I mentioned before how the left tends to react with such hatred toward Governor Palin. However, at the time, I did not recall how much hatred the left poured into many Republicans, even those who were so far to the left that they should have seemed almost allies. It is a peculiarity of the left, this need to hate your rivals. I can't explain it, but I think I have some general ideas about its cause.

Not that the right is immune. There are some on the right who do the same thing, theorizing that Obama is a secret moslem infiltrator, or even those who oppose McCain and imagine he is some sort of turncoat doing the bidding of secret Democrat masters, but those on the right are a definite minority, and are generally regarded as somewhat daft by their peers. We may call Obama a socialist, but that is because of his far left views, not because we believe he is secretly in the employ of Cuba. And when we charge him with planning to destroy America, few of us mean he wants to do so, just that the plans he thinks best are those which will do the most harm.

On the other hand, the left accepts the most paranoid ranters into their ranks happily. It is hard to find a left-leaning site which does not posit that any conservative is either stupid, evil, or involved in some conspiracy. From Dick Cheney doing the bidding of Haliburton to the caricature of a near brain dead Dan Quayle, to the many slanders against Governor Palin, to the confused image of Bush as both an evil genius and a complete moron (best characterized by his many nicknames such as "Flyboy Chimpy McBushitler the Decider" which combine the two in an incredibly inconsistent package), the left sees everyone who differs with them as outright villains, or, at best, fools easily duped by the evil around them.

To the modern left, there is never a simple disagreement, anyone in the other camp is either stupid or evil. And if anyone doubts this, just look at the ease with which they accept both the "Zionist conspiracy" nuts and the "Truthers" who posit either a Bush or Mossad plan behind 9/11. Even a decade ago, the left would have been ashamed to be associated with them, but since the madness of the 2000 election, a very different left has emerged. A paranoid, angry left.

Why?

In an earlier essay I postulated that the left is so angry with their opponents because they draw their identity form their politics, and I think combining that, with the behavior of those on the right who slander the leftists with whom they disagree, we can find an explanation.

Those on the right who argue for conspiracies, or accuse the left of intentionally doing evil, most often are those who can't imagine why anyone would not be a conservative. Often they have very strong beliefs that they see as "common sense". They are rarely very systematic theorists, but instead sort of "gut reaction" conservatives. They just can't imagine being any other way.

And that is probably why they, and the left, can't see any other possibility but that their opponents are idiots or evil. Once you imagine your beliefs are self-evident and that any other belief system is impossible, you have to imagine anyone who disagrees is either intentionally evil, or has been duped by those who are.

And on the left, there is a second factor. Since the 2000 election, the left has adopted a siege mentality. Convinced they were robbed of the presidency, in every election since they have been watching avidly for additional chicanery, making them instinctively see Republicans as treacherous foes. It has fueled a paranoid mindset, which makes them open to crazy ideas they would have rejected out of hand only 10 years ago. In some ways the 2000 election drove the left a little bit mad.

Now, some will reply that the right is just as paranoid. The talk of a liberal media, or of Soros funded networks is clearly paranoid. However, the difference is notable. the press is provably left leaning, by their own declared political inclinations on survey after survey, and there is more than adequate proof that Soros IS funding massive political networks. On the other hand, there is no proof that Cheney started wars to please Haliburton or that Bush attacked Saddam to get revenge for his father. Or, more simply, to posit Soros is involved in left wing causes is to recognize proven facts not denied by the man himself, while theorizing Bush blew up the twin towers is to engage in behavior that would, at one time, have subjected you to involuntary commitment.

I am sure I will get some responses from the left challenging my point, showing that this person or that said something nasty about Obama or Biden or Pelosi. They may count the number of times I called her "Red Nancy" and say that is equivalent to "Chimpy McFlyboy Hitler Decider the Naked Emperer". But there is a difference. I think Pelosi exceeded her authority, and I think she has very far left views that are harmful to our nation, but I would not sit around and harp on her hair, her appearance, or say "I hate her" or "she makes me sick". I don't fin humor in jokes mocking her. I do not spend time writing satirical diatribes against her.

And that is where I say the elft parts company with the right and the independents. Look at the media, watch Saturday Night Live, or Comedy Central, read liberal editorials or letters to the editor, go to the Huff 'n' Puff or DUmmie land, or Daily Kos. These people actually derive a lot of their amusement from mocking these people. Without Bush and Cheney, they would be left with nothing but Harold and Kumar and a few pen*s jokes. Almost all humor for the past 8 years has been built around an evil Rove and Cheney pulling the strings on an alternately evil and clueless Bush. That is what they think about for a large part of their lives.It isn't even that they are nasty in mocking conservatives, but that they spend so much time doing it, that is disturbing.

Without liberals, my life would continue much the same. Even my blog would continue, as I could spend just as much time critiquing where Republicans fall short, or evaluating differences. But for the left, without a Reagan, A Nixon, a Bush, a Newt, a Quayle, a Cheney or a a Palin to mock, they have a hole they can't fill.

That is where the is a significant difference.

POSTSCRIPT

Actually, I was wrong in one way. The left was not first driven mad by the 2000 election. An earlier generation had been made just as bitter by Watergate. There may have been some distasteful, nasty liberal behavior, especially relating to Vietnam, prior to Watergate, but it was truly Watergate that made an earlier generation of leftists just as paranoid.

Then, during the 80's, the remnants o those paranoid early 70's liberals tried to recapture that earlier nastiness and paranoia during the Regan years, puffing up events such as Iran-Contra or even imagining scandals such as the CIA importation of crack. But at that time it really didn't take. A lot of humor was directed toward Reagan, but it was the ordinary mocking of a president. Even the abuse Quayle took was not as obsessive as the current attacks.

The only time I can compare to the insane obsession the left has with evil politicians is the paranoia the left felt toward Nixon. (Well, in the US. When you get into the paranoid fringes of European politics, this sort of thing happens much more often...)