You are so right.

Of ocurse, many Americans vote for someone while holding their noses all of the time. Bush or Kerry, they vote for the lesser of two evils.

Problem is, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Why should we vote for evil at all?

Psych Watch

This is an excellent analysis! The Bush hatred must stem from the fear he is right to use American power!

Highly Interesting.

"Problem is, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Why should we vote for evil at all?"

Because we're adults. And utopia is not an option.

Nice post. But it was not just the VietNam war...there is a tradition of thought going back centuries that feeds these liberal elites. This is not an explicit or conscious philosophy so much as a set of unquestioned assumptions - the water in which they swim. I wrote an extended post on this at http://Wildmonk.net (it is the only article there). I'd be interested in hearing your feedback.

"men of breeding"???

Was it not the last election cycle that we heard that "W" was a faux Texan, having all the blue blood of the WASPy Bush clan, and therefore could not truly lead the masses?

Now, 4 years later, he is a genuine Texas neanderthal and our only hope is with one noble Kerry pedigree.

"It's not like John Kerry hasn't tried to run for President before, and got nowhere, not even out of the early democrat primaries."

Actually, this is the first time John Kerry has run for president. I don't know how seriously he thought about running in previous years, but he never actually entered a primary until 2000.

Wildmonk: Your reading material is way too small -- like the fine print in a cell phone contract. Maybe you have some good ideas there -- who knows? -- but I'm not willing to risk eyestrain to find out.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.

I have for a while believed in the premise of this post, but would speak more to the Vietnam era than to just Vietnam itself. That is, the aging left of my generation -- which includes not only the righteous mainstream media, but also the "noble" liberal bench throughout the country -- longs for the days of triumph on great causes. Not just the Vietnam war but civil rights, the environment, and similar were great causes being championed by the enlightened generation. Now, notwithstanding some issues with environmental stewardship, most of these great causes have been resolved or, like communism, been proven false. Consequently, with the election of GWB, the ascendency of Republicans to control of both houses of Congress and, yes, the return of "nazi-like" flag-waving patriotism in the common citizen, the elites see a once-growing power wane to potential insignificance. And they are mad about it (I had the misfortune of catching Chris Matthews the other night. As many in the blogosphere are hinting, Man, I think his head is about to implode!) It is ironic that "liberals" who are supposed to be "progressive" cling so desparately to the past.

Bam! You nailed it Varifrank.

Daniel McA -- thank you for applying the appropriate level of adult supervision.

I was an ex-military (pre-Vietnam) student on the campus of the University of Washington (very liberal) in 1968 and witnessed the political birth of this generation. I have never read a more cogent discription of their evolution. Excellent post.

Nailed it. The Me Generation got the candidate it deserves and is only now beginning to realize they're lost in the fever swamps with a history that didn't happen and a guy who can't read a map. It seems the adults were right afterall...

Yes, Varifrank and yes, "Wildmonk" Dr. Brittingham! Font size and content on both posts clear and excellent.

Does this count?

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004867.html

It's a picture of a Volvo with a W 04 sticker in it, of which the American flag is a small part.

that's great! That's like a picture of sasquatch. I wonder what the story is behind that?

You've inspired me to blog a bit about this. One thought: an earlier generation of lefties, who sided with Stalin, had to pay for their sins in the "McCarthy Era."

They felt aggrieved then, but actually they were lucky--most of them were able to move on, and many became strong anti-communists. Even if they didn't, there was less of a problem of things unmentioned, hanging over them.

Note to Joshua: Most browsers let you adjust text size. At least mine does.

Yeah, and I thought I was the only one who noticed the Left's sever aversion to the American flag.

Hmmm.

"You've inspired me to blog a bit about this. One thought: an earlier generation of lefties, who sided with Stalin, had to pay for their sins in the "McCarthy Era.""

