Culture of Conniption

What does the savaging of Richard Cohen or Jeff Goldstein or Stephen Colbert, the irrational behavior among conservatives at the mere mention of Bill Clinton or the condition known as Bush Derangement Syndrome [ed: who knew that it had its own wiki entry?] have in common?

It's a symptom of a far larger problem - the culture of conniption. Frankly, most folks really don't know how to prioritize their problems and therefore fixate on someone or something as the cure-all or end-all of their problems. And the fixation becomes the focus of the conniption.

We're in the midst of a life and death struggle with a theology whose moral and ethical core is completely incompatible with Western thought and theology. Militant Islam has had an ongoing war with the West for decades, and culminated with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The US response to the attacks brought out the ire among those Leftists who, instead of going after the terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans, instead directed their venom at the sitting Administration in an ongoing effort to undermine, thwart, and even destabilize the Administration's efforts.

This is a subject that others have tangentially commented upon, including Bill Whittle. Whittle's essay on Tribes describes the differences between the various worldviews and includes this insight gleaned from how sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs interact:

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are dozens of times more likely to be killed, and thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured, by school violence than by school fires, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their children is just too hard, so they choose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog that intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

While this describes the difference between actions and inaction/denial, it doesn't quite address how and why some people get so worked up about matters that are really quite trivial in the grand scheme of things. Indeed, it doesn't address the differing reactions among the sheep - the huddled masses who hear stories from the news about what the sheepdogs are doing and automatically assume that the sheepdogs are the enemies. All the while the wolves are the ones who are lurking just out of view waiting to pounce on a hapless target.

Mere differences of opinion are turned into something far more damaging. In the former cases (Cohen and Goldstein), people essential engage in the updated equivalent of a flame war. It's a hissy fit. A very public one, but it's a hissy fit that sheds more light on those who are doing the attacking than on the target of their ire.

In the latter case (Clinton and Bush), the conniption takes on far more damaging characteristics. It brings out the worst characteristics in people - from conspiracy theories to actively engaging in undermining an Administration.

During the Clinton Administration - Hillary noted that there was a vast right wing conspiracy out to get her and her husband. Lots of questionable activities occurred during Clinton's administration and were seized upon by political opponents. The personal became political as Bill engaged in an affair with his intern - and lied about it under oath - prompting impeachment.

He was not removed from office, but the whole mess sent the left into apoplexy. Retribution would come - and would start as soon as the Florida recount. When the US Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court couldn't change the rules of the recount midway, halting further recounts, it cemented the fact that President Bush won the election. The Left hadn't forgiven, or forgotten.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks brought a short reprieve as the nation united - or at least the politicians gave the appearance of uniting. They voted overwhelmingly to go after those who were responsible, and thereafter voted to depose Saddam Hussein. However, just as quickly, those on the left realized that their core constituency demanded something other than going along with the center and right. They had to oppose the war in Iraq or else face retribution in elections.

The 2004 election once again saw the Left forge a policy of conniption rather than a coherent policy to deal with the threats to the nation. And they lost. Again. Thus, the rage and apoplexy returned and was amplified by the culmination of years of being in the minority. At this point, every single act that could be characterized as a negative was seen as an impeachable offense - regardless of whether there was anything actually to them.

Reelection is a powerful thing - and even those who are quite safe in their seats - will often take extreme positions to satisfy the base. Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and others have staked out extreme positions which put them well outside mainstream politics. Yet, they've got key leadership positions but instead of treating this as a moderating effect, they push for more extreme policies, including impeachment which is nothing more than a gussied up political witch hunt.

Instead of dealing with real threats to US national security, we're fighting amongst ourselves over tangential issues.