Cal Thomas opines on liberals and religion

[Seany-D]

So, in an attempt to get *some* sort of discussion going here, what do you think about Cal's piece? I have read in many articles that Bush's convictions are his strongest asset, but when do convections go from being "principles to defend" to "stubborness and unwillingness to listen"? I don't think either of these candidates are statesmen in the true sense of the word, but on the whole, the GOP's assertion that they are a representative tableaux of America bothers me more, as I find their brand of lock-step politicking, devoid of discourse of both sides of many issues, unsettling. John McCain nonwithstanding. --SED


What's behind the left's bitter hatred of George Bush
By Cal Thomas
Originally published September 1, 2004

NEW YORK - Given the "welcome" he is receiving from demonstrators and other keepers of the liberal flame here, President Bush might consider a quick trip to Najaf as a warm-up for what he will experience in the streets of New York City.

Why do they hate him? It isn't just his policies, though it is that. The hatred is more intense than Republican animosity was toward Bill Clinton.

The fringe right marketed a conspiracy videotape called The Clinton Chronicles that scurrilously labeled Mr. Clinton a drug dealer, a murderer and all sorts of other things for which there was no proof. How ancient, even quaint, that now seems. Then, we could indulge in jokes about Mr. Clinton's sexual indiscretions. Now, we must face the daily trauma that goes with wondering when and where killers will strike next. Why don't more people hate them instead of the president?

Type "anti-Bush" in a Google search and one of the first Web pages listed advertises "over 3,000 links to pro-democracy, anti-Bush" links. Among them are the predictable old-left publications, such as Mother Jones, along with conspiracy theories that have traditionally been the property of right-wing Chicken Littles. The lefty ones include "Screed: The 'Almost' Censored News, 'GOP has taken over News Media for control and to hide corruption.'"

There are reasons Mr. Bush arouses the ire of those who hate him.

For starters, there are his convictions. Nowhere is this more evident than in the war to liberate Iraq and to preserve America from additional terrorist attacks. Liberals are unsure of what they know to be true, because they know no truth. This is because they fear offending any individual or group (conservatives excepted), and so they wish to leave open the possibility they might be wrong (except when they know they are right).

Liberals don't mind being wrong about an issue, but any error must comport with their general philosophy, which opposes the concept of objective truth. So if they are wrong about the economy, it is because government isn't big enough and doesn't spend enough, or taxes too little.

Indeed, a second reason Mr. Bush is hated is his tax cut. Never mind the improving economy. Liberals fear increased wealth, because it leads to less dependence on government and thus less need for them. When a Republican succeeds at cutting taxes and the economy improves, liberals feel threatened and strike back in anger, like a jihadist whose "holy place" has been violated by infidels.

The third and perhaps most important reason Mr. Bush is hated is his faith, which is genuine. Mr. Bush believes that God exists objectively and that He has spoken unambiguously to those who would pay attention. Unlike Mr. Clinton, who puts on religion when it helps him politically but takes it off when it interferes with his appetites, Mr. Bush wears his faith in his heart.

He is humble about it, always noting how far he falls short of the ideal to which he subscribes. I remember a lunch we had in the governor's mansion in Austin the year before he announced for president. I had heard he read through the Bible once a year and I asked him to quote from memory some of his favorite verses. He quoted three, and not the most familiar ones. That is the mark of a person who takes faith seriously.

The mostly secular or theologically squishy left doesn't mind one being "religious" so long as that religion underscores a secular agenda. A religion that constantly "baptizes" the liberal catechism of bigger government, higher taxes, more abortions, same-sex marriage and anything else the secular left wishes to promote is the kind of "faith" it will tolerate.

But someone who believes God is not an idea of man, but rather man is God's idea and He gets to make the rules, is viewed as harmful to those who wish to create their own version of heaven on Earth through the secular god of big government and the capitulation to our lower nature.

Some on the religious and secular right are critical of the president's immigration and education policies. But they don't hate him for them. The hatred from those on the left is personal, because what the president stands for, however imperfectly, is a rebuke to their impersonation of the French, who stand for nothing.

[Atsuko73]

Well...I I have a sort of rage (a quiet, Renee rage) when it comes to people making broad generalizations about groups. I know everybody does it, but when he says that democrats want "higher taxes" I don't really feel that is fair. I hate to think that there are people out there reading things like this that don't have enough brains to look into the matter. They will actually be swayed by something one side says that really isn't quite true - and probably taken out of context. I could be wrong, because I really don't feel like i know a ton about politics, but I am pretty sure that because a lot of "liberals" protested the tax cuts for mostly wealthy people that he is now saying dems want higher taxes. I would agree that perhaps dems wouldn't mind higher taxes and "bigger government" if that government did something useful for us. As it stands now, I can completely see why people would think one crazy to hope for more government...
Um, I know I haven't quite written this well, and it's not quite done, but I'm at work so that'll have to be all.

[Seany-D]

I feel your angst on this issue, Renee. My biggest problem with traditional "liberal" and "conservative" views right now is that neither of them are willing to operate "outside the box", so to speak. Both spend much of their time courting money to garner political influence. Neither of them recently have advanced beyond the platitudes of trumped-up campaign speeches to attack the withering national unity that served as bedrock for this country during, say, WW I and II. While I would say that it is true, broadly, that Dems = liberal = big government, and GOP = conservative = little government, I hardly think that Dems want bigger taxes. Perhaps a redistribution of the way taxes are applied, yes, but not more taxes on the whole. Both parties in this anachronistic two-party system are pandering to their bases in an attempt to keep control over what they see as their rightful domain -- American governance. I think the general, moderate public is growing weary of the posturing and stale politicking.

Now, of interest to me personally would be how the GOP reconciles its fiscal conservatism (which, let's admit, goes out the window when it comes to <WARNING: LOADED WORD ALERT> the "war on terror" and "homeland security") with its fairly newfound love of courting the evangelical Xtian right. I would think at first blush that aid for the underprivileged would be high on the moral list of chores, but I haven't seen much come through the pipeline that doesn't smack merely of tokenism.

I also believe, since I'm now rambling, that the first thing the public needs to say is "stick this 'war on terror' shit straight up your collective asses". Terrorism isn't a nation, or an army; it's an idea. Misguided and reprehensible as it may be, you're not going to defeat it with conventional warfare, and you can't defend the citizenry of this country from it effectively without violating at least 50% of the Bill of Rights. But using the loaded language that this administration loves to use (what did we count, something like 130-plus mentions of "terror" in the last State of the Union Address?) is fear-mongering. We are an afraid country because we are told to fear. Much like some sects of gloom-and-doom evangelicalism, the motivation of fear is the primary driver. We should be smarter than that; we should not react out of fear, but deal with the consequences of no longer being shielded by the oceans by gaining insight into the nature of these organizations, using diplomacy to garner the aid of the countries in which these organizations base, and yes, measured military might to send them to a dirt nap when necessary.

I better stop now ... otherwise, research may never get done.

Sean "oh yeah, and get well Billy!" Davis