How to Speak Leftist
In which our host offers a helpful guide to right-wingers on the true meaning of popular leftist phrases. Behold, the Leftese Dictionary!
RT: The Leftist to English Dictionary, Part One
I’m Andrew Klavan and this is the Revolting Truth.
Some of you may have noticed that our country is sharply divided along political lines. To those of you who haven’t noticed: our country is sharply divided along political lines. Approximately thirty eight percent of Americans identify themselves as conservative, twenty three percent identify themselves as liberal, while the remaining thirty nine percent can’t identify themselves and are waiting for a policeman to take them home.
Those who identify as conservative generally believe in limited government, low taxes and close adherence to the constitution. Those who identify as liberal generally believe that if they had a hammer, they’d hammer out justice all over the land, but since they don’t, they’ll just have another latte and feel good about themselves.
Can we bring these two sides closer together without using rope and a nail gun or would using rope and a nail gun actually be kind of a good time?
We here at the Revolting Truth believe that better communication is the road to better understanding which is the path to better relations which is the freeway to better homes and gardens which is the last stop before Tomorrowland.
And that’s why today we’d like to present the first installment of the Leftese Dictionary - a glossary of left wing terms and their meanings which will help right wingers understand what the people who don’t know what they’re talking about are talking about.
Let’s begin with a term Right Wingers hear a lot when chatting with Left Wingers: “You are racist!” The phrase “You are a racist!” or “That’s racist,” is leftese for “I have no logical arguments.” As an example of how the term is used in conversation, let’s say you point out that under President Obama’s left wing policies, the percentage of African American families living in poverty has increased and black participation in the labor force has decreased while under right wing President Reagan black unemployment plummeted, and the income gap between blacks and whites narrowed. That’s when a left winger might respond by employing the phrase, “You are racist.”
Leftists have many different ways of saying “I have no logical argument,” for the same reason Eskimos have many different words for snow. Another way a leftist may concede that his point of view is nonsense is by saying “I am offended.” If, for instance, you point out that the poverty rate for women has increased under President Obama and that women’s earnings relative to men have declined, making this a dark economic time for women, a leftist might reply, “You said the word dark. You are racist. I am offended.”
One other way a leftist might have of saying, “I have no logical argument,” is “the science is settled.” If you point out that there is exactly zero real evidence that human actions threaten to cause catastrophic climate change, a leftist will reply, “The science is settled.” When you ask him what precise scientific facts he is talking about, he is likely to say, “I am offended. You are racist.”
I hope you’ve enjoyed this installment of the Leftese Dictionary. Remember “I am here to help you.” Which is leftese for “Grab your wallet and run for your life.”
I’m Andrew Klavan with the Revolting Truth.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Friday, August 29, 2014
The Madness of 2008 A nation became unhinged by trivialities like “hope and change.” It has now awakened.
America is suddenly angry at the laxity, incompetence, and polarizing politics of the Obama administration, the bad optics of the president putting about in his bright golf clothes while the world burns. Certainly, no recent president has failed on so many fronts — honesty, transparency, truthfulness, the economy, foreign policy, the duties of the commander-in-chief, executive responsibilities, and spiritual leadership.
For those who are “shocked” at the present meltdown, of a magnitude not seen since the annus horribilis of 1979, in their defense: Obama certainly did not campaign on a new health-care plan that would force Americans to give up the doctors they liked and their existing coverage, while raising premiums and deductibles, while giving exemptions for insiders and cronies, and while raising the deficit.
Obama promised to halve the deficit — not run up more red ink than almost all prior presidents combined. Indeed, he once as a senator voted against raising the debt limit and blasted Bush for borrowing from China. He once sermonized to us that the presidency is serious stuff, that it entails inordinate personal sacrifice and even a virtual absence of downtime and vacation — and then he became just the sort of president he was critiquing. But those deceptions were simply politics as usual, and it was logical for the hard leftist Barack Obama to try to appear to be a moderate, given that no Northern liberal had won the presidency in the half-century since John F. Kennedy.
The antidote to the great madness of 2008 would have been, instead of focusing on what Obama claimed or hedged, simply to recall what he had done before he ran for president and to notice what he did during the campaign. Had America done that, there would never have been a President Obama to surprise us now.
