A Conservative Bombshell
The person responsible for yesterday’s bombing of a military recruiting station in Times Square may have anti-war sentiments, and conservatives couldn’t be happier.
By Jesse Singal
March 7, 2008
This photo released by the New York Police Dept. from a private security camera shows an explosion at the Times Square military recruiting station Thursday morning. (AP Photo/New York Police Dept.)Early yesterday morning, someone set off an improvised explosive device that damaged a military recruiting station in Times Square. No one was injured and the damage was relatively minor, but the police investigation disrupted traffic in the neighborhood and put the country on edge.
The motives of the perpetrator, who was caught on film by a surveillance camera, are still murky. At first, it appeared as though his act may have stemmed from opposition to the war in Iraq. Some news reports yesterday said that suspicious packages containing anti-war material had been sent to Capitol Hill and seemed to be linked to the bombing. Now, however, it looks like those packages had nothing to do with the explosion. Other sources are noting that this blast bears strong similarities to the ones carried out at the Mexican Consulate in 2007 and the British Consulate in 2005. And other media outlets are reporting that Homeland Security agents are now looking into an incident at the Canadian boarder last month—apparently four “anarchist-types” carrying pictures of various New York City locations, including Times Square, fled when officers questioned them. So it’s fair to say that no one really knows anything yet. But this, of course, hasn’t stopped some from speculating about who is responsible.
In any situation where there are more questions than answers in the hours that immediately follow a troubling event, an observer’s subsequent response and predictions can serve as a handy on-the-fly Rorschach test. In this case, the early-morning blast opened a door into the psyches of countless far-right Americans. Thanks to the Internet, numerous conservative bloggers and commentators were able to immediately chime in, and their responses, steeped in knowing accusation, had more than a little excitement to them. If one didn’t know better, it almost seemed as though they were excited by the opportunity to pin the blame on liberals. There’s a reason for this: If the perpetrator of yesterday’s explosion does indeed turn out to have been motivated by opposition to the Iraq war, conservatives will finally, after years of fruitless searching, have a real-life example of one the most powerful, useful, durable canards in the conservative rhetorical arsenal: the myth of the Crazy Liberal.
The Crazy Liberal myth is as old as politics itself and has mutated into various subtypes, but breaks down roughly like this: Many liberals are nuts. They are so blinded by ideology and by hatred of America/white people/imperialism/the prosperous that they have long since transgressed the boundaries of the rational and exist in a bizarre, self-echoing world of politically correct nonsense and endless, unquenchable anger. Even if, hypothetically, the occasional sane liberal exists, liberal policies, to be sure, are dictated on high by foam-mouthed lunatics.
During the Bush administration, this tool has been deployed endlessly by conservatives seeking to undercut the left’s criticism of the president. Recent conservative media is a veritable smorgasbord of endless repetitions of various forms of the Crazy Liberal myth. In 2003, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer brought the concept fully mainstream, coining the term “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” which he defined as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to…the very existence of George W. Bush.” (The article should be here, but the page appears to be broken.)
But while many conservatives might enjoy bashing liberals and their ideas as inherent signs of irrationality, they save a special brand of slander for members of the anti-war movement. To a certain type of conservative, the average liberal may be a homeless man muttering to himself, but the average anti-war activist is locked up in an asylum, wearing a straightjacket as he or she rocks back and forth, drooling and attending a dinner party that only exists in his or her mind. Examples abound, but perhaps the most telling one occurred when Sean Hannity falsely accused anti-war groups of protesting a soldier’s funeral that was actually picketed by the extremist, homophobic Westboro Baptist Church. To Hannity and other Americans who buy into the anti-war protester version of the Crazy Liberal myth, anti-war activists are so deranged that they would happily disrupt a soldier’s funeral.
Given all this, and given how much stock some conservatives have put into the notion that the American left is in the hands of an unstable, America-hating cabal of insane extremists, the response to the Times Square bombing from some right-wingers hasn’t been that surprising. Some of the larger, most mainstream conservative publications (“mainstream” being very much a relative term here), like The National Review and The Weekly Standard, have, to their credit, so far passed on connecting the Times Square bombing to the myth of the Crazy Liberal. But as for the big conservative blogs, which serve as the greasy, ever-pumping engine of online right-wing ire—well, not so much.
