This is a column I wouldn’t expect to see written by Cohen, who is generally considered to be a liberal on most issues:
Two weeks ago I wrote about Al Gore’s new movie on global warming. I liked the film. In response, I instantly got more than 1,000 e-mails, most of them praising Gore, some calling him the usual names and some concluding there was no such thing as global warming, if only because Gore said there was. I put the messages aside for a slow day, when I would answer them. Then I wrote about Stephen Colbert and his unfunny performance at the White House correspondents’ dinner.
Kapow! Within a day, I got more than 2,000 e-mails. A day later, I got 1,000 more. By the fourth day, the number had reached 3,499 — a figure that does not include the usual offers of nubile Russian women or loot from African dictators. The Colbert messages began with Patrick Manley (”You wouldn’t know funny if it slapped you in the face”) and ended with Ron (”Colbert ROCKS, you MURDER”) who was so proud of his thought that he copied countless others. Ron, you’re a genius.
[...]
Usually, the subject line said it all. Some were friendly and agreed that Colbert had not been funny. Most, though, were in what we shall call disagreement. Fine. I said the man wasn’t funny and not funny has a bullying quality to it; others (including some of my friends) said he was funny. But because I held such a view, my attentive critics were convinced I had a political agenda. I was — as was most of the press, I found out — George W. Bush’s lap dog. If this is the case, Bush had better check his lap.
It seemed that most of my correspondents had been egged on to write me by various blogs. In response, they smartly assembled into a digital lynch mob and went roaring after me. If I did not like Colbert, I must like Bush. If I write for The Post, I must be a mainstream media warmonger. If I was over a certain age — which I am — I am simply out of it, wherever “it” may be. All in all, I was — I am, and I guess I remain — the worthy object of ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation.
What to make of all this? First, it’s not about Colbert. His show has an audience of about 1 million — not exactly “American Idol” numbers. Second, it marks the end of a silly pretense about interactive media: We give you our e-mail addresses and then, in theory, we have this nice chat. Forget about it. Not only is e-mail too often a kind of epistolary spitball, but there’s no way I can even read the 3,506 e-mails now backed up in my queue — seven more since I started writing this column.
But the message in this case truly is the medium. The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble — not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before — back in the Vietnam War era. That’s when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.
The hatred is back. I know it’s only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations. I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America — the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that’s going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice — once because they couldn’t stop it and once more at the polls.
OUCH.
Michelle Malkin says to Cohen “Welcome to our world.”
Hat tip: Allahpundit.
Others blogging about this: Tom Maguire (who notes another recent instance of the “digital lynch mob” of the left attacking one of its own), QandO, Austin Bay, Jay Redig, Captain Ed, Ankle Biting Pundits
Condescension, Anger, seething hatred, etc… all due to misinformation. I wonder if Cohen feels slightly responsible for misinforming…. THen again I stopped reading his work long ago.
This is one of my favorite topics. I don’t know why. But it’s essential as human beings that we strive to interact with one another with common decency and we all fail at it from time to time.
Disagreement turns into condescension and it doesn’t help pursuade anyone any better. Tone and warmth are important. One of the biggest things in life that I learned through my divorce is that the only person you can control is yourself. So you might as well make your words and actions positive. Because making them negative sure won’t be conducive towards making your partner feel positive or warm.
Therapists worth their salt try to instill this knowledge with thier clients. Most couples argue or have difficult relations because of this problem. Whether the topic is money, kids, home conditions, etc. Each partner needs to get up off their butt, contribute positively towards the relationship and try to do right by whatever topic.
In politics, double-standards and hypocracy doesn’t help, it hurts. Both parties have representatives under investigation. The Democrats have 22. The Republicans have a bunch also. Screaming “culture of corruption” as a tag line is just an attempt to misinform and stir up hatred. It does nothing to tell voters what you are for and what your solutions are. And when Nancy Pelosi was point blank ASKED by Tim Russert if she would end the NSA program, she said “NO”. She uses the NSA surveillance as red meat talking point misinformation to her constituency stirring up hatred but doesn’t offer anything other than the current situation as a solution.
What can I do as a person watching and trying to set the records straight with liberal commenters? Nothing but keep trying. And I try to without tone and condescension but that is sometimes easier said than done.
Comment by Baklava @ 5/9/2006 - 11:58 am
I would like to disagree with Cohen about 1 thing in his article. If the Anti-War movement would not of developed, then LBJ would of most likely ran again, and he could of won. Since LBJ was making alot of friends and family rich from the war, he would of ensured that this would of continued. Then after, if he had won in 68, if the Anti-War movement would of developed afterward, it would of only been a problem for the next President, which is pretty much what happened. Problem is the Anti-War movement was run by the same goofballs that were pulling the strings of the military, just for different reasons. Hard to justify being a person of peace, when you are proud of running down a person and shooting him in the back, or are sitting at a gun emplacement of the enemy and pointing it at a USAF plane, and making noises like you are shooting it. These people have little to contribute, and little of that makes sense, but that is a topic for another thread. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 5/9/2006 - 1:49 pm
Mr. Cohen has been dishing it out for years, but can’t hack it when the blow-back (Ward Churchill’s favorite term) hits him. The funniest part of his piece, to me, is when he suggests St. Hillary is in the “middle” insofar as her party is concerned. Say what? I guess her efforts to triangulate have convinced one person, eh Mr. Cohen?
