Is There Ever A Time When Liberals Aren't Freaking Out?

By: Rachel Marsden

I could never be a liberal. I’ve decided that it would be too emotionally exhausting – and not just from constantly sprinting away from reason and logic.

Why is it that with every bump in the road, some people in the Democratic Party immediately assume the "kiss my behind goodbye position" illustrated on aircraft seat cards? When they’re not depressed over the war that the USA won in Iraq, and the larger ongoing successes against terrorism, they’re bracing themselves for the party itself to implode - for the ground to break under their feet and swallow them.

Most recently, Hollywood actor, Robert Redford, accepted an honorary degree on very friendly territory in Dublin, Ireland – a place where conservatives are so popular that you’d be hard pressed to find two such parliamentary representatives to rub together.  It's a phenomenon that gave Margaret Thatcher no end of headaches. Much like the show some Democrats want to bring to Iraq, it was a formidable tossing up and spinning around of the white towel, as Redford explained that the Democratic party can't survive if Barack Obama doesn't win in November’s election. Like the IRA eventually did, Redford was in the right place for echoing the idea of surrendering unto yourself:

“I think Obama is not tall on experience...but I believe he's a really good person…I hope he'll win. I think he will. If he doesn't, you can kiss the Democratic Party goodbye. I think we need new voices, new blood. We need to get a whole group out, get a new group in."

First, in the interest of fairness, let me say that Robert Redford is a great actor and director. Now, getting back to politics, here's Redford screwed up: Being “a really good person” doesn’t qualify you to lead the Free World in wartime. In fact, it should render you exempt. I want a cantankerous jerk in charge. A straight-up prick. Winston Churchill was no hell to be around – especially when he was being chased by his “black dog” of depression. Neither was Gen. George Patton. No great wartime leader could ever remotely be described as chipper - doing "fist bumps" (aka "the crunch") with people. That stuff belongs on MTV, not in military history books.

Anyway, it seems that just yesterday other Democrats were chewing the scenery over the idea that the party would splinter and self-destruct if Hillary didn't bail out and make way for Obama’s coronation as Homecoming King…er, I mean official Democratic nominee. It was as though these people actually believed that a party which has been around since Thomas Jefferson – that’s over 200 years - would suddenly be so fragile as to not be capable of surviving the rigors of the democratic process.

Often, these are the same people who think the fact that some among us toss cans into the garbage and burn through gas in our SUVs means that we're going to actually be the ones to shank planet Earth - even though the industrial revolution couldn't manage such a feat, and neither could that flaming infernal menace called the “sun”.

I’m fascinated by the mental exercises some folks in undertake in order to reach such conclusions. It strikes me as impossible in the absence of astounding levels of hubris.

And they do the same defeatist pee-pee dance over the Iraq war. It’s as though they've never picked up a military history book in their lives.

Iraq is going as well as - or better than - any previous war (short of perhaps Desert Storm). The only thing that has changed is that the public sensitivity to wartime events has increased over time, in proportion to the advancement of media technology used to cover wars. But Iraq has, by any historical standards, been a resounding success.

What, then, are they comparing it to, when they say that it's a "mess" or a "failure"? Is it because they don't have any means of comparison or historical depth? Perhaps demonstrative of an ongoing pattern of thoroughly warped wishful thinking? Or is it a matter of some liberals being incapable of differentiating between a Tourette’s-like emotional outburst and reasoned political thought?