At Power Line, one of the most popular conservative blogs, John H. Hinderaker entitled his post about the bombing “Islamic Extremists or Code Pinkers?” (Codepink is a popular, absurdist anti-war group.) He proceeded to explain why these groups appear to be “the most likely suspects”: “Given the increasing virulence of attacks on the military and on military recruiting facilities by antiwar groups like Code Pink, most notably the repeated confrontations in Berkeley, one could speculate that a liberal group is the most likely culprit.” In an excellent example of the language used by true believers in the Crazy Liberal idea, Hinderaker writes as though Code Pinkers have been shelling military institutions around the country. In reality, they have been hoisting signs, chalking sidewalks, and taping bright pink tape over recruitment signs. Hardly violent stuff. But Hinderaker’s logic, apparently, is that anti-war liberals are crazy, people who plant bombs are crazy, and therefore whoever planted this bomb is an anti-war liberal.
Over at Little Green Footballs, a people-powered septic tank of hard-right asininity, Charles Johnson opined that “the anti-war left has been headed in this direction for quite some time, and I’m sure no one will be surprised if they have now graduated to domestic terrorism.” The site’s commenters, who, unlike anti-war activists or liberals, are demonstrably insane, were in rare form as they responded to the post. “Ben Hur” argued that the perpetrator was probably a “[l]eftist moonbat living out his romantic jihadi fantasy.” And “Maximu§,” perhaps too excited to properly proofread his comment, wrote, “Ill tell you all what the next scene inthis playbook is….Soldiers will start to be assaulted at airports by gangs of leftist radicals, soldiers families will start getting death threats and it goes downhill from there.”
Conservatives who depend on the Crazy Liberal myth have long had to rely on their imaginations to sustain their strangely pleasurable nightmares about homegrown radical insurgents. Yes, there are a few crazy liberals, just like there are a few crazy conservatives: For every creepily stoic anti-abortion protester hoisting a giant placard of an aborted fetus there is an ex-hippy with a misspelled sign comparing Bush to Hitler. Such is life in the United States, a country blessed with the most lenient free-speech laws in the world and home to an ever-evolving political discourse that is both endlessly rich and endlessly predicated on shallow, emotional outbursts. But conservatives have lacked empirical evidence of genuinely dangerous liberals, because there just aren’t that many in the United States (nor are there that many genuinely dangerous conservatives).
But this Times Square bomber—he’s different from the bra-burners and the grating, bongo-pounding protesters. He takes conservative mythology to a new level. He brings the fear-mongering into the realm of the real. If it turns out his actions were influenced by Iraq, he will be hailed by the right as an honest reflection of the liberal id.
So expect to hear more about this from the most pathetic, intellectual sloppy conservatives in the blogosphere and on cable news. More about how violence is a natural outgrowth of the irrational anti-war left. More about how it’s a wonder it took so long for things to devolve to this point. The right, after much fruitless searching, has “evidence” to support a lie it has disseminated for five years, the exception that proves the rule, and it won’t let go of it any time soon.
Jesse Singal is an Associate Editor of Campus Progress.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
!
You appear to chastise the bomber of the recruitment station for lending credence to otherwise ridiculous comments by right-wing commentators. You presuppose, however, that they would be right about the “loony left” if it turns out to be the case that the bombing was political. My question: Are there no objective criteria for assessing rationality or sanity? Is sanity statistical (to paraphrase Orwell)? Assume for a moment that there are objective criteria for rational behavior. Assume further (along with our right-wing counter-parts) that one can rationally engage in the destruction of property (I’m not sure whether or not our bomber would have intentionally hurt other humans as well, as US soldiers routinely do). Under what circumstances would it be rational or sane to bomb a recruitment center? If you believe that the war in Iraq is real (i.e. not virtual), then it seems to me you have a duty to try to stop it. It’s difficult to say what that entails, but surely we ought to know better than to believe that it means operating within the “normal channels.” You know, the ones invented by the right-wing.
— brandon - Mar 8, 01:21 AM - #www.worldnetdaily.co…
— Tyler Cruse - Mar 8, 09:10 PM - #I think you should do more research on recruitment centers and the treatment recruiters endure. There is nothing “mythical” about it.