Not really. McCarthy hardly did anything at all. While he might have changed the outward appearances he did nothing to change the underlying causes. The leftists still had, and have btw, a stranglehold on Hollywood. That's why the most famous blackballed entertainers were all those who testified for McCarthy.

This is why today entertainers will fight to claim no association with Conservatism or the Republican party.

It's a strange thing really but the leftist Hollywood is more responsible for censorship than anyone else. Even though Hollywood leftists scream about censorship and blacklisting they are the only ones who actually practice it.

Nice idea, but nope.

The hallmark trait of the hatred for Bush is its irrationality. So to find out the source you only need to look for the topic or issue that makes Democrats the most irrational.

Dems don't display irrational hatred over social security, education, or even the war in Iraq. At least not right away.

The #1 issue for instant irrational behavior is -- you guessed it -- abortion 'rights.'

The Dems are afraid. Afraid George will appoint pro-life judges.

This fear creates instant irrationality because there are twenty-five million women, and perhaps twenty-five million men, who have a past abortion or two they'd rather not think about.

This won't sound silly to those who have had surgery -- an abortion is a primal experience, not easily forgotten.

And that is why we are seeing the kind of hatred that we haven't seen for at least 30 years. Bush is the first president who could actually do something that could touch Roe v. Wade.

The mere thought of touching that sore spot rubs their emotions raw.
-------------------
Visit www.brightwinger.com/blogs

26 more comments posted here, with 510 views so far.

I was here earlier and read the piece but didn't have time to drop a comment. Well done and thought provoking.

I can't believe how often I hear that the news media is NOT biased. It's laughable and pathetic. It's the reason why I seldom read newspapers or news magazines anymore. What's the point - you get only one side of the story and it's completely wrong at that!

Oh and congrats on the Instalanche!

Hey! I drive a Volvo and have a flag, Navy Seal, and USMC Seal on my vehicle along with my military/TBS stickers on it. As a Volvo owner, I feel impugned...(As the Captain of my ship for my USNA training cruise probably feels as well, and my father who is a ret. CAPT, USNMC. as well)
:-D. Great post otherwise though...

Excellent points.

Thanks for putting it all together like you did.

Great piece.

A very well written piece, although some of your views seem a little extremist from my perspective. The media is a fundamentally flawed system of information, but it works better than anything else we've come up with.

----Musings of a Laymen----

Nick said
"The media is a fundamentally flawed system of information, but it works better than anything else we've come up with."

What does he think he's reading? Chopped liver?

/blogosphere, schmogosphere

As some have suggested, this is really a "perfect storm" scenario for the elite press. Much of their sacred Viet Nam mythology is being challenged. But more importantly, in my opinion, many in the media see this as a battle for nothing less than their continued existence as a cultural elite.

The press hates the critics of Kerry as much for their ability to circumvent press control and their independence as anything. Look how hard the press tries to convince anyone who will listen, that the internet, the blogs, are a collection of shady rumor mongers. That an internet "rumor" can evolve from unsubstantiated claim to full fleged debate, to resolved issue in a few hours or days, is frightening to the MSM. They must feel like 15th century priests hearing protestants declare that Christians need no earthly intervention on their behalf, with God. There goes the family business.

If Bush wins (again) what does that say about the influence of the traditional press? In 2008 will anyone still care what the "press" thinks about the issues and the candidates?

On the other hand, if Kerry is elected, the elite press remains a player, at least for another election cycle. This is what drives the anger in the press.

Excellent article. I would note, however, that the left has no monopoly on irrational rage regarding our president. I learned to despise Clinton so badly that it surpassed reason. The very sight of him on TV would cause a dash for the remote. What upsets me more than the irrational rage of the left is the easy manner in which the right has here-to-fore acquiesced to their cheap-shot demands. Finally, we have folks on our side, the swift-boat vets who have seen combat and are not so easily intimidated. As to the "musings of a laymen" by Nick, I don't think "the media is a fundamentally flawed system of information" and have not heard that criticism from anyone else. The growing complaint is that the media have been hijacked by the left and are being used to further their agenda instead of informing the public.

