# The Decline of the Angry Left **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 3, 2008, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128 "2008-02-03T20:20:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![JohnnieEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dfb087/32.png) [@JohnnieEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnnieEnigma)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2008, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/1 "2008-02-03T20:20:00Z")
And THIS is why I support Barack Obama… because having been the target of extreme anger, rage, vitriol and pure irrational hatred from a group of “enlightened” liberals on another messageboard for the past couple of years, I appreciate Barack’s attempt to change the liberal “Daily Kos destructive culture of hate” into a culture of reason and hope. It’s come down to this… because of Obama’s inspiring influence and style, [hope and unity crushed resentment and division](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120191142380836927.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries). And it’s about time. If any of you were familiar with John Kennedy’s political magazine, George, you would realize that John had the same type of bi-partisan political style. He proved it with his mix of columnists such as Tony Blankley, D’Amato and even Coulter. As [Coulter](http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/index.html?uc_full_date=19990728) said in her tribute to John, "This was a new kind of Democrat. John wasn’t a part of the older generation of Stalinist liberals who try to censor differing viewpoints or engage in the politics of personal destruction to harm those who disagree with them. As his magazine’s motto says, this was “not just politics as usual. The importance of what John was doing to political discourse in this country cannot be overstated. If you’ve ever been on the receiving end of the politics of personal destruction, it’s not that much fun to be accused of being a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc., etc. One can see why a lot of people might decide to opt out of the whole political enterprise altogether. Through his magazine, and his very being, John had begun to take the bitter acrimony out of political dialogue. While political neophytes out of Hollywood jabber about getting the younger generation involved in politics, John actually did it.” So let Barack Obama continue were John F. Kennedy Jr. left us, and let this **new kind of Democrat** continue to inspire the masses with his message of hope … and Change. ---
**Author:** ![JohnnieEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dfb087/32.png) [@JohnnieEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnnieEnigma)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2008, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/2 "2008-02-03T20:29:47Z")
It’s interesting because there’s a group of us, a small sub-culture of regular posters on George mag’s message board who still exist. After George was taken down, we continued our political discussions on another forum… John was inspiring because he was one of those rare human beings who transcenced political affiliations. He was open and fair-minded to all pov’s, as he proved with his political mix of columnists. This is why both conservatives and liberals still think of him as groundbreaking, inspiring and truly enlightening. His magazine was clearly “not just politics as usual.” We’ve miss his influence in the political arena, although I am thankful that Obama has taken over where John left off… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2008, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/3 "2008-02-03T20:29:47Z")
Believe it or not, [_The Nation_](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/hayes/2) more or less agrees, and for that reason among others, argues Obama is the best hope of (left-liberal) progressives: > [@](#): > > Which brings us to the one we don’t. A President cannot build a movement, but he can be its messenger, as was Reagan. Part of what tantalizes and frustrates about Obama is that he seems to have the potential to be such a messenger and yet shies away from speaking in ideological terms. When he invokes union organizers facing Pinkerton thugs to give us our forty-hour week, or says we are bound to one another as “our brother’s keeper…our sister’s keeper,” he is articulating the deepest progressive values: solidarity and community and collective action. But he places more rhetorical emphasis on a politics of “unity” that, read uncharitably, seems to fetishize bipartisanship as an end in itself and reinforce lame and deceptive myths that the parties are equally responsible for the “bickering” and “divisiveness” in Washington. It appears sometimes that his diagnosis of what’s wrong with politics is the way it is conducted rather than for whom. > > In its totality, though, Obama’s rhetoric tells a story of politics that is distinct from both the one told by Beltway devotees of bipartisanship and comity and from the progressive activists’ story of a ceaseless battle between the forces of progress and those of reaction. If it differs from what I like to hear, it is also unfailingly targeted at building the coalition that is the raison d’être of Obama’s candidacy. Consider this passage from Obama’s stump speech: > > > [@](#): > > > > I’ve learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you. And although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are. That’s the once-in-a-generation opportunity we have in this election. > > Obama makes a distinction between bad-faith, implacable enemies (lobbyists, entrenched interests, “operatives”) and good-faith ideological opponents (Republicans, independents and conservatives of good conscience). He wants to court the latter and use their support to vanquish the former. This may be improbable, but it crucially allows former Republicans (Obama Republicans?) to cross over without guilt or self-loathing. They are not asked to renounce, only to join. ---