— StacyH - Mar 10, 11:59 AM - #If you yourself state that Code Pink is ‘absurdist’ – why should we not call them absurd?
— Annie B - Mar 10, 12:45 PM - #Dressing up in a clown suit may well mean that you ARE a clown. At the least, it is no proof to the contrary.
So when some on the left SAY illogical and irrational and violent things, why should they NOT be expected to consider
illogical and irrational and – yes -violent acts? As they have done. And once the violent acts start, why may they not increase in scope and damage?
Seems to me the rational right is rational indeed.
It is no myth that liberals are crazy.
— Axek - Mar 10, 01:26 PM - #1.) It just like the Conservative Hate culture to jump on these kind of stories using it to generalize the Left. If they want to jump to conclusions let them.
2. It Funny how many conservatives obsess over progressive websites posting negative feed back. It kind of shows you who really is the Thought Police.
— Daniel - Mar 10, 01:31 PM - #Oh, I wouldn’t call it obsession. It’s more like conservatives regard you as tragically pathetic, same way as you’d view someone who still feels the object of his devotion “really does love him” despite the repeated rejections. But the question does need to be asked, “If it wasn’t an ‘anti-war, but I support the troops, don’t question my patriotism’ leftist; then who?” If only it were an isolated incident, there’d be some benefit of the doubt.
— martin - Mar 10, 02:23 PM - #Daniel, Those campus speech codes aren’t being developed by conservatives and conservatives aren’t trying to “reframe” the debate.
— Bill M - Mar 10, 02:33 PM - #Jesse,
When I see a war protester holding a sign about US troops that reads “Live like a pig, Die like a pig”. It’s pretty obvious who is losing it. But you go ahead with your ad hominem attacks. I know you don’t want an honest debate. You demostrated that with this story.
Your very first poster explained why the bombing is perfectly acceptable if someone disagrees with the war. The poster includes this sentiment: “(I’m not sure whether or not our bomber would have intentionally hurt other humans as well, as US soldiers routinely do)”. This is understandable for liberals who are unable to look beyond the continual anti-military sentiment of the media and various bloggers. I have many family members who are alive because of US military intervention. What amuses me is that so many liberals are attacking the military instead of the legislators that are giving them orders. If you dislike our military action in Iraq, why not go chain yourselves to the doors of congress? Those are the folks making the decisions. The reason? Liberals are stupid and crazy.
— Carolynp - Mar 10, 02:43 PM - #There is a larger issue here that is being overlooked. It is not just this case. Violence is becoming the exception, not the rule, with far left advocates, be it the environment (ELF), animal rights (ALF), or Japanese whalers, at whom Greenpeace “activists” have been hurling chemical concoctions or worse. Let us not forget the spiked trees meant to injure or kill loggers, the recent conviction of Briana Waters for burning down UW’s Horticultural Institute (which she mistankly thought was gennetically engineering trees, her bad) or the molotovs tossed by anarchists at nearly every WTO meeting in the world. And now recriters, who have been the subject of an escalating campaign of anarchy which includes the violent trashing of centers around the country, not to mention the pouring of concrete onto railroad tracks outside the military base in Olympia, WA. Is that protest or sabotage? Think carefully before you answer, because if it’s acceptable political protest for some it’s acceptable for all, including those targeting abortion clinics with violence. I repudiate ALL of it. How about you?
Where are the howls of condemnation of all these violent acts by Congressional and political leaders in the cities affected? That’s what I’d like to know.
Fact is, just the opposite is true. Left wing political leaders, like radical Muslim imams, whip their subjects into a frenzy, then express shock when they go over the line. But rare is the word of cndemnation, and therein lies the rub.
I make no conclusion as to the Times Square bombing. I don’t know who did it. But at this point, like a detective I have to look at MO and pattern of behavior and ask myself: who would have done this, and to what purpose? Doesn’t look good.
— JohnnyT - Mar 10, 04:00 PM - #When acts like the Times Square bomber occur can you blame the rest of America for believing “the American left is in the hands of an unstable, America-hating cabal of insane extremists”? Maybe the reason most of America believes that the left is full of moonbats is because either you act like moonbats or you accept the actions of moonbats. How can you prove otherwise? How ‘bout by condemning such actions instead of rationalizing them.