Comment by Bachbone @ 5/9/2006 - 2:29 pm
Once again, Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen avoids the whole point of Colbert’s speech and those who defend Colbert, and instead embarks on another rant of illogical ad hominems, this time against Colbert’s defenders.
Boo! Hoo! Nobody likes Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen because he doesn’t know how to write a civil and logical editorial. Everybody is so mean to him for emanating raw hatred towards Stephen Colbert in his past editorial. Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen’s cry baby rant is simply pathetic and an embarrassment for him and the Washington Post.
This is just more proof that Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen is irrelevant. Besides Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen, the Washington Post, by allowing such nonsense to again be published on its editorial pages, is irrelevant as well.
Richard “Waa! Waa!” Cohen, why are you such a Waa! Waa!???
Comment by KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA @ 5/9/2006 - 2:45 pm
Lorica, did you just say that LBJ kept the Vietnam war going to make his friends and family rich?
Comment by blogagog @ 5/9/2006 - 4:16 pm
Alrighty then… a poster from http://www.dnc.org
And why did he post here instead of writing Richard directly? Gosh such blatant hypocracy in his post also when he wrote:
Yes… that was civil and logical….
Comment by Baklava @ 5/9/2006 - 4:27 pm
So - Richard Cohen has discovered “the hatred is back”. That is a little like living in apartheid South Africa all your life and only after it falls profess yourself “shocked” that black South Africans got the dirty end of the stick.
Nor can Mr. Cohen’s piece be considered any kind of an epiphany. He seems concerned only for himself and his Democrats. The fact that the kind of demonization he experienced is now the staple of Democrats and the MSM (including Mr. Cohen himself) attacks on Republicans does not seem to have occurred to him. Guess we don’t qualify as humans in his eyes.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 5/9/2006 - 6:34 pm
- Lorica, with all due respect, few if anyone that did not live through that period really understands the “behind the war” mechunizations and real reasons we were in Vietnam in the first place, and why we had to stay so much longer than anyone expected. The whole initiative for Vietnam was born from the political situation at the time, and coming when it did all during the height of the cold war years, which peaked during the Cuban missle crisus in ‘62.
- After the cuban debacle, in which Kennedy almost single handidly brought the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust by deploying long range missles in Turkey, aimed at the heart of Russia, The US embarked on a mission of deployement of a modern nuclear equiped sub fleet, which would be essentially indefensable, and thereby would exact, as a minimum, “assured mutual destruction”, and would in that manner “freeze” Russia for good from a “first strike”. The basic idea was to “stop the advance of Communism”, which was at that time, pushing and probing in many parts of the world to expand. Vietnam was across four different administrations, who all choose as a matter of course, to make our stand in Vietnam.
- Unfortnately it took many more years before the fleet was actually servicable and deployed finally in ‘73. America lost a lot of good people while the process dogged along, which can be argued ad nausea as to whether anyone believes it was all worth it.
- But the over riding result of that campaign was after that, Communism did not advance a single mile anywhere in the world. It is likely that that “containment”, along with the arms race that Reagan forced on the Soviets in order to bankrupt them, were both key to the eventual fall of the USSR.
- I doubt you’ll ever see that conflict presented in this manner, but irrespective of all the sensationalism, press BS, back and forth, LurchKerry moments in Cambodia wearing his magic hat that never happened, movies, and the “peace movement”, that was the real process, and intent of Vietnam all along. thats why we never actually tried to assert the full strength of our military. Winning was never the objective as far as territory, nor would we have been able to do so without bringing china into the mix if it looked like N. Vietnam would fall.
