Interesting. The Republican scale for “completely agreeing” that they are “very” patriotic dropped 10 points from 71 to 61 between 2003 and 2007.

Independents post about the same level of agreement as Democrats: in 1999, independents were down to 40, in 2002 Dems and independents were each at 50, in 2003 Dems fell to 48 and independents rose to 54, and now they are at 45 Dem, 47 independent.

http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/525/who-flies-the-flag-not-always-who-you-might-think

Are independents anti American or anti exceptionalism? Is it not ok to be patriotic, but not “completely agree” that you are “very” patriotic? The data seems utterly insignificant.

Grrr… sorry about forgetting to post my name in the Walter Russell Mead & Special Providence post above.

Just as American slave holders were against America and American liberty in the 1850s because they could not square slave holding with America’s identity (See Walter Russell Mead & Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World).

The American Left has an identity level issue with American Nationalism and the American national identity as expressed by “American exceptionalism.”

They are so against both that they would rather replace or subvert it to foriegn multinational organizations.

See:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmYwY2JlM2E4MTkzMGU3OWNjNDhiMzQwMzI3NWZmZjQ=

Even Paranoids Have Enemies [Mark Krikorian]
Much of the respectable Right thinks the grassroots concern over a possible North American Union is fever-swamp nonsense, and in some specific cases, that may be true. But there’s no denying the post-Americanism of much of our country’s elite. Latest case in point – Jim Hoagland’s column on Sunday had this advice for Obama:

Hoagland is not some academic kook; as a Pulitzer-prize-winning reporter and the Post’s former foreign editor, he’s about as Establishment as you can get. The point is not conspiracy, but worldview – sovereignty really is passe for the upper reaches of our society. This is going to be the central political problem for the rest of our lifetimes. As John Fonte put it in a recent paper, “The struggle for power between transnational progressives and liberal democratic nationalists could go either way, but it will be the main ideological event of the twenty-first century.”

This Leftist American versus the rest of America divide is reflected in partisan political polls.

Democrats & Leftists clearly have a far less favorable view of America than Republicans. Consider these three paragraphs towards the end of the article:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/119yfosc.asp

The Peace Party vs. the Power Party
The real divide in American politics.
by Matthew Continetti
01/01/2007, Volume 012, Issue 16

What lies at the bottom of the great chasm dividing the peace party from the power party? One suspects it is differing attitudes toward American exceptionalism, conflicting opinions on America’s goodness and greatness. In 2004 the pollster Scott Rasmussen asked respondents whether America is “generally fair and decent.” Eighty-three percent of respondents planning to vote for George W. Bush agreed with that sentiment; only 46 percent of those planning to vote for John Kerry thought so. Rasmussen also asked whether respondents thought the world would be better off if other nations were more like the United States. The data were similar: Eighty-one percent of those planning to vote for Bush thought so; just 48 percent of Kerry voters agreed. When Rasmussen asked the “fair and decent” question again in November 2006, he found similar results.

One’s views of America correlate strongly with one’s views of American power. In 2004 Pew asked whether the United States should be the “’single leader’ or ‘most active’ nation” in the world. Fifty-four percent of Republicans agreed that America should be one or the other. Only 29 percent of Democrats shared that opinion–a 9 percentage point decline, Pew found, since the same question had been asked in 2001. Similarly, in 2004, Pew asked whether U.S. “wrongdoing” might have “motivated” the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Fifty-one percent of Democrats–and 67 percent of liberal Democrats–agreed with that sentiment, compared with only 17 percent of Republicans.

The Left sees America as an evil that must be conquered and those that uphold those values are necessarily evil that must be destroyed.

What we have here is a religious war between the secular transnational progressives in America and everyone else.

Certainly, the radical left wishes to push out of the way any who disagree with them. Remember that Marx taught them that open debate is not important because the ideas of their opposition were inevitably false due to the class status of those who held them. And Trotsky had the insight that only the proletariat and a segment of the intelligentsia could perceive the truth about society.

Such views do indeed rationalize contempt for political opponents and the use of coercion to defeat them.