— SShiell - Mar 10, 05:42 PM - #Jesse, you danced around what you really believe without voicing it, so here it is: The Times Square bombing was obviously masterminded by Karl Rove, in order to discredit all peace-loving rational Liberals and perpetuate the VRC’s Big Lie.
There you go, feel better now? Please, no need to thank me.
— Jay I. - Mar 10, 09:15 PM - #I have never read such pathetic, self-pitying garbage in my whole life. The conservative view of anti-war liberals is “mythical”? I guess the actions of the Berkeley City Council were just figments of the conservative imagination. I suppose the same could be said of the actions of the Mayor of Toledo, OH. Or perhaps you would like to discuss the treatment of soldiers at UC Santa Cruz, or the banning of JROTC by the San Francisco City Council. Or maybe we should look at some prominent left-wing blogs such as Daily Kos, which compared the troops unfavorably to Hamas. And there is a reason that the slanders of Scott Beauchamp were published by a liberal opinion magazine. But let no one question the left’s support of the troops. Let no one claim that the left is not unhinged in their hatred of the military. After all Code Pink and ANSWER are really rightwing front groups.
— B - Mar 11, 02:12 PM - #Of course, it was obvious this article was a bunch of garbage when I saw that you cherrypicked a few comments from LGF to bolster your argument. Is that all you have? Haha, give me a break. And evidently you are an uber-psychiatrist if you can assess that someone is insane just by reading a comment on a blog. Never mind the fact that insanity is not a medical term at all. You can be excused for making that error though, because your writing makes it quite clear you are an idiot anyway.
As for blog comments, that is probably a topic a person on the left would not be wise to mention. Unless perhaps you like excusing those who cheer the cancer of Tony Snow or hope for Dick Cheney to have another heart attack or cheer the death of contractors in Iraq like Markos “Screw Em” Moulitsas.
I find it interesting that you will highlight the right’s endless pursuit of a/the “myth of the Crazy Liberal”, one of whom may have actually perpetrated a bombing on a New York street, without ever contrasting it to the Randi Rhodes incident and the “Right Wing Fanatic” every left blogger was certain had carried out that “vicious” attack and which, discerned afterwards, apparently never occurred.
The human capacity to rationalize, while endless, is fully accented here with hysterical delusion.
The sheer effort you put into misdirecting the discussion away from the event and into your own narcissistic, self-assuming intellectualism that believes all of existence is a conspiracy against you and your fellow “thinkers” truly defies logic. You and I are nothing without context. Our thoughts are meaningless without an objective standard to compare them with. Nothing is what you say it is simply because you say it’s so.
All of your anecdotal evidence of the evil conservatives and their employment of propagandist tools that you use to bolster your own position only demonstrates the depths of your need for rationalization. How about some actual evidence that “crazy” liberals are, indeed, mythical? How about some evidence that the bomber isn’t “crazy” or “liberal”? Or, are you so concerned about where that evidence will lead that you must re-direct the dialog? As Mark Twain pointed out, people will go to great lengths to avoid great lengths.
So, I recommend that instead of the tired “I know I am but what are you?” line of debate you simply grow up.
— Tim K - Mar 12, 03:48 PM - #It’s obvious that the right wingers who have responded here don’t have a clue what they are talking about since they can’t make basic distinctions between mainstream political activism and fringe elements. If we follow the rightist illogic here, then the Times Square bomber and the ELF are as liberal as Randy Weaver, the Aryan Nations and the Montana Militia are conservative. I’ve been a liberal Democratic activist for years and neither I nor anyone else with whom I work would dream of bombing a recruiting center or engaging in any political violence, or offer support or justification to anyone who would, any more that you righties would scrawl a swastika on a synagogue. It’s you folks who need to grow up, or at least educate yourselves to see the difference between mainstream activists and extremist nutcases.
— Bklynguy - Mar 14, 06:26 PM - #There are certainly some people out there who are incapable of apprehending points of view different from their own. If I recall correctly, it’s these “special interests” which Obama wants to kick out of Washington, or at least neutralize.
