Arnold Kling has an excellent article in Tech Central Station on the virulent groupthink of the left.
The fact is that there is an entire segment of society that has a viceral and reflexive hatred of Bush and the Republicans. This is an attitude in which anything that comes from a Republican or a conservative is dismissed entirely out of hand. Just read through many of the comments on this blog and see how critiques of the Bush Administration’s policies aren’t based on any substantive basis but solely on the basis that they come from the Bush Administration.
This attitude represents a childish intellectual stance in which the dominant anti-Bush paradigm is regurgitated ad nauseam without even so much as a shred of thought or analysis. The circular logic of the left is the logic of the mob – the same kind of reflexive hate you’d find in a KKK member, a virulent anti-Semite, or any other strain of fanatics.
Fortunately the American political system does not reward such fanaticism, and usually such radical movements subside over time. As Anthony Downs points out, radicalism has never won an election in the United States thanks to the two-party equilibrium of the American political system.
In the meantime, one can only marvel at the hypocrisy of a group that tries to paint themselves as brave dissidents swallowing the leftist party line hook, line, and sinker.
UPDATE: Harry’s Place has a very interesting post along similar lines. A selection:
It is clear that the Iraq war has shown that a certain section of the left really has nowhere to go except self-hatred and that a reactionary antipathy to the US and the western democracies has moved from beyond the ultra-left fringes into the mainstream of left-liberal oppositionalism.
It is precisely the spreading of ‘pure oppositionalism’ that makes it worthwhile looking closely at the activities of the Socialist Workers Party and others. Because while the details of their quasi-Trotskyist ideology remain restricted to a tiny minority, their broader outlook has gained something close to hegemony on the radical left.
Andrea Harris has more on the Stalinism of the radical left and Michael Totten calls International ANSWER "the new skinheads" – an apt description indeed. Glenn Reynolds also weighs in on the issue.
Granted, they’re talking about a specific subgroup of the Left, but the Democratic Party is becoming increasingly close to the International ANSWER party line – a line of thought that is virulently and rabidly anti-American in the truest sense of the word.
Funny how the educated population of this country can arrive at a similar conclusion based on evidence and be labeled “elitists,” the Left Wing of America can see a policy for what it is and becomes victims of “groupthink,” but conservatives are obviously arriving at their conclusions based on facts and evidence.
Do you actually believe the stuff you post? Are you seriously telling us that the LEFT in this country is simply following blindly while the Right is the bastion of thoughtful consideration? Buddy, your ass better have some good examples, because I sure as hell do, and I’m calling you out on this one.
Your problem, Jay, is that you simply don’t think. You don’t. You rant, you rave, you occasionally raise a valid point in an invalid context, but you don’t analyze. You regurgitate the lowest drivel of literature available, and treat it as gospel. It’s only been a few weeks since a study was released showing the predominantly Republican and right-wing viewers of FoxNews couldn’t remember VERY IMPORTANT AND SALIENT information concerning the War on Iraq. Yet our side is the one that is motivated by Groupthink and not reason?
Christ, my head hurts.
See here.
What, is that your interpretation of “if you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit,” Jay?
No, it’s my interpretation of “I’ve spent the last two years documenting how the left is possessed with an provincial and closeminded ideology and if you want evidence, start reading.”
Your comment illustrates exactly the problem the left has – they criticize the right but have neither the guts nor the intellect to actually engage them on the issues. If you disagree, then you’d damn well better be able to present a cogent and lucid argument as to why that doesn’t resort to cheap ad hominem arguments or relying on faulty logic. If you can’t, you will be mercilously and savagely critiqued. If that bothers you, I suggest going elsewhere.
Why do conservatives feel that the Clinton hatred was totally rational, yet are mystafied at the Bush hatred? These are two sides of the same coin, and the sooner conservatives fess up that their Clinton hatred was irrantional the sooner they will again be taken seriously.
Clinton committed an act of perjury, which is an impeachable offense. I don’t agree with all the unfair criticisms of Clinton, but there was plenty of justified criticisms to go around.
The problem with Bush hatred is that it is largely unjustified. The attacks against Bush are largely unsubstantiated or entirely falsified. (For example, the Democrats keep insinuating that Bush called Iraq an imminent threat despite the fact he specifically argued that the threat from Iraq should not be allowed to develop into an imminent threat. If that’s too fine a rhetorical distinction for the Democrats to understand they don’t belong in office.)
In short, Clinton was criticized for what he did, which is fair. Bush is being criticized for what he is which is not only unfair, but irrational and against the principles of civilized discourse.
Jay, you are really a test. You decry an entire segment of American politics on a daily basis as anti-American, you make sweeping generalizations about an electorate so diverse as to avoid any such characterization, and you hav the balls to call someone out for an ad hominem attack? Ted Kennedy gets an award from Geroge HW Bush, and you call him disgraceful. John Kerry TRIES to make a policy debate, and you call him shameful.
Your problem is that you don’t give credibility where it’s due. You attack messengers regularly, and anyone with a view opposite yours is “anti-American.” And you do this consistently. Tying the Democratic Party to ANSWER is like tying the Republican Party to the KKK, ignoring that ANSWER never lynched anyone or burned chuches and homes.
Your tactic is not to engage policy debates when they arise, nor is it to bring them up yourself. Your tactic, shameful and shallow, is to wait for someone on the other side of the fence to stick their head up high enough for you to take a swing at it. Christ, every time Mark has raised a significant point against you you berate him. You never even answered my concerns about a post you wrote earlier this year WHEN I WAS THE SUBJECT!
Jay, you want a debate? I’d have to decide whether or not I should lower my standards for you first, because I hate to have to play down my game.
Yeah, he tends to ignore me too, unless I make a smartass comment, or at least if I mention Hitler. 🙂
Jesus — who shot JR? (In the ass with a BB gun, that is. My he’s irritable — and yes, I know that comment dates me terribly.)