Oh, I dont think the left has a lock on batty behavior at all. My issue is that the press is no longer just biased, but has in fact become a working participant in politcal change that it deems necesarry and proper, and that in itself is dangerous.

What is funny to watch is how the press is becoming increasingly out of touch with its audience. While the press is made up of 85% membership in one party, the nation itself has made a "sea change" in terms of party affiliation since 1992. The first sign of the change occured in 1994, when the Republicans took back the house ( which by the way, was soundly 'pooh-pooed' as even a possibility by the intelligencia before it actually happened.) The 2000 election is another sign that things are still changing, if the Democrats had maintained anywhere near the percentage of voters they had in any previous elections,they would have walked over GWB with ease. The fact that it was a close election, shows that things have really changed at the federal level.

Things have changed that is, everywhere but in the newsroom. If newsrooms are under orders by the FCC to ensure equal opportunity to minorities to ensure that they are repsented well on the peoples airwaves, then perhaps the same should be said of party affiliation.

I believe in bias, but I do think theres a whole 'nuther scale of things thats going on here. I think that vietnam is the lens by which the press views the world, they just that they need to go back to the eye-doctor and get a new perscription.

I took a brief timeout in the fight over the details of Kerry's Vietnam service to try and gain some perspective as to what it all means to us today. As I did so I was struck with how extraordinarily relevant Kerry's Viet Nam War performance is as a similitude to our present war.

There were two wars being fought in the late sixties. One in Viet Nam with bombs and bullets. The other at home with words and ideas. The US could win the shooting war and the enemy knew it. Their strategy was to wear us down to where we no longer had the will to fight.

Kerry fought in both of these wars. In the shooting war he fought for our country. He may have been self-aggrandizing, he may have exercised poor judgment or not, but he did physically fight for the US. Upon his release from active duty (and I should point out that he continued to be an officer in the US Armed forces during this time) Kerry then switched sides and fully aided the enemy.

Kerry's contribution to US objectives in the shooting war were minimal. He sunk a few sanpans, killed some of the enemy, blew up a storehouse of rice. Missions that contributed to, but did not alter the course of the war. However, his contributions to the North Vietnamese in the propaganda war were so significant that Kerry is in the communist hall of fame in Hanoi.

We have POW testimonies given in recent days supporting just how effective Kerry's anti-US activities were. His words were played over and over to POW's adding to their torture while providing the encouragement the North Vietnamese command needed to stay their course in the war.

This brings us to today where, once again, we are fighting an enemy in two wars. Instead of a guerilla war in the jungle, we have another war against a stealthy enemy who knows it cannot defeat us militarily and does not even target us in that way. Its plan to defeat us, once again, is to make us lose our will to fight.

John Kerry now comes to us in a time of war touting his 4 month track record in Viet Nam while obscuring his 34 year record of anti-US military activity and asks us to make him our commander in chief.

America has been presented with a clear choice. We can retain a resolute commander-in-chief who is feared by the enemy and who has proven that he will pursue their destruction to the ends of the earth. Or, we can replace him in favor of one who delivered us into the hands of the enemy in the past.

An extraordinarily cogent analysis of what the American press is all about and from where it comes. Congrats.

I reported on the most horrendous of atrocities I'd ever seen in 1967 to a UPI "correspondent" I met in Saigon. I won't bore you here with the details, but suffice it to say that it was an incident in which an entire extended family were tortured by the VC most horribly. When I asked this UPI guy why none of that was being reported back home, he replied, "Oh, that stuff happens all the time over here. It's only 'news' if it's a rare occurance." By ignoring the activities of our enemies and exaggerating the few wrong-doings of our soldiers, the press aided and abetted the communist take-over of a country full of beautiful, delicate people who deserved better from us than what they got and a million or so of them suffered for it and paid the price of the press' perfidy.