While an undergrad I took a class with Bettelheim, the psychologist who had been in a Nazi concentration camp. He stated in class that the radicals of that period were worse than the Nazis. He also speculated that what might have stopped the holocaust was if the Jews had been armed. If each time the Gestapo came to get a Jewish family in the night one of them got shot the holocaust would have been stopped.

Since Obama’s election gun sales have gone through the roof. Sales of popular types of ammunition are limited to one box per customer. As my rightwing dad once told me “Comes the revolution, both sides will have guns.”

I’ve visited white nationalist websites and agitated them by accusing white nationalists of fearing black men due to sexual inadequacy. The reactions were tame compared to the reactions I got at Daily Kos (banned me) and Democratic Underground (also banned me) for suggesting IQ differences between ethnic groups or arguing for IQ centered immigration policy.

Not only did people instantly call for me to be banned, but more than one person literally wished me to die a painful death. One girl just wrote die die die die hundreds of times. I watched (but didn’t take part in) another immigration debate where the pro-illegal immigration supporter accused the people debating him of being “child molesters” becuase they opposed open borders.

At first I found it quite amusing that Jewish people visiting stormfront dot com (in the opposing views section) actually received more decency than I did at Daily Kos or DU. I now recognize Leftist behavior as being actually quite dangerous. Leftists live with a mindset in which they believe they’re entitled to use violence, vandalizing, lying, and disruptive techniques becuase of their moral superiority. They’ll pelt anti-illegal immigration activists with batteries and then accuse the police of “fascism” when they get arrested for it.

In trying to understand these people I’ve concluded (for now) that leftists have very low self-esteem and were very likely to have been hurt somehow as children. This hurt may have came in the form of a divorce, abandonment, being bullied or picked on, being rejected by the opposite sex, not making an athletic team, or just being socially awkward. When the Leftist gets older and becomes exposed to leftist ideology, they become energized becuase finally they found a reason for all of their pain. In the “oppressor” (the rich, white people, men, right wingers) they found something to focus their intense rage (against the machine).

To the leftist, the “oppressor” is actually a subconscious reminder of the person(s) who hurt them as children. When the leftist is engaged in political activism, their lack of emotional maturity will oftentimes result in them acting-out in the ways I alluded to above. The same way a child will throw temper tantrums, scream, throw things, or break their toys, the leftist will throw rocks, scream, spit on people, and attack (but only when in greater numbers). Then, when the leftist gets arrested (put in time-out), this reinforces their earlier subconscious feelings of victim-hood regarding the “oppressor.” After all, in the mind of the Leftist he/she “didn’t do anything!”

Its important to never mistake a leftist as “compassionate” or concerned about the poor. This is most obvious when watching a leftist make fun of poor white people. The leftist will take joy in insulting poor white people in the same way that children make fun of other children who wear “buddies” or whose parents may shop at K-Mart. Leftists will also display large amounts of hate when encountering white women who have large families. I recall a story two years ago when a fairly wealthy white Christian family had 16 kids. I remember reading the comments at a leftwing blog where leftists actually called the women “a dog/bitch in heat.” At the same time, leftists will screech in horror at anyone who suggests that poor minorities may have some responsibility for their own actions. While this would seem to be a double standard, it brings us to a very important point about leftists. Never, (and I mean never) should anyone mistake a leftist for someone capable of original thought or original ideas and/or actions. The leftist is a true conformist who is about as “hip” as a Madison ave copywriter can come up with. The Leftist supports poor minorities becuase the Leftist is highly impressionable by popular culture. In fact, showing a Leftist the movie “Dances with Wolves” can result in what we see after a child watches a horror movie. The Leftist is most impressionable while being supervised by their favorite babysitters: University professors. (note: sometimes these babysitters are emotional children themselves)

I hope this study of leftism has been helpful? I want to be clear that this situation is not funny! We’re entering a dangerous time when people with the emotional maturity of 10-13 year olds wield enormous amounts of power. I’m going to predict that free speech will be in jeopardy in the next 3-5 years. Free speech IMO, is our most important right, and must not be taken from us by people who still feel the pain of being called “poo poo head” on the after school bus. If one of you kids are reading this, I’ll try to give you some advice on a level that you can handle. The next time someone says something you don’t like, instead of passing “hate speech” laws, try saying this:

“I know you are but what am I?”

or try

“I’m rubber and you’re glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks onto you.”

