Falwell and The Party of Hate

James Taranto, over at the WSJ, notes the vicious and despicable manner in which many on the Left have greeted news of Rev. Jerry Falwell's passing. He writes:

[T]he hatred Falwell inspires on the left is quite something to behold. Here's a sampling (quoting verbatim except the redacted vulgarity):

• "tzs," on Marcotte's blog: "If Mr. Falwell had not used his life to spew hatred at anyone who did not fit his narrow-minded, bigoted idea of who was a True God-fearing American™, one might feel more willing to refrain from stating what an absolutely putrid little excrescence of vomit he was. But I'm being polite, so I won't say that. R.I.P., and after watching Falwell I know know why the Romans threw the Christians to the lions."
  
  
• "Blue_In_AK on DemocraticUnderground.com: "he was such an unctuous, smug, obnoxious blowhard that it's really difficult not to celebrate his death. I'm trying, but it's .... so .... HARD."
  
  
• "andyesmysoulwillrotinhell," on TMZ.com: "First class a--h---..now worm food...the world finally makes sense."
  
  
• "roewert," on WashingtonPost.com: "Good ridence. Jerry al Falwell was imbicile who thought that the whole world should think and believe just like him. Too bad there were so many gullible people in this country who fell for his nonsense and sent so much money to him. So does this mean that Pat bin Robertson moves up to the slot of chief idiot? The Christian taliban marches on...."

More high-mindedly, Alan Wolfe begins a Salon.com dyslogy, "One never wants to speak ill of the dead, but in the case of Jerry Falwell, how can one not?"

Read it here.

Taranto is right when he notes that Falwell's foes portrayed him as a hater, in large part because of the hatred he inspired in them.

Indeed!

Is Liberal Politics a Sign of Mental Derangement?

Just askin'.

Tom Sowell notes that the default position of all too many people on the left is outrage -- blind, unreasoning hatred of their opponents.

That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.

Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.

....

The source of the anger of liberals, "progressives" or radicals is by no means readily apparent. The targets of their anger have included people who are non-confrontational or even genial, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

....

There doesn't even have to be any identifiable individual to arouse the ire of the left. "Tax cuts for the rich" is more than a political slogan. It is incitement to anger.

He goes on to show how selective and irrational liberal outrage is and observes :

If it is hard to find a principle behind what angers the left, it is not equally hard to find an attitude.

Their greatest anger seems to be directed at people and things that thwart or undermine the social vision of the left, the political melodrama starring the left as saviors of the poor, the environment, and other busybody tasks that they have taken on.

It seems to be the threat to their egos that they hate. And nothing is more of a threat to their desire to run other people's lives than the free market and its defenders.

Read it here.

And so the question is put -- "Is liberal/left politics a symptom of mental derangement?"

Sometimes it seems so.

The Party of Hate

Wretchard tries to explain the depth of hate emanating from the Left directed toward people like Nicholas Sarkozy, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and most of all, George W. Bush.

Maybe the reason why the Left hates Sarkozy and that renegade "woman of color" Hirsi Ali so much is not because of what they stand for as much as because both remind them of the principles they have betrayed. This secret guilt may stand at the center of the inexplicable hysteria with which the Left regard the neocons and President Bush in particular. Recently a Ramussen poll showed that "only four in ten Democrats will commit to the idea that George Bush did not know of the 9/11 attack in advance. Sixty-one percent of them either believe he did or are unsure." What could account for such a widespread belief in a bizarre conspiracy theory? Why do otherwise intelligent people insist, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that "fire does not melt steel" and embrace all kinds of ridiculous fantasies? I think the extreme demonization of George W. Bush and the neocons is psychologically necessary in order to restore a feeling of moral superiority to the Leftist universe. They would be guilt stricken without it. The more intelligent Leftists must be subconsciously aware of how monstrous the enemy is and secretly cognizant of how great is the betrayal of their own ideals. They can't confront this fact; cannot accept that they are delivering children, as Caroline Glick's example above shows, to cruel murderers. And in order to obtain some kind of solace and to have the effrontery to march in support of "freedom fighters" who are nothing but sadistic thugs, it is necessary for them to invent something worse; to make a caricature devil of GWB to place them once again, if not upon the side of angels, at least in the camp of the lesser evil. George Bush must be made nothing less than the moral equivalent of Hitler or else their ethical universe would collapse.

But George Bush is not Hitler. And one day the better men among the Left will face up to the fact that they have failed a huge moral and historical test. And from that memory, there will be no redemption.

So true, so true...

Read it here.