The mainstream media has adopted Kerry's unsubstantiated charges that the Swift Boat Vets For Truth are a rightwing attack machine and if President Bush really wanted to stop the ads, he could just tell O'Neil to stop running them and the violent hurricane winds would instantly cease, a erie silence would consume the surface of the earth and . . . in any moment little butterflys will start appearing all over the earth as a sure sign that the storm was truly over and calm was here to stay. But that won't work because it doesn't address the problem. But I know how to kill the Vietnam war debate, it's not really so hard to figure out, just eliminate John Kerry's bid for POTUS and O'Neil and the SwiftBoatVets will cease their attacks. There were 10 democratic candidates on the stage last summer running for POTUS, but the democratic party picked the former war hero because they knew he wasn't afraid to cut and run from Iraq.

2 thoughts:

1. A lot of the press suffers what I call "WoodStein Complex", the intense desire to destroy a President. A Republican President.

2. Just rereading V. D. Hanson's "Carnage and Culture". We won the war in Viet Nam on the battlefield, but lost it at home, e.g. the Tet offensive. The VC were DESTROYED as an effective military force.

Thank you John Kerry.

N. O'Brain
Imperial Minister for Useless Information

I suspect some fraction of the anger is amplified a dawning realization that they're being outplayed by an opponent who not only is thinking more moves ahead, but knows their own game better than they do. - i.e. they see themselves drawn by their own failings to take the offered bait at every move, even though they know each nibble is tempting fate, and now they find they have to play out a losing hand in full view of those to whom they've boasted (which is yet another weakness their opponent exploits).

Good words, nice blog.

/Ari

ps. I suspect JFK2 started "embellishing" back in boarding school as an adolescent compensating for a lack of parental attention. Most children grow out of it. Those that don't leave lots of signals (like cursing someone who'd take a bullet for them.) And if they are very clever people, it can take a long time before they trip over their own fibs and are exposed as a phony.

One word: bitchin'.

I have an addendum to the theory, though: the Press and its Minions, I mean, Many Fans, hate George Bush because he reminds him of their dad -- you know, the guy who grounded them for being in late from a date, who was entirely unsympathetic with their desire -- after two years of college, paid for by dad, had drifted by with lousy grades and no discernable motivation -- to join an ashram and worship at Guru Yamalamadingdong's feet because here was a True Prophet of God, who beat their asses after finding marijuana in the glove compartment of the Dodge. Dad, who told them that being in the newspaper business was a road to fame and fortune only for a few people, none of whom would probably deserve it. Dad, who was right about everything.

The Democrats, the press, the left, thought that they were on course to regain & finally consolidate control of the USA. The 2000 election went quite wrong for them. They thought that they could wait another four years. But then the 9/11/01 attacks occurred. Now the victory that had seemed within their grasp by what they took for right & might alike, was slipping away, moving off into the distance, as history moved onto a different course. Their progression to power had been shockingly derailed, they had fallen into a weird alternate universe. Their centuries-long tradition & their feelings of Vietnam-era anti-Americanism validation ALL seem to hang in the balance. If they can’t finally take over the USA, then their battle for the world may be lost, too.

The combo of the 2000 elections & the 9/11/01 attacks has driven them over the edge. This is one of the reasons that they’ve treated 9/11/01 like a highway bill—for them its significance IS primarily political, politically nightmarish.

Good article.
I was reading elsewhere other theories of Bush hatred, I forget where.

Bush is a southern conservative who is NOT a Democrat. That has got to bug the Dems. It used to be the Dems had a solid lock on the south that has all evaporated, despite the divergent views between the political left and southern conservatives.

Bush is a Christian and unapologetic about his faith. He views the world in Manichean terms, (We're good, or at least pretty decent. Those that want to kill us are bad.) Both his faith and his Manichean views are antithema to the left.

