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?