Wednesday, February 02, 2005

The Victorious but Walking Wounded

I have been wrestling with a thorny subject as of late: the obvious anger of a vocal set of right-wing bloggers who stake their claim and hang their hearts on the victory in November’s election. If they actually won (which they did by the slimmest of margins), why are they so angry and charged when someone, exercising their first amendment rights, points out some flaw in their champions (individually, as a whole, or the policies set by these people, and so on)?

This leads to a sub-question: Why then, if someone points out flaws in the administration, do otherwise ordinary individuals become automatically linked as adders and abettors to the terrorists? Furthermore, this set typically voices the sentiment that such people are not supportive of the troops.

The one answer that rings loudest for me is that, albeit these folks claim victory as theirs, this victory is shallow, and any contrarian commentary wounds them. Like the gored bull, they become angry and lash out because the truth hurts.

I can’t recall who said it (I think it may have been Truman, Roosevelt, or another former president), and I paraphrase: We aren’t going to give them hell. We are simply going to tell the truth and it is going to feel like hell.

If there wasn’t a shred of truth woven into the statements made by critics of the administration and their ilk, the right-wingers would have no cause to get defensive and outright pissed. Instead, as if salt water were being tossed on to their naked and gored flesh, these walking-wounded, electoral-victors spit venom from their keyboards as the vitriol deflates their own arguments.

And I thought hate was not a christian value.

Does anyone else have a theory for this?


Matt Hurley said...

Just a thought, but quite frankly as a right winger I'm tired of hearing what other right wingers would call "whining" from the left. Nov 2 was a clear victory for Republicans. Democrats should acknowledge that victory and then do something about it... We need a loyal opposition in this country. Not that I care much for Hillary Clinton, but she is a shrewd political opperative. Is she moving to the left or to the right? That should tell you all you need to know...

Chris said...

Good post.

I am so tired of listening to the phrase that Bush won in November. He won by slimmest margin for any incumbent president in history. He also was the first second-term president since Nixon to be sworn in with an approval rating below 50%. It was a slim victory at best. Bush has called it a mandate, he obviously doesn't know how to count. I wrote a post about this on my site called "Here We Go Again." Check it out.

I like the site. I'll keep coming back.

Anonymous said...

The quote you paraphrased is from Truman: "I don't give them hell. I tell the truth, and they think it's hell."

The flush of victory brings the carryover of all the campaigning retoric. It's natural, no matter which side wins. As the post-electoral glow fades, clearer heads will prevail.


Anonymous said...

A thing or two  

For Matt Hurley: The ''loyal opposition'' is in power. They've been corrupted by being so long out of power. (Just as power corrupts, lack of power corrupts.)

As for ''whining'' from the left, what the left hears (speaking only for myself) from the so-called right is gracious winners - Not!

Having won inadvertently, Republicans now have to govern responsibly. That's a hardship for a party whose claim to fame a la Newt is the destruction of government itself. For years the Republicans sought to make the USA ungovernable, which, were it governable, would have reflected well on the Democrats then in power. Newt's plan was, 'destroy government and destroy the Democrats.' Now it's Reap What You Sew time. They don't like it. Who can blame them. Responsible Republicans, of which there are many, believe in balanced budgets. But Bush and the new lunatic congressional Republicans are still in Doctor Destructo 'starve the beast' mode.

The Republican Party needs to grow up. Purge itself of the loonies whose sole claim to govern is that they are Republicans-who-were-elected, and thus by their numbers helped establish Republican government. Electing Republican potatoes would have done the same thing, without damaging the Republican Party.

For MJ: There are a lot of Republicans who thought they were voting for the Party that believed in fiscal responsibility. We'll see how they vote in the next congressional election.

electoral-victors spit venom from their keyboards as the vitriol deflates their own arguments  

There are responsible voices on the right. It doesn't help their cause when Bush tells lies. Sensible talk on the right is as frustrated as an old maid. They've got something good to give away but nobody, right or left, seems to want it. Republicans, who they might presume to be listening, aren't. Democrats might listen, but they don't have reason to because the Republican congressional freeze-out has marginalized them completely. No one looks at lottery results when they don't hold a ticket.

pia said...

I'm ao tired of hearing about how people on the left are whiners and how decisive a two percent victory was.

Anybody who knows statistics will tell you that two percent is still within a margin of error frame.

If W was wearing an ear piece that helped him in the debates, is that cheating? Not if it's done by a Republican apparently