- Ho Chi Min’s ministry, years after the war was over, admitted they were ready to sue for peace after the “TET” offensive, widely mis-reported intentionally by the left-wing press as an american defeat. It was such an American defeat the North was on the verge of throwing in the towel, but thats not what we really wanted. We wanted to halt communism and we did. That the left still lives in a world of self-delusion, seeing that period as the hieght of their political influence, shows along with many other things, just how out of touch with reality they are, when you realize that they were in fact used as pawns to the real purpose. But don’t tell them that. the Democrats have already had a bad 6+ years.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 5/9/2006 - 7:54 pm
I am saying that yes. One of the first things he did was give a contract to a friend to work on Camron Bay. He accelerated the Vietnam War. Kennedy had 20,000 advisors in Vietnam. Before LBJ was re-elected he had committed over 50,000. His family had a great deal of stock in Bell Helicopter. Military only wanted to use the helicopter limitedly, but in Southeast Asia, you don’t have that choice. A friend of mine said he traveled past that factory when he was between tours in Vietnam and he said you could count 4 miles of helicopters sitting behind a fence at the factory. We lost what 25,000 Huey UH1s between 1963 and 1975, at how much per copter?? Someone got rich from that alone. It always amazed me how Kennedy didn’t want to fight communist agression and how badly Johnson did, or at least use that excuse to get re-elected, that and the death of JFK. The more I find out about “Camelot” the less I like it and the less I think it was some shining city on a hill. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 5/9/2006 - 8:09 pm
Yes Bang I am well aware of all of that. But the Vietnam problem actually includes FDR’s and Truman’s administrations. You see in the 1930s Ho Chi Min was a pastry chef in Paris. He left Paris for to fight the Japanese and was later our ally against them. After WWII ended the French laid claim to Vietnam as a French colony, which it was prior to the Japanese occupation. The US agreed and we turned it back over to France. So the same people that were hoping for us to bring them freedom, started a new fight against the French. Since most of the French Foreign legion was made up of Germans who were POWs, and were impressed into FFL they were really sort of useless in the fight for Vietnam. Anyway, it was a big mess, and even tho you disagree, you do support my point. All I am saying is that the anti-war movement was not the reason LBJ lost the nomination. It was more than that, alot more. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 5/9/2006 - 8:33 pm
- Well yes, I did not address your main point which is absolutely true, and goes without saying almost, that once it became apparent that Nam was a “holding” process, although few people outside the Sate department knew why we were holding, many people in the administrations and outside in industry took full advantage. I absolutely agree. Its a miracle we got throught that period with the rundown of political nitwits we did.
- Eisenhower - A leftover from WWII that never really “got it” about Russia, stuck in the 40’s.
- Kennedy - A total egonut - in office essentially because his daddy bought him the oval office. Lots of bluster and almost armeggedon mis-steps, when he wasn’t busy womanizing. so much for “Camelot”.
- LBJ - Another egonut who saw himself as some sort of modern day “Alamo” figure, in office by accident walking around with a silver star pinned to his suit coat, which one General commented was the most undeserved “honorary medal” ever presented, between lifting his dog by the ears, and fighting with all the percieved and real enemies in the press and on the left.
- Nixon - such a singularly unsuited person for president, he managed to find a way to be shamed out of office.
- Ford - Another Wilson that was just “there”, and spent most of his time falling down stairs.
- Carter - Single handedly managed to mess up the entire ME relations with America, and to this day is working against our interests.
If it wouldn’t have been for the state department plans that were kept going through this entire set of American clowns until Reagan was elected, and finally gave us leadership after all those years of political hackery, lord knows where we’d be now.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 5/9/2006 - 8:53 pm
Things are getting kind of scary. The writers of these emails are probably mostly people who agree with Cohen on 80% of issues, but simply cannot stand disagreement on the remaining 20%.
How many people of this type are there? A hundred thousand? Ten million? How many can a society have before it disintegrates?
Comment by David Foster @ 5/9/2006 - 11:19 pm
Lorica, I am shocked that someone would even consider that as a possibility. I guess it’s possible that someone would risk hundreds of thousands of lives to make themselves money. But that type of person is few and far between in the western world, and I’m confident none of them have ever been president of the USA.
I’m no fan of LBJ, anf blame him for our country’s first failure at war, as well as creating the entitlement generation we now have to fix. But him sending people to die just to make some cash is ridiculous. I don’t question that he made money from the war (I’ve never looked into it). But without videotape of him saying “I need a new house, let’s send some more kids to Vietnam”, there is no way I would ever believe that.
Comment by blogagog @ 5/10/2006 - 8:36 am
Blog, I am not saying that is the only reason that LBJ turned Vietnam into a full blown war. There were others reasons, but the most heinous was this profitteering. The struggles of Vietnam had been going on for a very long period of time. American had started to get involved militarily in 1956. Eisenhower didn’t want to get us deeper involved, neither did Kennedy, but suddenly things change so drastically under Johnson that he feels the need to escalate our involvement. Right. 8 years later Johnson decided to move not advisors, but draft troops to fight this war. Then Johnson decides that we can’t bomb Hanoi. He also decides that unless it is a free fire zone you have to have orders to defend yourself??? Come on now, why put assnine rules on this war if you didn’t want to prolong it. This was not a UN run war like Korea, this was done by the President and his staff. It is a ridiculous way to run a war, but that was how it was done, and Johnson was the man who did it. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 5/10/2006 - 10:28 am
And at the very end of his Epistle he still manages to get in the same idiotic lie: No WMD! But there were, we’ve found them, and that cannot be wished away.
Fine, he’s feeling somewhat chastened by his own experience with Leftist insanity. Good for him. Bur he still can’t help but lie about Iraq, and Bush.
What a clueless dolt.
Comment by benning @ 5/12/2006 - 11:10 am
Benning, like your name, you are right, on another site it all but been proven the WMD were driven out in trucks to guess where !!!!!!!
Comment by Drewsmom @ 7/28/2006 - 10:17 pm