The racial animosity characterized by Obama’s editorializing about Skip Gates, Trayvon Martin, and, now, the Ferguson, Mo., hysteria, or his call to Latinos to “punish our enemies,” or the tenure of Eric Holder is simply a continuation of 2008’s “typical white person,” the clingers speech, Michelle Obama’s America as “just downright mean,” “They raise the bar,” and “For the first time . . . I’m really proud of my country” commentaries, and of Obama’s earlier boast that he never missed services at the Trinity Church of the hate-mongering and anti-Semitic Reverend Jeremiah Wright. If Obama had not proved to be a racial divider, we should have been surprised — given what we learned of his past in 2008. After all, it’s from Jeremiah Wright that Barack Obama got the title for his campaign brief, “The Audacity of Hope.”
We are now shocked at the current spate of alphabetic scandals — IRS, AP, NSA, VA. But why are we surprised, given that Obama never told the truth about his relationships with the old terrorist Bill Ayers and former PLO ad hoc spokesman Rashid Khalidi, or about the creepy land deal with the crook Tony Rezko? If the Obama White House demonized the Tea Party as tea-baggers, or compared the Republican House opposition to terrorists and arsonists, why should we be astonished, given how he was elected to the U.S. Senate? Quite mysteriously, his primary opponent, Blair Hull, and his general-election opponent, Jack Ryan, both of whom were favored to win, had their confidential divorce records leaked. Their campaigns subsequently imploded.
Obama has played fast and loose with ethical rules, from promoting crony capitalists to attending near-constant fundraisers among the pay-to-play 0.0001 percent. Again, why should we be surprised, given that he was the first presidential candidate who refused in a general election to accept federal campaign financing, with its accompanying rules curbing mega-fundraising? Obama was the largest recipient of Goldman Sachs donations in the company’s history, and raised more cash in 2008 and 2012 than any other presidential candidate in history.
We are terrified of the chaos that is spreading across the world: Egypt, Gaza, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Putin’s Russia, and the Chinese–Japanese tensions. But was there any evidence in 2008 that rookie senator Obama had any foreign-policy experience or even knowledge of the world beyond Chicago, other than as a boy in Indonesia or a teen on a jaunt with buddies to Pakistan? We knew in 2008 that his opportunistic trashing of Guantánamo, renditions, tribunals, drones, and preventive detention was permitted only by the fact that the Bush–Cheney protocols he was criticizing had prevented another 9/11-like attack — and thus gave him the leeway of easy second-guessing. If we are now worried about Obama’s equivocation, there was plenty of evidence, as Hillary Clinton pointed out in 2008, that Obama as a state legislator had voted “Present” as a matter of habit.
Polarization? Partisanship? The National Journal warned us in 2008 that Obama was the most partisan of the 100 U.S. senators. Did we assume that he would revert to something that he never had been?
Critics are angry that Obama seems disengaged, or that as a man of the people he is inordinately obsessed with golf, a sport that the Left used to despise as a fixation of the rich in their lime-green pants and bright pink polo shirts. But again, can we point to any landmark legislation that Obama accomplished as a state legislator or U.S. senator? Was not Obama golfing during the 2008 campaign?
Then there is the matter of the presidential untruths. The problem is not just that Barack Obama says things that are untrue but that he lies about what Barack Obama has said. He brags that he set red lines, but then he says it was the U.N. had set red lines. He boasts of pulling out every U.S. soldier from Iraq but then alleges that President Bush, the Iraqis, or Maliki did that. He claims that ISIS are Jayvees but then claims they are serious. But his prevarication too is habitual and was known in 2008 when it was discovered that he had simply misled the nation about his relationships with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. He had no desire, in the transparent manner of John Kerry, Al Gore, John McCain, or George W. Bush, to release his medical records or college transcripts. If Americans find their president ill-informed, there was no record that he was informed in 2008. His gaffes were far more frequent than those of Sarah Palin, who knew there were 50 states.
Historians will look back at 2008 as a time when the country became more or less collectively unhinged. There was an accompanying perfect storm of sorts: He was the first serious African-American candidate, whom condescending liberals like Harry Reid and Joe Biden heralded for being clean, light-skinned, and without a black patois; he was running in an orphaned election without an incumbent vice president or president on the other side’s ticket, a situation not seen since 1952; we had an unpopular lame-duck president and the Iraq war; the sudden financial meltdown in September 2008 caused a then-behind Obama to immediately surge ahead; the McCain campaign was lackluster; and the media became an advocate of the Obama effort.
Pundits vied for superlatives. On little evidence, Christopher Buckley assured us that Obama possessed “a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect.” For some, proof of Obama’s godhead became almost physical — a “perfectly creased pant” for David Brooks, a tingling leg for Chris Matthews. For Evan Thomas he was a “sort of God”; for one blue-chip historian he was the smartest man with the highest IQ ever running for the presidency. And on and on, as huge crowds acted as if they were watching Paul McCartney on tour in 1966. After the election, there was real apprehension that the country might not make it for the two and a half months until an elected Obama could take power.