— Anthony - Mar 14, 07:46 PM - #Wait, a bombing where the only victim is a storefront window is a bad thing? Would throwing a brick through the window with the exact same result garner half as much criticism?
Jeez, let me be the first to say “good job” to the bomb throwing anarchist. They hurt no one, and maybe slowed down a war of attrition, if just by a little bit.
— KMM - Mar 16, 01:24 AM - #I respect this website, though you guys consistently publish hyper-polarized articles on the bipartisan and idealogical schism. At Binghamton University, a conservative speaker came to talk about his beliefs and a book that he published. The college democrats filled the first three rows, and five minutes into it, they stood up in unison and exited noisily. This allowed all those who were attending the conference in earnest to move down to the first rows and ask questions to the speaker. Okay, I get it, you disagree with his views, but childish politics reflect poorly on your party and negate the possibility of any true discussion. I would have liked to have attended, listened, then posed my own queries in a non-confrontational way. Emotional politics is a tool of the Bush administration, not something for intellectuals with a social conscience.
— Michael - Mar 16, 02:08 AM - #Unlike the Left (Dems. Etc) and most of the the rest of the world GOP isn’t afraid of these towel headed muslim terrorists (redundant). America is much more powerful than them and we can whip them bad just like the we did to the supposedly tough Taliban and Saddam & Co. If we want to we can wipe those muslims of the map; no doubt. It would be nice. mohammed is a child molesting pedophile. Bring it on towel heads! You (Jihaders) will soon by joining the like of Al-Zarqawi, saddam and his two sons. Let’s take them the way of the Dinosaurs!:)))Oh yeah! USA!USA!USA!USA!USA! God willing!
Remember though, a vote for Obama is a vote for Osama; don’t forget that. Al-Qaeda also wants the dems to win! They fear the GOP. The fear Dubya and McCain that is why they have not struck since 9/11 ! They know Dubya and the GOP will retaliate with overwhelming force! Perhaps nuking Muslim holy sites is not off the table even. if we get hit again; it’s been mentioned by some congressmen . Mecca might look like the Grand Canyon after! During the Hadj would be a good time I think. I would be dancing in the street and millions of americans would be too. God is great!! McCain all the way! Just like Muhammad is in hell! So are many treasonous American muslim leaders such as Malcolm X, Elijah Mohammed and later on Louis farrakhan and honorary muslim like Jeremiah Wright and Jesse Jackson.Michele Obama is an anti-american racist and a nappy headed ho too, She looks like a young Aunt Jemima as well; this is reason enough not to vote for Mr. Hussein Obama.
— Rick - Mar 27, 09:35 PM - #Remember though, a vote for Obama is a vote for Osama; don’t forget that. Al-Qaeda also wants Obama to win. The only difference between Obama and Osama is BS. Obama’s racist Leftist anti-american Pastor Jeremiah Wight ought to be hanged for treason his anti-american comments (especially in time of War like now) as well as anyone who believes in or agrees with his Leftist hateful anti-american message.
Hateful militant angry blackman types are evil and are also anti-american traitors as well.
Just like Muhammad is in hell! So are many treasonous American muslim leaders such as Malcolm X, Elijah Mohammed and someday Louis farrakhan and honorary racist negro muslims like Jeremiah Wright and Jesse Jackson, Malik Shabazz, the Nation of Islam and the Black panthers and Michele Obama. Whenever they are asked to apologize for their evil rhetoric they rarely do and when they actually do they do it in a very niggardly manner. Isn’t it obvious their contempt for America and law abiding true Christians? America needs a President who loves America and is proud of her and needs those around him to love her also and served her both in politics and the miltary; much like President Bush, his father, Reagan, Ford, Nixon and JFK all did. We don’t want racist anti-military, anti-american angry negro running the country who has a nappy headed ho for a wife and a racist traitor for a pastor like Mr. Hussein Obama. A vote for Obama is a vote for Osama! Al-Qaeda is rooting for Mr. Hussein Obama too! There’s no telling how many 9/11’s we’ll have if he becomes the Prez; it is almost inevitable ! I would bet that we get hit at least 3 or 4 times by 9/11 magnitude attacks in 1 term with Obama. That is why I would never vote for him. McCain all the way!!!!!!