Reagan proved the left wrong about the Soviet Union and Communism. Clinton's many scandals and the overreach during his administration lost the Dems control over both houses of Congress (Retroactive tax hikes and Hillarycare) And now Kerry is bringing into question their perception of Vietnam. They thought the voters would be impressed by a uniform, and that has not worked out.

Seriously now, think about this. He is running as a war hero of an immoral war. If he was defending his country while in Vietnam, then that makes his later efforts treason. Kerry has completely upended the "truce" that was in effect over Vietnam. (Namely the agreement to disagree, shut up about it, honor those who served, and respect those who protested.) By wanting it both ways, Kerry has opened an old wound. I don't think he realizes what he has done.

I think that you are missing an important part of the irrational Bush-hatred. Ever been in a jail? Hatred just bubbles and seethes. There is no rage like that of a criminal that's been caught. The attempts to steal the '00 Election were as blatent as any in history, it didn't work. It's the same rage as is found in a fresh-caught burgler or stick-up artist.
As for your unified theory of Viet Nam, that's a little of it. What the Left didn't figure on was us, the veterans of that war.
I'm no hero. I'm just a guy who wore Uncle's suit. I'm no war criminal, either. Neither were thousands of other young men. The friends of mine that came home in shiny aluminum caskets were not war criminals, either. Some were heros, most were simply young men in an occupation where a bad day at the office means a neatly-folded flag for your family. In any large group, and we were one hell of a large group, 3.1 million of us served in and around there, you will find a few criminals, actually fewer than the general population.
We came home. Unlike the veterans in other wars we didn't all come home together when the war was over, we came home individually. We were amazed at our reception. The warriors of our father's generation didn't understand how we could come home with the job unfinished. They thought us shirkers.
Our own generation called us murderers.
Many of us were home by 1971, we were tired. We were disullusioned and we were angry. Many of us were just beginning to mourn our dead and we were just beginning to grapple with our survivor's guilt.
Meanwhile we were doing exactly what everyone else our age was doing, trying to get an adult life on track.
All of a sudden there was one of our own, an officer, no less, indicting all of us, including our dead, as murderers and rapists. An officer just like those we had trusted with our lives and those of our friends. We knew that some of us would die, more of us would be wounded, we trusted those officers to spend our lives, and our youth, wisely and carefully. Our trust, already weakened by the careerism and ticket punching of lower level officers and the tame acceptence of insane restrictions on strategy and tactics that gave our enemies safe harbors and the first shot in almost every fight, was shattered.
We, in our weariness, anger and pain, and in my case, cowardice, retreated from the battle to define our dead. We allowed John Kerry to define our dead comrades as criminals, dupes or both. We allowed the Kerrys and Haydons and Fondas define they way our youth was lost. Make no mistake, I went a kid, came back old. The only young men that came back from that war came back in caskets.
Now the man who did more than any other single human being to define my dead friends as thugs and chumps is running for the highest office in the land. Is he running on his record in the Senate? Is he running on his record as an antiwar leader? No, he's running as a war hero.
I'm not interested in George W. Bush. He seems a nice enough man doing a difficult job to the best of his ability. Some things he's done well, some less well and he's done a few things that make me think my head is going to explode. This election isn't about him, not for me.
This election is about 58,000 families. It's about the first five years after that long ago war when the suicide rate among my comrades was one point seven times that of the national average. It's about one man who slandered my friends for political gain.
It's about one man, who turned on his comrades, who is now asking me to trust him with the lives of my children.
Mr. Kerry, you violated our trust. What have you done to regain it? You lied. Why should I believe you now? You stood over the open graves of my friends and pissed on their bodies. You pissed on the folded flags that were handed to wives and sons, daughters and mothers, fathers and brothers. Now, in the dead of night you snuck into those homes, stolen those flags and wrapped them around yourself.
Peter W. Davis, Wills Point, Texas.