What’s different this time

Peter Beinart makes an unwittingly revealing point in the course of taking the media’s party line in the mosque controversy:

it’s time for New Yorkers to stop talking haughtily about the prejudices of flyover country. According to Fox, 30 percent of Americans support building the mosque near Ground Zero. In New York City, according to Marist, it’s 34 percent. That, evidently, is the margin of blue state decency. Turns out that when push comes to shove, folks in the Big Apple are about as concerned about the rights of Muslims as folks in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Who says we’re a nation divided, that we can’t find common ground? Almost a decade later, we’ve finally done it: The memory of September 11 has brought us together again.

We are beginning to have a theory about the ferocity and volume of the Democrat-Media-Left’s politically crazy opposition to what 7 out of 10 Americans think.

In the wake of 9-11 we began to see lapel flags on politicians and newsmen, and it often seemed out of character: They had to act like they approved of the warmongering rubes that comprised the vast majority of Americans at that time. But it’s been almost a decade since 9-11. We believe we’re now seeing what many on the Left really thought in those bad old days but were afraid to express, and that’s why they’re doubly angry and loud today.

2 Responses to “What’s different this time”

  1. Neil Says:

    I think it also has to do with the way President Obama campaigned for his office (let’s leave aside what he really believes–it’s probable that he really does see himself as treading a middle path between Left and Right).

    The whole campaign, he spoke the conventional platitudes, in order to convince most of the country that he’s a moderate. At the same time, he spoke the “dog whistle” code-words that led Progressives to believe he was whole-heartedly one of them, the better to harness their energies to his campaign. Both Independent voters and Progressives received their intended messages full-strength, and both groups bought completely their utterly incompatible messages. That’s why President Obama’s ratings were so high before he did anything, and so low now that he’s disappointed both groups.

    I think it’s the Progressive reaction to this disappointment that causes the bile we’re seeing in the media and among the Beltway crowd. They heard their dog-whistle, but didn’t get or chose to ignore the message heard by a plurality of Americans. Thus, when President Obama won the election, everyone who understood the message to Progressives thought it was a mandate for Progressivism, that America had finally endorsed the Progressive nanny-state project once and for all.

    Their bitterness at discovering otherwise must be overpowering.

  2. MarkD Says:

    Seventy percent of those rubes in flyover country believe it when a group tells them they need to submit or die and acts accordingly, even if it calls itself a religion. It turns out that the folks in the Big Apple are 4 percent slower on the uptake, despite having had over 3,000 examples from their neighborhood.

    When a group wants you dead and acts accordingly, it takes some sort of mental gymnastics to ignore what is happening. I’m fairly certain that an Aryan Church with an official doctrine of killing or enslaving all outsiders would not receive this treatment.

    The only thing I don’t know is whether to ascribe this to cowardice, denial, or stupidity.

Leave a Reply