Conservative Anger and Liberal Anger

It is well known among liberal democrats that Conservatives in general, and talk show/cable television in particular are filled with anger. Conservatives call liberals traitors, and haters of America. Conservatives say they are angry at liberals for trying to destroy America. Meanwhile, liberals are angry at conservatives for succeeding in destroying America.

Let's analyze this so that we can understand exactly what each side is trying to achieve. After all, anger is simply an emotional tool used by humans to say "no" to something, while joy is an emotional tool that is used to say "yes". So, what do conservatives and liberals want?

For conservatives, the answer is simply. They want a country that no longer exists. They idealize America to the point of idolatry, and want to return to the late 19th century, before Roosevelt, the Civil Rights movement, women's liberation, and homosexuality. Conservatives want a country with no income tax, no social programs, no hint of a welfare state, where the capitalists control the government, where the business of government is business, and states are left to do as they please. For instance, the Supreme Court case of Plessy vs. Ferguson was decided in 1892, and it left the country in a condition of "Separate but Equal" for African Americans and white people. Women did not yet have the right to vote, and African Americans were not able to vote. But, this is exactly how conservatives want the country to be. They don't want to legally oppress women or blacks anymore, but conservatives want a country in which everyone has a place, everyone knows their place, and everyone stays in their place. Thus, conservatives want a social life that returns to the condition of the late 19th century. Economically, they want to eliminate the income tax, and eliminate all federal interference with the state.

The problem is that this idea of America no longer exists. We now live in a country that has an entrenched welfare state, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. We have an income tax, and progressive tax rates.

Thus, for conservatives, the logic is simple. They love the country the way it used to be, and they hate the way the country is now. Since liberals love the way the country is now, including all those social programs, the logical connection that conservatives make is that liberals hate the way the country used to be. Yet, conservatives go one step further. They say that the way the country used to be, in the late 19th century, is really the way the United States is SUPPOSED to be, the way the Founding Fathers intended the United States to be. So, if liberals love the country the way it is now, they must logically hate the way the country is supposed to be. This leads directly to conservatives thinking of liberals as traitors, whether liberals are ordinary citizens or presidents. Conservative anger is directed at eliminating all of the social programs that the government supports through taxes., and redirecting social activism to the areas of life that are supposed to take care of people: church, business, and family. Consequently, conservatives tend to be Christians, they tend to like corporations or private enterprise, and they like family. These are the areas of society that are SUPPOSED to promote social change, they say, not the government.

Conversely, we can now understand the source of liberal anger. Liberals look back at the history of these institutions - church, business, and family. They see the following. First, the Christian church is an oppressive institution because it was used to enforce particular type of economic oppression and family oppression. The Bible was used to promote slavery, with Southern Christians saying that Slavery was good for Negroes. The Bible was and still is used to promote the submission of wives to their husbands. Consequently, liberals want to avoid using the church to promote progress in society because it too easily leads to oppression. Next, they look at business. They see that business, especially in the 19th century, was used to promote oppression in society by controlling legislators, preventing women and minorities from achieving success, and preventing the nation from having a fair society. Finally, liberals look at the family. They see a history of husbands oppressing wives financially by preventing wives from working or getting an education, and they see physical oppression, especially in the form of spousal abuse. As a result of looking at the histories of church, business, and family, the last thing liberals want to do is trust these institutions to promote social change. Hence, the only source left to promote social justice is the government, including the president and the congress, but mainly involving the courts.

Liberal anger is the result of conservatives succeeding in eliminating the social programs and economic progress that came out of the 20th century. But, more importantly, it is the result of liberals witnessing conservatives engaging in underhanded means to destroy this social and economic progress. These underhanded means include the spread of prejudice against homosexuals and other minority groups (black, Arabs, Hispanics, etc.) They also include the use of "goons" to spread lies about liberal candidates and people through the conservative press.

Liberal anger peaked with the 2004 election, because liberal saw the Republicans start to succeed in eliminating 100 years of social and economic progress. Now, we have a situation that is characterized by both anger and despair. On the one hand, moderate liberals despair at the fact that the official results of the 2004 election showed the Republicans winning more seats in Congress and winning the presidency. On the other hand, true liberals are angry because they know that Republicans rigged the 2004 election to win the presidency, and improve their margins in Congress.

According to the exit polls from the 2004 election, Kerry won among independents and moderates by a healthy margin. Moreover, Alan Abramowitz reveals that the Democrats out-mobilized the Republicans in 2004. The size of both parties is equal, so the Democrats logically won the 2004 election. Yet, Bush "won". This is like seeing a computer produce the equation 2+2=5 about 10 times in a row. We know that 2+2=4. That's the way politics works. The whole is equal to the sum of the parts. Exit polls are accurate because they aggregate the votes of the people who actually voted, and they match that aggregate with the actual results. Thus, if the Republicans and Democrats are equal in strength, with Republican and Democratic voters being very loyal to their parties, then the most important voter is the moderate, or swing voter. If a candidate wins those moderate and swing voters, AND he gets more people from his own party to vote for him, then the candidate must win the election. It cannot be any other way.
However, the only way the result can turn out different is if there is fraud. When you see the equation 2+2=5 coming up, you know that the computer is broken. When you see the actual results contradicting the sum of the parts, you know the electoral process is broken. This is why supporters for Kerry consistently claim that it was statistically impossible for him to lose the 2004 election, since he won all of the important parts of the election.

So, liberal voters are angry at the Republicans for stealing the 2004 election. Yet, the one thing conservatives love to do is criticize liberals for being so angry. They call this "Bush Hatred", and say that liberals should simply deal with their anger.

This is perfectly understandable. Conservatives have succeeded by using anger to mobilize their base, and the last thing they want the liberals to do is succeed using the same methods. The last thing they want liberals to do is use their anger to find out what conservatives have actually done to steal the election. Hence, conservatives are basically telling liberals, "I can do it, but you can't".

It is time for liberals to start using anger in the same way that conservatives have used it. The first order of business is to find out how the Republicans stole the 2004 election. The most obvious place to look is in the programming code of the electronic voting machines.