On Republican Scumbags

This morning, on this post, my friend Cory accused me of being unfairly prejudiced against conservatives. He noted that, whenever I'm discussing a conservative commentator or Republican Party member, I use adjectives like "odious." (One of my favorites). Also "assholes," "rejects," "fuckwads," "scumbags," fartknockers," "spacefegs" and "chode-lickers." I should really use that last one more often.

He's both correct and incorrect. He's correct in that I always describe conservatives as despicable monsters, greedy amoral villains abusing their powers for personal benefit and, occasionally, out of pure unadulterated misanthropic malice. He's incorrect in assuming that they don't all deserve it.

Now, I'm not saying that affiliation with the rightwardly side of American politics automatically makes you a scumbag. It doesn't help my overall opinion of you, but it's certainly possible to overcome this initial repulsion and win me over as an individual (as is the case with Cory, a good friend and solid dude who has chosen his political affiliation based on reasonable-enough ideological precepts).

What I am saying is that, for whatever reason, all notable conservatives in public life in America right now happen to be complete douchebags.

Bear in mind, I think a whole lot of notable liberals in public life in America right now happen to be complete douchebags. There are plenty of exceptions, but as a general rule, America is teeming with morons and fools who can't wait to speak whenever a microphone is placed in their immediate vicinity.

I'm not just saying this for comic effect, either. I've been sitting here for a few moments now, trying desperately to think of a famous, principled, honest conservative with the betterment of Americans at heart. Really. Haven't got one yet.

John McCain? He's certainly got a background that's admirable and deserving of praise. Honestly, this guy's about as close as you can come to a palatable conservative. I like how he's willing to challenge the authority of this administration, particularly through is recent support of legislation in Congress that would limit Rumsfeld's ability to beat the fuck out of Arabs in captivity for no good reason.

But he's chosen to prop up our current president, helping to get him re-elected for a disasterous second term. And he, in general, is kind of an asshole, calling out Michael Moore during the Republican Convention, railing against violent video games and movies when he knows damn well from personal experience that violence is the result of public policy and human psychology and not "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas." And, COME ON, how can he even still be in that party after that Swift Boat nonsense.

I think this gets to the heart of my problem with every Republican public figure in America. Their association with the present administration. It's true that one can simultaneously be conservative, have conservative political values, and be a good person. But I can't help but feel that vigorously and publicly supporting Bush's disasterous Iraq War, racist and homophobic domestic agenda, disgraceful lack of fiscal discipline, appointment of radical ideologues to major positions and embrace of the corrupt corporate elite kind of just makes you a scumbag.

As for conservative commentators, I'm hard-pressed to think of one who hasn't taken several positions without any reasonable or solid evidence that could withstand even basic scrutiny. The conservative in question, the one I called "odious" when Cory took offense, was Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post.

In fact, here's precisely what Cory said:

Krauthammer is (to me) a good writer and fairly balanced commentator on the political scene. Of course he has a conservative take on things, but does that inherently make him evil?

Having a conservative take on things of course doesn't make someone evil. There are a few "conservative" positions I even hold myself. (For example, I'm against hate crime legislation. I have never seen any indication that hate crime legislation prevents hate crimes, and I don't feel like your motive for beating someone up really has much to do with how you should be punished for beating that person up.)

But is that the truth about Krauthammer? Is he just a guy who leans conservative, who has a different take on things? Does he really think independantly before he writes every column, taking all perspectives into account?

Let's take a look at a column Krauthammer wrote for Time Magazine in March of this year. It's called "Three Cheers for the Bush Doctrine." And the sub-head reads "History has begun to speak, and it says that America made the right decision to invade Iraq."

I don't even have to get into the article to start explaining to you why this guy's a hack, do I? First of all, any reasonable person would know that it's too early to declare victory in Iraq. GWB learned that, as we all remember, the hard way.

Krauthammer was referring to the democratic votes which has just occured in Lebanon, and the January 31st "election" in Iraq. Based on these two events, which somewhat coincided time-wise but not necessarily in terms of importance, he declares that the Middle East problem is solved.

(He actually goes so far as to refer to 2005 as an "Arab spring." What a jackass. If by "spring" he means "their heads spring off when you shoot them from a way's away," then yeah, I could see the accuracy of that statement).

You see what I mean? Krauthammer's an asshole, and I didn't even need to get far past his sub-head to figure it out! I could keep mining this and other articles for more examples of his mindless, Bush-suckling idiocy. He spends the entire article acting like the trouble in the Middle East is now totally over, and that a glorious new day of democracy is here, all thanks to the heroic, sage and intensely studly GWB.

The Administration went ahead with this great project knowing it would be hostage to history. History has begun to speak. Elections in Afghanistan, a historic first. Elections in Iraq, a historic first. Free Palestinian elections producing a moderate leadership, two historic firsts. Municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, men only, but still a first. In Egypt, demonstrations for democracy--unheard of in decades--prompting the dictator to announce free contested presidential elections, a historic first.

Turns out, the critics, liberal and "realist," got the Arab street wrong. In Iraq and Lebanon, the Arab street finally got to speak, and mirabile dictu, it speaks of freedom and dignity. It does not bay for American blood. On the contrary, its leaders now openly point to the American example and American intervention as having provided the opening for this first tentative venture in freedom.

What really changed in the Middle East? The Iraqi elections vindicated the two central propositions of the Bush doctrine.

And, of course, we all know that, thanks to GWB, everything worked out great. Now, if we can just train a massive Iraqi Army and police force, broker a lasting peace between Palestine and Israel, get those 100,000 troops home, stave off that near-certain coming Civil War, and help stop the growing number of terrorist bombings not just in the Middle East but in Europe, we're totally done!

Is he insane? People are dying in the streets every day over there, the police are vanishing faster than we can recruit new ones, American kids are dying in far-off deserts every single day, and this guy's throwing a victory parade for Bush and proclaiming that Arabs don't want to kill Americans any more!

That's reasonable journalistic commentary, free from demagoguery and deception?

SUCK A FAT ONE, CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER