WASHINGTON — Not so long ago there arose on the American
political scene something called, the Angry Left. It was an
indignant group of ritualistic liberals whose appearance the
mainstream media apprised us augured well for Democratic victory
in 2008, and so it did. The Angry Left turned out the vote for
the Prophet Obama. At the time, do you recall any public figure
on the right stepping forward and warning against possible
violence from the indignados of the Angry Left? Did,
say, the Hon. Newt Gingrich step forward at a conservative forum,
say the Heritage Foundation, and remind his fellow Americans of
the bombings of government buildings, the burning of university
libraries, the robbing of banks by angry leftists in years gone
by? I cannot recall any such warnings from any conservative
eminence.
It is not as though such lawlessness is unknown in American
history. Politically motivated bombings, burnings, and bank
robberies actually have been committed in America by leftists.
Some of those leftists are still with us, for instance, Bill
Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn who were fugitives from
justice for such antics and went on to become friends of the
present president of the United States. In fact,
lawlessness on the left is still being committed, for instance at
universities where speakers who offend the left — the Angry Left
or simply the Fastidious Left — are regularly shouted down or
barred from scheduled appearances as Ann Coulter recenly was, at
least, in Canada. Yet Newt has remained mum about the danger
posed by the Angry Left, and it is not easy for Newt to remain
mum.
Now just the other day, ex-President Bill Clinton — some
of us still call him The Groper — rose up at the Center for
American Progress, and drew parallels between the
Tea Partiers (call them the Caffeinated Right) and the homicidal
maniacs who participated in the Oklahoma City bombing of the
Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people and injuring hundreds
more. Clinton’s charge was typically duplicitous. “This Tea Party
movement can be a healthy thing if they’re making us justify
every penny of taxes we raised and every dollar of public money
we spend,” Clinton opined. “But when you get mad, sometimes you
wind up producing exactly the reverse result of what you say you
are for,” said the president famous for among other things his
temper tantrums. He also said, “Before the [Oklahoma] bombing
occurred, there was a sort of fever in America,” which I guess
depends on the meaning of the word fever. I recall no fever, but
then I was not impeached for lying and obstruction of
justice.
A longstanding conceit of American liberals has been to
lecture conservatives on how to conduct themselves. They are
famous for telling us what we can and cannot say. They tell us we
cannot call them socialists even when they take over industries
and transform the federal budget into a simulacrum of European
social democracy. Yet they can call us racists and enemies of the
poor when we advance alternatives to such failed policies as
affirmative action or welfare. In fact, much of the liberals’
stance toward conservatives in our ongoing dialogue with them is
an insult. The most recent politician to dabble in race-baiting
was not a conservative but Bill Clinton in the 2008 Democratic
primaries.
What Clinton depicts as a precursor to more bombings
modeled on the vile Oklahoma City bombing is nothing more than a
civic upheaval inspired by American constitutional liberties. The
Tea Partiers are no cause for alarm. For Clinton to suggest that
these generally peaceful and good natured libertarians are
opening the door to domestic terror is Clinton at his reckless
worst. In doing so he has given would-be bombers cover for their
evil acts. If more bombings of federal buildings follow, we can
thank Clinton for his speech of encouragement. Ironically federal
investigators looking for the perpetrators might begin their
investigations with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. No Tea
Partier I know has their record of violence.