**Author:** ![JohnnieEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dfb087/32.png) [@JohnnieEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnnieEnigma)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2008, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/4 "2008-02-03T20:31:55Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Believe it or not, [_The Nation_](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/hayes/2) more or less agrees, and for that reason among others, argues Obama is the best hope of (left-liberal) progressives: [/QUOTE] I’m one of those Obama republicans they speak of. :eek: Very good article!!! ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2008, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/5 "2008-02-03T20:35:30Z")
Which, of course, means that Obama will be Willie Hortoned, “Barack Osama”-ed, SwiftBoated, and scrutinized for the slightest gaffe, a la Howard Dean, from all quarters, including the Clinton campaign, and will not even get the nomination, much less the presidency. [/realpolitik cynicism] ---
**Author:** ![JohnnieEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dfb087/32.png) [@JohnnieEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnnieEnigma)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2008, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/6 "2008-02-03T20:36:30Z")
[QUOTE=Ogre] Which, of course, means that Obama will be Willie Hortoned, “Barack Osama”-ed, SwiftBoated, and scrutinized for the slightest gaffe, a la Howard Dean, from all quarters, including the Clinton campaign, and will not even get the nomination, much less the presidency. [/realpolitik cynicism] [/QUOTE] By whom? Hillary’s camp? 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2008, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/7 "2008-02-03T20:44:30Z")
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma] By whom? Hillary’s camp? 🆒 [/QUOTE] Sure, and she’ll be playing dirty enough that the Pubs won’t even have to start the Slander Machine until after the nomination, assuming he gets that far. Just to be clear, I’d love to see Obama in the Oval Office. I just have an enormous amount of caution about the Neocons’ ability to manipulate public opinion, especially against a guy who’s young, black, Democrat, and doesn’t have a traditional Christian name. ---
**Author:** ![JohnnieEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dfb087/32.png) [@JohnnieEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnnieEnigma)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2008, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/8 "2008-02-03T20:47:46Z")
[QUOTE=Ogre] Sure, and she’ll be playing dirty enough that the Pubs won’t even have to start the Slander Machine until after the nomination, assuming he gets that far. Just to be clear, I’d love to see Obama in the Oval Office. I just have an enormous amount of caution about the Neocons’ ability to manipulate public opinion, especially against a guy who’s young, black, Democrat, and doesn’t have a traditional Christian name. [/QUOTE] You give the “neocons” too much credit. Whenever I hear someone doubting Obama’s presidency, I feel compelled to post this link: [Yes.We.Can.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms) ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2008, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/9 "2008-02-03T20:49:00Z")
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma] As [Coulter](http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/index.html?uc_full_date=19990728) said in her tribute to John, "This was a new kind of Democrat. John wasn’t a part of the older generation of Stalinist liberals who try to censor differing viewpoints or engage in the politics of personal destruction to harm those who disagree with them. As his magazine’s motto says, this was "not just politics as usual. The importance of what John was doing to political discourse in this country cannot be overstated. If you’ve ever been on the receiving end of the politics of personal destruction, it’s not that much fun to be accused of being a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc., etc. One can see why a lot of people might decide to opt out of the whole political enterprise altogether. Through his magazine, and his very being, John had begun to take the bitter acrimony out of political dialogue. While political neophytes out of Hollywood jabber about getting the younger generation involved in politics, John actually did it."Change. [/QUOTE] I’m sorry, I agree with moving beyond partisan sniping, but this Coulter quote is just laughable. The woman wrote a book called _Treason_ about liberalism. I mean come on. Way to rise above the dialogue there. ---
**Author:** ![JohnnieEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dfb087/32.png) [@JohnnieEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnnieEnigma)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2008, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/10 "2008-02-03T20:51:15Z")
[QUOTE=nameless] I’m sorry, I agree with moving beyond partisan sniping, but this Coulter quote is just laughable. The woman wrote a book called _Treason_ about liberalism. I mean come on. Way to rise above the dialogue there. [/QUOTE] Yes but Coulter wasn’t writing about the “new kind of democrat” in her _Treason_ book… she was writing about a corrupt presidency and the status quo. There’s the difference. How could you deny what she said about Kennedy in her tribute? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2008, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/11 "2008-02-03T20:56:33Z")
