There’s something pathetically childlike about the Bush-hating, anti-war left these days. It’s not just Dick Durbin’s big mouth or John Conyers’ grandstanding about the Downing Street Minutes. The left has been galvanized by poll numbers showing the American people exhibiting war weariness. They’ve been positively giddy about the continued success of the terrorists in killing scores of Iraqis and dozens of our soldiers. Even the autopsy report on Terri Schiavo gave them cause to dance a jig in celebration, gloating over the fact that the poor woman was indeed in a persistent vegetative state, thus allowing them to stick it the “fundies” who they hate almost as much as Bush.
The word “enemy” has been removed from their lexicon – except as it relates to the President and their political foes on the right. Our enemies are called “insurgents.” They’re called “rebels.” They’re referred to as “the opposition.” Some on the far left have gone so far as to call them “freedom fighters.” Even al Qaeda fighters in our custody are called “detainees.” But to call them “the enemy” opens an intellectual chasm beneath their feet that the left simply cannot look into without blanching in horror.
If the left were to acknowledge that we’re actually fighting an enemy, their entire rationale for opposing the war would disappear. As long as they don’t acknowledge there’s an enemy, the war is “unnecessary.” But if they were to concede that there are people who want to kill our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, they would have to allow that there’s a possibility that a military presence in those countries is essential. After all, the whole point of having a military in the first place is to protect us from, and wherever possible kill our enemies.
This observation (and you should read the entire essay) demonstrates the extreme psychological measures necessary to engage in denial. The Left's intense need not to see what is going on has made them even alter the language used to discuss the war on terror.
Many others have noticed this. The inability to use the word "terrorist" represents yet another retreat into fuzzy language in order to deny the reality. As Moran suggests, this denial is unconsciously necessary for the continued existence of the Left. If they were to accept the reality by using the words "enemy" or "terrorist", then the enormity of their betrayal of the good; the incalculability of their intellectual bankrupcy; and the vastness of their irrelevancy would swallow them up.
Their preoccupation with the popularity of the U.S. in the world, like the adolescent mindset it betrays, is really obvious in their desire to make "friends" with our enemies; to appease the terrorists; and to not rock the boat of the international status quo.
Far from being a popularity contest, this war on terror is an inevitable clash of civilizations, whose result will determine the future of the world for generations. The fact that the Left refuses to acknowledge this fact, will not make it go away.
Soon they will have to go to even further extremes to keep their cherished ideology from facing reality. Do you think they have exhaused the ridiculously obscene rhetoric? Or the impassioned idiotic metaphors? No. Sadly, their denial will recede further and further from that thing we call reality until they come to dwell fully in the perfect land of their imagination, where President Bush and all he represents is expunged, and where they imagine they are the heroes and saviors of the oppressed.
In the vernacular, this state is usually referred to as "madness."