America Unhinged

by Maureen Farrell

www.buzzflash.com

"America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War." John le Carre

While one would expect Ann Coulter to write a column entitled "Liberals Unhinged," when New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof joined the fray a year or so ago, such criticism was taken more seriously. Accusing the left of "dumbing down," he argued that liberals were falling into a "cesspool of outraged incoherence."

Since then, it's become commonplace to equate hatred of the president with an inexplicable mental illness. Charles Krauthammer has observed that "Democrats are seized with a loathing for President Bush -- a contempt and disdain giving way to a hatred that is near pathological" while the Weekly Standard's Christopher Caldwell believes that "Democrats have been driven into a frenzy of illogic by their dislike of George W. Bush." Tucker Carlson has taken the conceit even further. "At least twice over the past few months, we here on Crossfire have sent urgent warnings to the mental health community about a certain New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman," Carlson recently said. "Krugman hates President Bush so much, so completely, so obsessively, that he can barely speak. And as readers of his column know, he long ago lost his ability to think clearly. This man needs help and he needs it desperately right away."
[<http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/25/cf.00.html>CNN]

Carlson also cited a Boston Globe article by Alex Beam that infers that Krugman may have developed "a personality disorder," and is "completely crackers." Beam points to Krugman's Web site, which, he insists, "is a nutty, score-settling tote board loaded with paranoid ravings." Meanwhile, Republican National Committee spokesperson Christine Iverson has dismissed Krugman's musings as "hate speech," saying that "it is obvious that his feelings have clouded his objectivity and his ability to discuss the issues in a rational way."

Robert Novak has said that he's never seen such hatred "in 44 years of campaign watching," but truth be told, this righteous anger springs from the right as well as from the left. In other words, it's not a matter of liberals taking leave of their senses, or the "unhinging of the Democratic Party" as Krauthammer calls it -- but of America herself becoming unhinged.

RNC talking points aside, you may recall that the same tactics were used before the war in Iraq, when critics of all political stripes were marginalized as naïve leftist loons. "If you're an actor who's against the war, you're suspect," Janeane Garafolo told the Washington Post. "You must have a weird angle or you just hate George Bush." Meanwhile headlines like "War And the Fickle Left," and "Wake Up, Peaceniks!" hid the fact that generals, military experts, the CIA, veterans groups and conservatives everywhere also opposed the war. [<http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/01/30_Critics.html>BuzzFlash]

These days, however, propagandists act as if hatred towards Bush is the unfathomable result of jealousy, elitist snobbery or mere misunderstanding. "The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from," Krauthammer mused, forgetting, one supposes, the rabid assaults on another president a few years back "Whence the anger?," he continued, answering with the accurate observation, "It begins of course with the 'stolen' election of 2000 and the perception of Bush's illegitimacy." Can you imagine the clamor if Bill Clinton had risen to power under the same circumstances? And if Roger Clinton had been the governor of a state that oversaw the deliberate disenfranchisement of thousands of Republicans? It's doubtful agile wordsmiths like Krauthammer would be setting words like "stolen" inside quotation marks.

Ironically, the New York Observer's Ron Rosenbaum, who was among the first to label Bush hatred "the personification of rabid, self-destructive, paranoid rage," [<http://nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6624>NY Observer] expressed some pretty hefty outrage over the Florida debacle, too. "If you want to know the truth, I blame the Bush campaign for the death of [Lars Erik] Nelson, one of the best journalists in America," he wrote. "Nelson saw what was going on in Florida early on, and he didn't see it with any equanimity: One of his colleagues at the Daily News called him on the day of his death, the afternoon of the televised Florida Supreme Court argument, and recalled Nelson crying out, "I can't believe they said that!" over some outrageous assertion by the lawyers for Ms. Harris and Mr. Bush. A few hours later, he was found in front of his television set, dead of a stroke. No one will convince me it was unrelated." [<http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=3502>NY Observer]

So, once again, why is Bush hatred such an enigma? As it now stands, the next election is already suspect, we're bogged down in a costly unnecessary preemptive war and these days, it isn't just the loony left and radical right who are warning that the U.S. Constitution could soon be U.S. History. Saying that a massive terrorist attack could "unravel the fabric of our Constitution," Gen. Tommy Franks recently warned that we would "begin to militarize our country" and lose what we most cherish, which is the "freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy." [<http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml>Newsmax] Given that a growing number of terror experts believe that Bush's policies make such an attack far more likely and Rep. Ron Paul (R, TX) is saying that "the draft will likely be reinstated," hatred is hardly an irrational reaction.

It also doesn't help that while generals imply that America is one attack away from becoming a police state, serious inquiries into went wrong on Sept. 11 are purposely blocked by the White House. Then, too, considering this administration's unparalleled arrogance and embarrassing treatment of long-held allies, fair-minded folks would have to agree that there certainly is a lot to loathe. "The [Bush] administration has dug the U.S. into a deep hole in Iraq and, more worryingly, in terms of its relations with the rest of the world," Christopher Layne wrote in the October 6 issue of American Conservative. "One thing is certain: unless the call for the United States to exercise self-imposed grand-strategic restraint is heeded, the rest of the world will act to impose that constraint on Washington. If that happens, the Bush administration will not be remembered for conquering Baghdad but rather for a policy that shattered the pillars of the international security framework that the United States established after World War II, galvanized both hard and soft balancing against U.S. hegemony, and marked the beginning of the end of America's era of global preponderance. For this, it must be held accountable." [<http://amconmag.com/10_06_03/cover.html>American Conservative]

Sorrows of Empire author Chalmers Johnson extended this concern even further. Brilliantly capturing exactly what many on both the right and the left find so troubling, he explained:

"Four sorrows, it seems to me, are certain to be visited on the United States. Their cumulative effect guarantees that the U.S. will cease to resemble the country outlined in the Constitution of 1787. First, there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be and a spreading reliance on nuclear weapons among smaller nations as they try to ward off the imperial juggernaut. Second is a loss of democracy and Constitutional rights as the presidency eclipses Congress and is itself transformed from a co-equal 'executive branch' of government into a military junta. Third is the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, power, and the military legions. Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens." [<http://www.presentdanger.org/papers/sorrows2003.html>PresentDanger.org]

While Johnson only addressed three of the four major threats America faces (i.e. "endless war, the loss of Constitutional liberties, and financial ruin"), the propaganda efforts he briefly mentions are becoming clear to most. By now most Americans realize how deeply we were deceived during the lead up to war in Iraq. And between the Jessica Lynch saga and Bush's landing in the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, most are pretty savvy about foiled propaganda efforts, too. Laughingly, however, in the immediate haze of Bush's aircraft carrier landing, the buzz was that the Democrats were "driven crazy" by the commander in chief's macho mystique. "The president has to meet a testosterone standard that appeals to women but does not offend men," Susan Fields wrote in the Washington Times. "George W. Bush succeeds with both and that drives Democrats crazy. They've made fools of themselves with their churlish criticism of his landing on the deck of the USS Lincoln, but they can't let it go." [<http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/03/09/23.html>BuzzFlash]

Though Bush bootlicker Andrew Sullivan has long since admitted that the aircraft landing was one of the dumbest political moves ever, Chris Matthews, who, along with G. Gordon Liddy was accused by Vanity Fair's James Wolcott of "sprouting rhetorical woodies" over the Top Gun stunt, swooned like the Pepe Le Pew of punditry. Last week, Matthews gave a repeat performance, gushing over the sight of Bush in an Army jacket:

MATTHEWS: That was our commander in chief speaking to the troops and to the families of those who have lost in Iraq at Fort Carson, Colorado. Very impressive speech. The president, the commander in chief in this case, at the top of his form&

Let me ask Peggy Noonan, what is, as you see it, the legitimate way to address and to debate a president, a commander in chief, who appears here, very glowingly, in fact, almost in uniform, how do you take him on legitimately?

NOONAN: You can take him on legitimately because it's an election and you're running against him. But that guy is going to be tough to beat and anyone who thinks otherwise is really dreamin.'

That guy in the Eisenhower jacket . . It's not just the way this looks and the way it sounds but . . That fellow you just saw is optimistic, he's gutsy, he's determined. He's not going to look small. . .and angry, I think, in contrast to the Democrats who may be comin' on looking in contrast like resentful fellows who aren't quite as big."

If this doesn't epitomize "the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, power, and the military legions," what does? And, just to make certain that no uncomfortable truths slivered into the Fort Carson script, reporters were forbidden to talk to the troops before, during, or after the rally/photo op. [<http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_2455047,00.html>Rocky Mountain News]

Of course, anyone flipping to CNN following the Matthews/Noonan love fest would have learned that while polls show that 44% of Americans believe that George W. Bush is a leader we can trust, another 54% have doubts and reservations. Yet Matthews wonders if anyone can "legitimately" take Bush on?

But, then again, you might recall that polls didn't mean much prior to the midterm elections either. Though Saxby Chambliss hadn't been ahead of Senator Max Cleland in a single poll, Cox News Service reported that "pollsters may have goofed" regarding his unexpected win. And as Zogby reported, "No polls predicted the upset victory in Georgia of Republican Sonny Perdue over incumbent Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes." Of course computerized voting machines were used in Georgia, causing AlterNet's Thom Hartmann to muse, "Either the system by which democracy exists broke that November evening, or was hacked, or American voters became suddenly more fickle than at any time since Truman beat Dewey." [<http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16474>Alternet]

Pundits explained these GOP upsets, which occurred in regions where Bush campaigned heavily, as proof of Bush's popularity, but since exit polls were conveniently unavailable, it's impossible to know what voters were truly thinking. And even though we now know that the 2000 election was rigged, propaganda squads boldly assert that it is simply Bush hatred and paranoia to wonder if there wasn't some behind the scenes monkey business in 2002. Given the evidence, it would be crazy not to expect more of the same in 2004.

Which bring us back to the topic at hand. While Time's Dec. 1 cover story "Love Him, Hate Him President" didn't question the sanity of the "hate him" camp, even some of those arguing that Bush has earned Americans' disdain seem obliged to wonder if there isn't some deep dark pathology behind the anger. While making "The Case For Bush Hatred," Jonathan Chait asked, "Have Bush haters lost their minds?"

Last January, John le Carre wrote a muchcirculated piece entitled "The United States Has Gone Mad," but Chalmers Johnson, believing that the U.S. we love might be gone forever, deemed le Carre's assertion that "America has entered one of its periods of historical madness" a tad optimistic. "If it is just a period of madness, like musth in elephants, we might get over it," Johnson mused. "The U.S. still has a strong civil society that could, at least in theory, overcome the entrenched interests of the armed forces and the military-industrial complex. I fear, however, that the U.S. has indeed crossed the Rubicon and that there is no way to restore Constitutional government short of a revolutionary rehabilitation of American democracy. Without root and branch reform, Nemesis awaits. She is the goddess of revenge, the punisher of pride and arrogance, and the United States is on course for a rendezvous with her."

In other words, America is indeed becoming unhinged and it's up to "we the people" to find a way to fix her. If we don't, as crazy as it sounds, our day of reckoning draws near.

Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in helping other writers get television and radio exposure.

America page

Index of Website

Home Page