Given that there was no evidence from Obama’s legislative career to justify such superlatives, we can only assume that our intellectual elites got caught up in the faux Greek columns, the Obama tutorials for fainting crowds about proper first aid, the teleprompted emphatics of “Let me be perfectly clear” and “Make no mistake about it,” the Latinate motto “Vero possumus” on the faux presidential seal on his campaign podiums, the boast that Obama & Co. were “the ones we’ve been waiting for,” the messianic promise to cool the planet and lower the seas, the Lincoln self-comparisons, and the other embarrassing childish banalities.
Obama, it is true, ran a brilliant campaign in 2008, hinting to the Other that as a non-white he shared both their racial bona fides and their frustrations, hinting to white elites that his own unique heritage would end racial hostilities and thus allow them to square the circle of living largely separate elite lives and not having to feel guilty about it. He dropped his g ’s and went into Southern cadences among African Americans, and then back again into wonkish academese to mainstream whites. It was well known that in impromptu talks he stuttered and stumbled with uh’s in deer-in-the-headlights fashion, and used the pronouns I, me, my, and mine ad nauseam, but such unease was ignored given his teleprompted eloquence and the considerable elite investment in his symbolism.
In sum, in 2008 Obama gave America more than enough evidence to doubt that he was ready for the presidency, but when a nation becomes unhinged by trivialities like “hope and change,” there is not much one can do — until the patient wakes up from his trance and in embarrassment asks, “What exactly was all that nuttiness in 2008 about?”
We will be fathoming that strange madness of 2008 for decades to come.
— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.
Let's start with the ISIS beheading of James Foley.
If this sort of horror no longer shocks you, it should. It would be one thing for a terrorist group to execute a civilian from the enemy's side. It wouldn't be civilized, but you could understand where that sort of impulse came from. But to force the man to make a statement, and to then cut off his head, and to videotape the event and broadcast it to the world _ this isn't the behavior of a normal adversary. It's not like facing the German army in 1918. The Soviet army of 1980 would not have behaved in such a manner. The closest analogue might be the Japanese army of 1943, from which we have reports of camp officers arranging for the communally observed vivisection of POWs, just to satisfy anatomic curiosities. But even that isn't quite on point, because the Imperial Japanese Army did not think to publicize such atrocities. At the very least, they had the sense to keep such things to themselves.
All of which suggests that when you look at jihadists in general, and ISIS in particular, we really do face a new kind of adversary. These aren't communists or fascists. They're psychopaths. Literally. It is as though we face thousands upon thousands of Jeffrey Dahmers and John Wayne Gacys, but all devoted to the same rough set of beliefs and rituals.
It is understandable that Americans would try to turn away from this fact. It is, quite frankly, horrifying. But it exists all the same. Daniel Pearl. Nicholas Berg. Paul Johnson.Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong. The Syrian soldier whose head was brandished by the Australian child jihadist. The British soldier who had his head cut off in the street in Woolwich. This is a thing that happens. The men who do this are real.
Which brings us to President Obama.
Last Wednesday the president made a statement about James Foley, the American citizen who had just been ritually slaughtered. Obama said that he would be "relentless" in pursuing the men responsible. Which is good and fitting. Then he went to play golf.
In a rare fit of conscience, the media exploded, castigating Obama for being either (at best) crass or (at worst) disengaged. Even the New York Times was ashamed of his behavior.
I would offer a slightly nuanced view of the president's golf game. It isn't the idea of Obama recreating that's worrisome. Imagine if, instead of playing golf, the president had made his statement and then taken a long, solitary run. Or gone to the batting cage and swung the lumber for an hour. Or done something physical to work out his frustration and find some mental space.
Heck, imagine if he had picked up his bag and trudged the links by himself, using the physical activity to somberly work things through. Would people have given him grief? I doubt it. Most people understand how the physical and mental are linked, and very few folks would begrudge him some physical activity in the shadow of such terrible news.
No, the problem isn't that the president surveyed the beheading of one of his citizens and then played golf. It's that he looked like this on the course. And this. And this.
The problem isn't that the president played golf. It's that he was yukking it up on the course, fist-bumping his buddies, having a bro-tastic afternoon. Immediately after confronting the kind of evil which murdered James Foley.
Which suggests in turn that President Obama lacks either the ability or the willingness to truly grapple with the nature of the threat we face.