There has been a recent wave of posts in the lefty blogosphere denouncing the alleged ‘cultish mentality of the right’ towards the President. Their rhetorical (and mostly yawn-worthy) arguments go a little something like this (paraphrasing):
The theocratic right are cult-like in their devotion to the dictator President. Anyone on the right who criticizes the President is automatically called a liberal. Conservative used to mean a belief in conservative values. Now it means “devoted to George W. Bush no matter what.” Bush conservatives are not really conservatives but Bushies, slavishly defending him on anything and everything, right down to the proposals he has made that would not be considered conservative under the Reagan administration.
These arguments have targeted bloggers like Michelle Malkin, Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom, and Hugh Hewitt, among others. But closer examinations of the critical posts making the denounciations of the right find that those posts are – shall we say – a little thin on evidence and – in many ways – hypocritical in nature.
The thing I try to always keep in mind when I blog is to make sure what I blog about is not just a generalized rant against the left. My posts are focused on particular issues like the NSA ‘scandal’, the war on terror, culture clashes, and racial double-standards (just for starters) and frequently my targets in those posts are people who’s positions on those issues don’t make sense (usually, that’s the left). But I don’t write generalized “the left are idiots” posts. I believe, for example, that there are many on the left who are undermining the war on terror – deliberately or not – and I’m not afraid to post that. However, I don’t believe everyone on the left who criticizes the President and/or his policies in the war on terror are trying to undermine it. And when someone on the right criticizes the President I don’t automatically assume that person has turned into a liberal. For me to do that, I’d have to assume that I, on occasion, was a liberal – and we know that’s not the case at all
The righty blogosphere has answered back with powerful knockout punches: Tom Maguire at Just One Minute has a must-read on the lefty posts in question (with links to them) and includes a thorough dissection of their main ‘points.’ GayPatriotWest also examines the alleged ‘cultish devotion to Dubya’ accusation and cites examples of Michelle Malkin calling President Bush to the carpet on any number of issues and notes that she would never be confused for a liberal – he also points to a post by Bull Moose which mentioned other popular righties who’ve come down against Bush and still not been confused with a liberal nor has/had been accused of being one. James Taranto nailed the hypocrisy of the lefty posts in question with this (scroll down):
For most conservatives, Bush is not perfect but he is far better than the alternatives that were on offer in 2000 and 2004. Those on the left who look at the right and see blind loyalty for the most part are actually viewing a reflection of their own blind hate.
Most of the folks on the left who like to write generalized diatribes against the right like to hear themselves talk (with the ‘talking’ being done on their blog) more than anything else. It’s somewhat amusing to read what they have to say. It’s even better when the powerhouses on the right call their arguments for what they are: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.