Nasty Rhetoric

Digging up a draft because this debate doesn’t seem to have let up:

Michelle Malkin has found some incredibly nasty rhetoric produced by Democrats (warning: it’s almost all offensive, and there’s sometimes a gross-out factor).  There’s no doubt that it needs condemned, and if you think it’s a good model for political discourse, you need your head examined.  But these people aren’t important: they’re justly marginalized in American liberal discourse.  Or if they are important, they’re rapidly shown the door when they engage in this kind of thing, like Jill Greenberg.

If you want to find an influential Democratic asshole, my bet would be on Michael Moore.  Parts of Fahrenheit 911 really did seem like they were written by a paranoid nutcase.  The only problem is that I’m not sure if Michael Moore is still alive–I saw Fahrenheit 9/11in 2004, and that was the last time I remember hearing about him. Subsequently, I think his brand of left politics simply died. It’s hard to put my finger on exactly what typified that brand of politics–Moore’s own style was to shoot from the hip.  You still do hear it from time to time, but the dominant mood of Democrats and progressives is now practical, optimistic, and energetic. Moore’s approach was fundamentally suited for a party that saw itself as losing.  Reflection on the pathologies of the Democratic party circa 2004 might be a good thing for Republicans as they go into their forty days in the wilderness (and let us hope that it lasts longer than that!)


Comments are closed.