[QUOTE=Ogre] Sure, and she’ll be playing dirty enough that the Pubs won’t even have to start the Slander Machine until after the nomination, assuming he gets that far. Just to be clear, I’d love to see Obama in the Oval Office. I just have an enormous amount of caution about the Neocons’ ability to manipulate public opinion, especially against a guy who’s young, black, Democrat, and doesn’t have a traditional Christian name. [/QUOTE] Look, this primary cycle has been under way for at least a year now, and there has been plenty of sniping, and the worst thing (with any basis in fact) anyone has found to fling at Obama is his association with [Tony Rezko.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoin_Rezko) If Nixon could live down his friendship with [Bebe Rebozo,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bebe_Rebozo) Obama can live down that. Apparently he has, like Truman, managed to keep himself personally honest while working in a notoriously corrupt urban political environment. As for the canards about his being a Muslim, etc., I don’t expect undecided voters to pay them much attention. ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2008, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/12 "2008-02-03T21:02:42Z")
Never mind, I don’t wanna derail the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2008, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/13 "2008-02-03T22:19:56Z")
If a Republican wins in November, the ‘angry left’ will be back in full force. Unless the election is a landslide, there will be accusations of vote rigging, Diebold scandals, you name it. And if a Democrat wins, expect a large swath of Republicans to become equally unhinged. I’m afraid that the political schism we’re seeing now has a lot more to do with the balkanization of the media and other current sociological factors than it had to do with who any particular candidate is. The current calm probably has more to do with the fact that the Democrats think they’re going to win next time around (and probably will), and so are more invested in winning than in trashing current policies, and that Republicans are dispirited and disillusioned and less inclined to go to bat for the current president or any of the current candidates. After the next election, the stakes will rise again, and the acrimony will be back. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2008, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/14 "2008-02-03T22:25:17Z")
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma] Yes but Coulter wasn’t writing about the “new kind of democrat” in her _Treason_ book… she was writing about a corrupt presidency and the status quo. [/QUOTE] A corrupt presidency and the _status quo_ published in 2003? I had not realized she had written about GWB. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2008, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/15 "2008-02-03T22:52:14Z")
If, as appears likely, the Dems take a bigger chunk of power this year, you will likely see considerably more anger, and not just from those of us on the conservative wing of the extreme left. With a Dem President comes a Dem Attorney General, investigations that have been foot-dragged nearly to death will come to the fore. You can, if you wish, believe that all the serious scandals and skull-duggery of the Bushiviks have come to light, nothing else to see here, move along. I very much doubt it. And, also, at long last, the Reagan papers will be released to historians. I don’t perzackly know whats in them, but what I do know is the Powers That Be but Won’t Be For Long would very much like to keep it that way. I have sufficient faith in their judgement to accept that they have a very good reason. Bet on it, there’s going to be some very angry liberals. And also some very angry honest conservatives. Plus a few thoroughly pissed off libertarians, and surly anarcho-syndicalists. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/16 "2008-02-04T00:05:29Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] I’m afraid that the political schism we’re seeing now has a lot more to do with the balkanization of the media and other current sociological factors than it had to do with who any particular candidate is. [/QUOTE] And, to a degree those who only follow media outlets may not be aware of, an artificial creation of them, not a reflection of actual reality. ---
**Author:** ![JohnnieEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dfb087/32.png) [@JohnnieEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnnieEnigma)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/17 "2008-02-04T00:32:59Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] A corrupt presidency and the _status quo_ published in 2003? I had not realized she had written about GWB. [/QUOTE] as if the current democratic congress is not part of the status quo. they’ve done nothing to reflect the change they claimed would happen once they had the power. Well they’ve got the power yet they haven’t produced. This explains why their approval ratings are lower than Bush’s. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/18 "2008-02-04T01:24:15Z")
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma] as if the current democratic congress is not part of the status quo. [/QUOTE] Not my issue. I don’t like 'em either. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/19 "2008-02-04T05:16:34Z")
I think the Wall Street Journal is indulging in a bit of wishful thinking … . ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128/20 "2008-02-04T05:28:36Z")
I understand that not only did it leave, The Decline of the Angry stole an ashtray and left the bathroom in a real mess. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decline-of-the-angry-left/436128.md?page=2)