Hyperpartisanship, propaganda, and hypocrisy

By A.J. DiCintio

It's all the rage these days for liberals to put on their makeup, make up a long face, and star in mini, moldy morality plays that warn of extremism, an evil they perceive only on the political right.

Of course, as is the case with the product of all human endeavors, these perverse dramas are not equal, with the one-woman show written and performed by the doyenne of American liberalism hands down deserving to be labeled "Worst in Class."

In a not so remarkable coincidence, the same person (often referred to as "Madam Speaker") should also run away with the award for "Worst Performer" — if only for her delivery of every line with ridiculously fake facial contortions that make a Barrymore of the least talented hack ever to insult the silent screen.

Why this harsh review?

First of all, these political thespians either know or ought to know that most of what they denounce as hyperpartisanship represents either adherence to principle or expressions of strong emotions that have always characterized political discourse. Therefore, they are not seeking to engage the nation in a discussion of morality but are simply pumping out propaganda.

Think of it.

Jefferson was not a dangerous "wingnut" (Wonkette) because he was fiercely uncompromising in his opposition to judicial activism.

Neither, because of the following provocative language, was the great Founder guilty of inciting people to violence (Nancy Pelosi).

. . . [Just as] we commit honest maniacs to Bedlam, [activist judges] should be withdrawn from their bench. . .

In the same way, contemporary Americans are not "evil-mongers" (Harry Reid) because they use strong language (emotional or not) to express their opposition to a stunning expansion of the Federal Government that requires an astonishing spending, borrowing, and printing of money today and will require the piper to be paid a fearsome sum tomorrow — and not just in cash.

The second reason these dramas deserve condemnation is that their writers/performers are almost always guilty of shameless hypocrisy.

For example, consider that Sandra Bernhard's attack on Sarah Palin was done with an ocean of vulgar hate, vicious sexism, and a particularly contemptible racism, as evidenced by one of her ugly, hateful riffs suggesting that if Palin were to travel to New York City, she would be gang raped by Bernhard's black brothers.

Moreover, consider that the "performance" (that was supported by public funding) took place in the nation's capital and was widely reported.

Then consider that it didn't prompt a stricken-faced Nancy Pelosi to rush on stage to condemn Bernhard's language as the "kind of rhetoric" that is "really frightening" and creates "a climate in which . . . violence [takes] place."

But enough about a politician to whom hypocrisy comes as naturally as breathing.

So, let's move on to the NY Times' Tom Friedman, who frets that the degeneration of political discourse by "the right fringe" is preventing the nation from addressing its problems.

How is it Friedman doesn't analyze the harmful effects created by a "left fringe"? The reason is most likely this:

Working in the Gray Lady's incestuous environment is almost certain to result in a psychological graying of the brain that causes one to perceive liberals, even radic-libs, as "moderates," "centrists," or even "mainstream folks."

That surely explains why Friedman didn't become a bubbling cauldron of angst when, not a "fringe" group, but one as important as the 2008 Democratic presidential aspirants deemed it essential to attend a convention of the Daily Kos but later refused to debate on the apparently extremist Fox News Channel.

It also explains why Friedman wasn't moved to produce a morality play when MoveOn ran its "General Betray Us" ad in his own paper — with help from a hefty discount provided by Lady Gray herself.

Of course, whatever hypocrisy can be attributed to Tom Friedman must be multiplied a trillion times when one speaks of Maureen Dowd, who, in a recent piece honoring the late William Safire, couldn't resist knocking "today's howling pack of conservative pundits" who spew "vile and vitriol."

So, Maureen Dowd represents herself as possessed of a powerful moral and intellectual aversion to howling wolves who slash innocents with vile and vitriol?

Well, then, (just for one example) why don't we know her as a citizen, woman, and writer who, devoted and courageous as the holiest nun, avails herself of every opportunity to denounce the cruelly vicious, insatiably rapacious Bill and Hillary Clinton, who ran a "nuts and sluts" terror campaign out of the Oval Office, directing, among other dirty things, their minions to foul the nation with sexist, elitist smut that included "bimbo," "bimbo eruption," and "If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what [kind of woman] you'll find."

Finally, there is the White House Blog, which recently shouted "You lie!" at Glenn Beck.

Fair enough — but only if the White House admits that what is good for the goose . . .

However, in an act that reeks of the worst kind of propaganda, the Blog goes on to equate Beck's "lies" with the entirety of Fox News:

For even more Fox lies, check out the latest 'Truth-O-Meter' feature at Politifact.

Furthermore, the charge against Beck and the invitation that follows it stir up suspicions of hypocrisy regarding the White House and a huge number of other individuals and organizations.

Readers are fully capable of developing this list on their own; but just to get the ball rolling, a few are presented below:

Brian Williams, Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, Keith Olbermann, James Carville, Paul Krugman, Arianna Huffington, Jon Stewart, Bill Moyers, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, PBS, and the NY TIMES.

Finally, the White House's choice of PolitiFact as its arbiter of truth demands the following observations:

. . . PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times, a newspaper at least as far left as, say, the bosses of the Chicago Political Machine.

. . . PolitiFact doesn't list ACORN under its catalog of "People and Groups."

. . . the catalog does list Representative Michele Bachmann, who has been rated on the Truth-O-Meter six times, two of which are ACORN related, with the following results: Three "False" and three "Pants on Fire."

It all causes us to wonder what odds Vegas would assign to the bet that PolitiFact will give Obama one "Pants on Fire," not to mention what odds will be laid down if the "one" is changed to five, ten, or a hundred.

Which brings us back to the idea that liberals who are sickening us with their dramatic worrying, weeping, and warnings about hyperpartisanship have no idea what Mark Twain was up to when he had his beloved Huck say this:

Pretty soon I wanted to smoke, and asked the widow to let me. But she wouldn't. She said it was a mean practice and wasn't clean, and I must try to not do it any more. . . [But] she took snuff . . . of course that was all right, because she done it herself.

© A.J. DiCintio