Progressives: Always Angry, Newly Desperate

By Arnold Ahlert

Last week, for the umpteenth time, anything resembling

decency or restraint was completely abandoned in an orgy of
progressive foaming at the mouth over what they were  
convinced—absent a shred of evidence—were the "real"
motives of a madman. So convinced that, even as the facts
emerged regarding Jared Loughner, facts which completely
destroyed their theories, not a single one of the ranters  
apologized or recanted. Even more appalling, when the    
objects of their hatred sought to defend themselves, they    
were attacked for doing so. Such behavior is completely
unhinged—and tiresomely predictable.

Being a writer makes one a reader, and this writer is no exception. Yet try as I
might last week, I couldn't find a single column blaming the American left for
what Jared Loughner did in Tuscon. Not one. That is not to say that none existed.
Perhaps some obscure publication or two created by some far-right fringe
elements published screeds of which I am unaware. But nothing remotely
compares to the avalanche of vitriol which spewed from high-profile, mainstream
media sources such as the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC or Newsweek, all of
which was not only easy to find, but almost impossible to avoid.

Which is precisely why I refuse to go where far too many of those on the right
went last week, neatly encapsulated in the part of the president's speech when he
told Americans that "what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion
to turn on each other." With all due respect, we didn't turn on each other, Mr.
President. It was overwhelmingly the American left which turned on anyone and
everyone from Sarah Palin to talk radio, to the Tea party movement in particular,
and conservatism in general. And anyone who equates those on the right
defending themselves with those on the left attacking them—as a means of
demonstrating "moral equivalence," no less—is only kidding himself.

But let's give the devil his due and assume, despite much historical evidence to
the contrary in a nation where far too many are ignorant of our own history, that
political rhetoric has reached "unprecedented" levels of anger. Why is that?
Because, regarding the future of the nation, the stakes have never been higher.

On one side of the divide are those more than willing to turn America into a
socialist/marxist entity in which the Constitution is, as the Washington Post's
Ezra Klein put it, "confusing because it was written more than a hundred years
ago" and "has no binding power on anything." They are the same people with
"core values" that are completely situational—which is why they can dismiss
Muslim terrorists such as Fort Hood killer Maj. Nidal Hasan or wannbe underwear
bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "lone wolves," even as they remain firmly
convinced that Jared Lougher was the agent of an entire political ideology. They
are people who claim to own the franchise on sensitivity, even as they
demonstrated none for the dead, the wounded, or their grieving families or
friends immediately following the tragedy. They are people firmly convinced that
America is a conglomeration of racists, bigots, homophobes, and nativists, all of
whom are beyond redemption without the soothing hand of their progressive
betters to guide them.

On the other side of the divide are those who believe freedom is under assault,
that the nation is teetering on the brink of fiscal insolvency, and that the
Constitution means exactly what is says. They are people whose core values are
attached to something bigger than themselves, and those values are not
negotiable. They still believe in the grand experiment known as American
exceptionalism, and they will not be hectored or guilted into abandoning it. They
recognize that political correctness is nothing more than a club designed to cow
them into silence—and they will be silent about it no longer.

Last week's attacks were not about Jared Loughner and his crime. He was
nothing more than the "cannon fodder du jour" for a movement long used to
demonizing its opponents and getting away with it. Perhaps nothing is more
infuriating to the progressive agitators than the surveys which revealed the
American public is now up to speed on their devious nature: nearly six-in-ten
Americans rejected their attempt to tie Loughner to inflammatory political
discourse.

Would anyone dare do a survey asking the American public if they think the left
was exploiting a tragedy for its own ends?

Don't bet on it. And don't bet on any of these people toning down their rhetoric.
For the first time in a long time, the progressive movement is staring at the
historical abyss. The 2010 election wasn't merely a "shellacking." It was an utter
repudiation of a political movement which thought the 2008 election was enough
of a mandate to step from behind the curtain and reveal who they truly are to the
American electorate. What most American saw was an arrogance coupled with an
anything goes a lust for power they found both appalling and frightening. Even
worse for progressives, many of those same Americans are beginning to
recognize how thoroughly contaminated our mainstream media is. They saw the
attack dogs unleashed while the bodies of the dead lay in the morgue and the
wounded in the hospital. They saw "expert" after "expert" take to the airwaves to
tell us exactly what motivated Jared Loughner, none of which remotely jibed with
the facts.

What did progressives see? The 2012 election. The genuine possibility of
historically unprecedented political irrelevance in less than two years. Think last
week was ugly? That was only the beginning of the 2012 election campaign. The
bet here is that by the time we reach the end, what Americans heard and saw last
week will be tame by comparison. Progressive are "all in" for 2012—but unlike
2008, most Americans now know exactly who they're dealing with.