“They seem unhinged by owning both elected branches of the government and still not being able to get their agenda through. They seem to be looking for outsiders to blame.”

The far left is frustrated, but there isn’t any inability to get the Democratic agenda passed. There will be a major healthcare bill, the only real question among Democrats being whether there will be a public plan. If Obama gets any bill, he wins politically. His approval ratings will rise again. If he gets the public plan, he quells dissatisfaction among his base. He can’t really lose. He got his stimulus bill. His early efforts at foreign policy have unbelievably netted him a Nobel.

Obama doesn’t want to crush Limbaugh and Fox News. He wants to marginalize them. As long as they remain in the picture, he can use them effectively to portray any Republican opponent as a radical. There isn’t any blame on the horizon, because there isn’t any defeat on the horizon.

“I would view such people as actively evil and if I thought such people where seriously going to gain power, I would be planning for the possibility of violent resistance. I make the assumption that most leftist would have that reaction as well.”

I think the threshold for political violence is higher than you do. I appreciate the discussion.

I went over to the NYT site and read the David Rohde series [on his captivity in Afghanistan/Pakistan] you linked to. It’s an interesting and entertaining read, highly recommended. I then made the mistake of reading some of the comments. Let’s leave aside the Non-Americans commenting. Let’s leave aside the “We Americans brought this on ourselves” contingent. How are we to understand the many comments asserting that extremist Talib are no worse than many (or most) Americans? Is this mere reflexive blathering? Are they merely disingenuously attacking their political rivals? Or is it possible that they truly believe (no matter how objectively ridiculous) that their political opponents are as bad as we see the Taliban as being? And given our prescription for the Taliban, just how far would the “hard left” go in dealing with us?

I hope your correct by I worry that the left has gone off the rails in a leftwing version of the red scare or one of our other periodic political panics. They seem unhinged by owning both elected branches of the government and still not being able to get their agenda through. They seem to be looking for outsiders to blame.

All my life I have heard people on the left and the right calling each other crazy socialists or fascists

It might simply be that I think that the accusation of racism and in supporting slavery is fantastically serious while most leftists treat it in a casual or ritualistic fashion. I would personally have a near impossible time dealing politically with someone who believed the way that leftists claim to believe Rush does. I would view such people as actively evil and if I thought such people where seriously going to gain power, I would be planning for the possibility of violent resistance. I make the assumption that most leftist would have that reaction as well.

Hopefully, you are correct that leftists simply don’t believe what they’re saying and that its all some kind of reflexive ritual like calling people communist back in the 50’s. On the other hand, looking back at the history of the 20th century we have to at least keep in the mind the possibility that political groups can go off the rails into serious delusion. A leftwing version of the red scare would be very destructive.

My theory: Leftists are so removed from reality that their wishes, dreams and desires take precedence over reality until it finally becomes their reality. Once that happens they are beyond debate. To them, their way is the only way. period.

While you might be able to debate and convince me away from one of my conservative beliefs to reach a compromise; the only compromise to some of these leftists is no compromise at all.

Example: Harry Reid blaming Republicans for HIS failure to get enough of HIS democrats to vote for cloture yesterday. Dontcha see! You didn’t do it harry’s way, so you are not “compromising!”

Rush was right last week when he was shouting out “Shut up and vote!”.

So yes, Shannon, i agree that the leftists in power now think of us all as grown up children who need to be told, cajoled and forced to do what they think is right, regardless of the consequences or the methods they need to employ to get their dream utopia in place.

“However, the question of what psychological processes cause people choose political particular ideologies is a legitimate question.”

I disagree, for a number of reasons. First, it is impossible, because political positions are too diverse, and adopted for diverse reasons. Some people adopt political positions or social attitudes because their they learned them unthinkingly. On the right, there are libertarians, social conservatives, foreign policy hawks, etc., in various combinations. On the left, there are environmentalists, feminists, poverty advocates, union advocates, and some old fashioned New Deal types. They all have differing degrees of sophistication and reasons for believing as they do. They disagree among themselves. It’s hopeless to say the conservatives or liberals have any particular psychological orientation.

