptive strike to deter attacks on me as a Republican bloodthirsty warmonger. I still feel guilty! Somewhere not so deep inside it is forbiddent to support Repubs. So sue me!)

It really was the post-9/11 reaction by the Left which I found so disturbing, so pathologically delusional in their refusal to deal with the existance of evil, so desperate to link all bad acts in the world to America, that pushed me away from the left. Some examples (grabbed for convenience' sake from andrewsullivan.com) in that time was SF supervisor Amos Brown blaming 9/11 on American failure to be nice at the Global Warming summit .

Also note the initial reaction of Michael Moore -- THE ugly, gluttonous id of the American left (in this case, the id stands for idiot) --

"Many Families have been devastated tonight. This is just not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC and the planes' destination of California - these where places that voted AGAINST Bush!"

Americans did deserve to die -- just not all the ones that Bin Laden killed!

Or Susan Sontag, a leftist intellectual hero in my milieu--

Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a "cowardly" attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or "the free world" but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions?

That first week, trying to find my poise, trying to make sense of the world after the attacks, I saw very clearly that some on the Left were, well, pretty happy about the whole thing. Not overjoyed, but they found the attack useful. America was the problem, you see, and this might just wake us up! They were using the mass murder of 9/11 to score points for "their team" -- to bash these "specific American alliances and actions" that they supposed were causing all this unpleasantness. It was just too ugly to bear, the intellectual equivalent of Palestianians dancing in the street after the towers fell.

So I moved away. Slowly. The absolute best explanation of the revulsion I felt at my former home in the left was penned (keystroked?) by Ron Rosenbaum in the NY Observer. A classic.

So, today, I am neither left nor right. I count myself as a single-issue voter. If one believes that the War on Islamic Fascism is the single most important issue of our day, as I do, and that this War cannot be solely diplomatic but will include military threats, actions, incursions, or outright invasions in the future, then I don't understand how anyone can vote for John Kerry. Guys, get real. He voted AGAINST the first Persian Gulf War when Saddam had invaded a sovereign country, sat on a quarter of the world's oil, threatened Saudi Arabia, and even the rotting UN roused itself to demand he withdraw or face consequences. He is not the man to lead in wartime.

Best description of my views of the global situation, the Islamist enemy, historical background, where Iraq fits in can be found here (warning! PDF file!)

We are in the beginning of World War IV. Against an enemy that must be killed, broken, and rebuilt. Tonight, all free peoples should pray that Republican George Bush be re-elected. And my family and friends should pray for my eternal soul.