Похоже что это общий для многих их них нынче психологический эффект "отключения в нокаут". Победа республиканцев "по очкам" в 2000 оставляла поле для домыслов и самоутешения проигравшим, тогда как чистая победа "нокаутом" в 2004 лишает на этот раз либералов даже и того слоя психотерапии. Не исключено что это все сильно повредило - если и не окончательно подорвало - способность демократов к критическому анализу ситуации. Во всяком случае абсолютное большинство уже вот и солидного казалось что уровня престижных самых у них публикаций забиты нынче рассуждениями о том, какие вокруг них американцы не такие, как то им хотелось бы.
Логика рассуждений в той же степени на удивление однообразная, как и понятное дело что абсолютно тупиковая. Как раньше тут ниже по ленте дневника уже отмечал, такого рода взгляд на мир сам по себе гарантирует еще большей глубины падение демократической партии на выборах в 2008. Не похоже чтобы кто-то из них про то до сих пор даже и задумывался. Приводимая ниже статья из Slate видимо иллюстрирует этот наблюденный факт особенно убедительно именно потому что пишет обо всем том либерал на редкость умный и тем ни менее ... все опять ровно так. Называется такого рода явление, по-видимому, "шоры порочного мировоззрения". Непроницаемые наверное сами по себе шоры, абсолютно независимо от личных качеств - включая и уровень собственного интеллекта - для любого либерала. Возможно кто-то встречал исключения - с интересом бы про такого рода событие послушал - самому увы до сих пор не доводилось.
- Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue
The unteachable ignorance of the red states.
By Jane Smiley
Updated Thursday, Nov. 4, 2004, at 3:24 PM PT
The day after the election, Slate's political writers tackled the question of why the Democratic Party—which has now lost five of the past seven presidential elections and solidified its minority status in Congress—keeps losing elections. Chris Suellentrop says that John Kerry was too nuanced and technocratic, while George W. Bush offered a vision of expanding freedom around the world. William Saletan argues that Democratic candidates won't win until they again cast their policies the way Bill Clinton did, in terms of values and moral responsibility. Timothy Noah contends that none of the familiar advice to the party—move right, move left, or sit tight—seems likely to help. Slate asked a number of wise liberals to take up the question of why Americans won't vote for the Democrats. Click here to read previous entries.
Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States,
especially in the red states. There used to be a kind of hand-to-hand fight on
the frontier called a "knock-down-drag-out," where any kind of
gouging, biting, or maiming was considered fair. The ancestors of today's
red-state voters used to stand around cheering and betting on these fights. When
the forces of red and blue encountered one another head-on for the first time in
Kansas Territory in 1856, the red forces from Missouri, who had been coveting
Indian land across the Missouri River since 1820, entered Kansas and stole the
territorial election. The red news media of the day made a practice of
inflammatory lying—declaring that the blue folks had shot and killed red folks
whom everyone knew were walking around. The worst civilian massacre in American
history took place in Lawrence, Kan., in 1862—Quantrill's raid. The red
forces, known then as the slave-power, pulled 265 unarmed men from their beds on
a Sunday morning and slaughtered them in front of their wives and children. The
error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to
underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America. Listen to what the red state
citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock
to. They know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste
for violence. The blue state citizens make the Rousseauvian mistake of thinking
humans are essentially good, and so they never realize when they are about to be
slugged from behind.
Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you
don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of
course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you
must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of
belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they
make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex
thought and so it is best not try it.
Next, they tell you that you are the best of a bad lot (humans, that is) and
that as bad as you are, if you stick with them, you are among the chosen. This
is flattering and reassuring, and also encourages you to imagine the terrible
fates of those you envy and resent. American politicians ALWAYS operate by a
similar sort of flattery, and so Americans are never induced to question
themselves. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter—he asked Americans to take
responsibility for their profligate ways, and promptly lost to Ronald Reagan,
who told them once again that they could do anything they wanted. The history of
the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be
told what to do—they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually
unteachable.
Third, and most important, when life grows difficult or fearsome, they
(politicians, preachers, pundits) encourage you to cling to your ignorance with
even more fervor. But by this time you don't need much encouragement—you've
put all your eggs into the ignorance basket, and really, some kind of miraculous
fruition (preferably accompanied by the torment of your enemies, and the
ignorant always have plenty of enemies) is your only hope. If you are
sufficiently ignorant, you won't even know how dangerous your policies are until
they have destroyed you, and then you can always blame others.
The reason the Democrats have lost five of the last seven presidential elections
is simple: A generation ago, the big capitalists, who have no morals, as we
know, decided to make use of the religious right in their class war against the
middle class and against the regulations that were protecting those whom they
considered to be their rightful prey—workers and consumers. The architects of
this strategy knew perfectly well that they were exploiting, among other
unsavory qualities, a long American habit of virulent racism, but they did it
anyway, and we see the outcome now—Cheney is the capitalist arm and Bush is
the religious arm. They know no boundaries or rules. They are predatory and
resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant. Lots of Americans like and admire
them because lots of Americans, even those who don't share those same qualities,
don't know which end is up. Can the Democrats appeal to such voters? Do they
want to? The Republicans have sold their souls for power. Must everyone?
Progressives have only one course of action now: React quickly to every
outrage—red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we have to assume the
worst and call them on it every time. We have to give them more to think about
than they can handle—to always appeal to reason and common sense, and the law,
even when they can't understand it and don't respond. They cannot be allowed to
keep any secrets. Tens of millions of people didn't vote—they are watching,
too, and have to be shown that we are ready and willing to fight, and that the
battle is worth fighting. And in addition, we have to remember that threats
to democracy from the right always collapse. Whatever their short-term appeal,
they are borne of hubris and hatred, and will destroy their purveyors in the
end.