Second, it detracts from policy arguments. It moves away from the important discussion of whether some policy is wrong or nutty, to a de-legitimizing of the position by attacking the sanity of the proponents.

Third, it is a waste of effort, because policy isn’t made by the base, but by the center. The left railed about how radical Bush was, but I just saw a poorly executed war against a country that had given the world lots of problems, an education bill supported by Kennedy, Democratic-leaning immigration policy, and a tax cut – he didn’t ban abortion or mandate prayer and creationism in the schools or withdraw from the UN. Now, the right is focusing on radical statements of a few Obama advisors. But Larry Summers, Rahm Emmanuel, et al are practical politicians, not ideologues, and nothing will get passed without going through the Blue Dogs. So, even if Bush or Obama had crazy ideas or were psychologically damaged, it is the center that makes policy.

“How often do you have to hear someone call you evil before you begin to wonder if they might really believe it and then decide to act on that belief?”

All my life I have heard people on the left and the right calling each other crazy socialists or fascists. So, in my case, for about 35 years the two sides have called each other nuts and a cancer on the body politic, but no one has instituted reeducation camps. Right now there’s an uproar about Obama going after Fox News, but what really can he do? Pull their FCC license? Have Glen Beck locked in the tower? (Personally, I think anyone who has the ambition to become President, left or right, has a little bit of Stalin in his or her heart). The Democrats can’t pass the Fairness Doctrine, or anything similar – they don’t have the votes now, and they aren’t going to increase their margins in 2010. What are you afraid they will do?

“Just as a practical matter how could someone who is apparently in the crosshairs of the President of the United States himself say something like that without it instantly being news across the entire planet?”

I don’t know. It’s probably more likely than the idea that a man could face the Clinton machine and the RNC, with hundreds of millions of dollars for opposition research and a will to win, and no one would uncover the secret of his foreign birth and ineligibility for the Presidency.

Although you may have excellent insights into policy or political strategy, psychoanalyzing the opposition comes off as projection.

I’m not a Freudian. However, the question of what psychological processes cause people choose political particular ideologies is a legitimate question. It is especially compelling when you realize that that these ideologies cover a wide range of unconnected issues and that knowing a persons position on one issue, such as the liberation of Iraq, strongly predicts their position on another wholly unrelated issue such gay rights or nuclear power. The same people line up on the same side of debates on many different unrelated issues over and over again. There is a phenomena here to be studied.

To me, your post sounds paranoid in the same way you say the leftists are paranoid…

I might be getting there. How often do you have to hear someone call you evil before you begin to wonder if they might really believe it and then decide to act on that belief?

I did read, however, that Pat Buchanan did say a number of things much closer to the fake Limbaugh quotes.

That’s a good point. Buchanan’s insane holocaust denial and Hitler apologia seems to be oddly tolerated by both the left and the right. I thinks it because anti-sematism has become cool on the left again. On the other hand, when I first heard it claimed that Buchanan said such things, I didn’t instantly believe it. I checked first. The people who believed that Rush is a wacko racist believed it without checking.

Why is it so strange to believe that Rush is more extreme than he is, if you don’t listen to his show?

Really, slavery? Just as a practical matter how could someone who is apparently in the crosshairs of the President of the United States himself say something like that without it instantly being news across the entire planet? The disturbing thing isn’t only that they believed it, it was that they believed it without hesitation and without double checking anything.

It’s pretty easy, really. They have been inundated by things just as, if not more reprehensible from their political representatives, and leftist media figures for quite a while.

Atop that, classic projection come into play. They could well imagine themselves making such statements (but only in jest, mind you!), and so it does not surprise.

Though we all want to be told our views are correct. There is a group (Liberals/progressive/Marxists) that by definition, see only “any means to an end” as a convenient substitute for immutable fixed truth. They have fine tuned it to the point of scientific professionalism. They are gods unto themselves (some in high office, even make halos and rainbows and claim to be able to stop the seas from rising and attempt to control life and death)and truth is merely a weapon to be used if it’s convenient.