By Christopher G. Adamo

 

The past week was extremely rough on American leftists. Public spotlights have been shining brightly on them from various angles. The result is that they are no longer able to hide behind their innocuous facades. The reality of their ideology is suddenly being seen in its stark ugliness. This is not how things are supposed to work, and they do not like it.

In recent years, every time liberals perceive that their “patriotism” is being called into question, they caterwaul as the supposed victims of the most heinous of personal attacks. Their indignation often borders on the hysterical, to the point that far too many conservatives have actually been intimidated at the prospect of even sounding skeptical of the inherent and universally recognized “loyalty” to country among leftists.

Yet up to the United Nations General Assembly podium strode Iranian “President” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week, renouncing American policy and America’s president. A day later, that same forum witnessed Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, similarly attacking President Bush, to the point of calling him “The Devil.” To the dismay of the left, the general public readily recognizes that these attacks from foreign leaders precisely echo the “patriotism” regularly being spewed by liberal Democrats.

Despite the desperate attempts of Democrat leaders to distance themselves from the UN spectacle, the parallels between their words, and more importantly, their motives, as compared to those of the two hostile foreign leaders, have become irrefutable. Their cover has been blown.

If the liberal Democrats can claim, by virtue of their subversive and consistently anti-American rhetoric of the past several years, that such behavior is indeed “patriotic,” then so must it be concluded that Ahmadinejad and Chavez are also great American “patriots.”

Yet liberalism has never been about “patriotism.” Nor has it been devoted to the betterment of the nation according to the traditional principles on which the nation was founded and flourished. Rather, liberalism has remained fixated on an agenda of undermining and ultimately destroying such things, always hiding behind the cloak of the inherent nobility of “dissent,” while claiming to honorably represent the viewpoint of the “loyal opposition.”

Unfortunately for the left, the venomous ranting of Chavez and Ahmadinejad has removed any phony veneer of “virtue” from its contention that the condemnation of every American effort to preserve its culture, its interests, and its future represents devotion to the country. The goals of those two dictatorial thugs, who barely stopped short of pounding their shoes (or possibly their sandals) on the UN podium, could not by any stretch of the imagination be construed as a roadmap to a brighter American future.

Representative Charles Rangell of New York, along with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA) led Democrat “damage control” efforts, which thus far have only amounted to tepid and selective criticism of the foreign leaders’ comments. But no amount of bland disagreement can erase the similarities that an informed public can draw between the positions of hostile foreign dictators to the current Democrat leadership. The harsh truths revealed at the UN have severely undermined the charade. And Democrats are scrambling in their efforts to minimize the detrimental effects on their political battle plan.

Meanwhile, as a result of that now infamous interview with Fox reporter Chris Wallace, former President Bill Clinton further exemplified the ugly reality of the American left.

During his two terms in office, Clinton did indeed diligently pursue those he considered his enemies, though their ranks were almost entirely comprised of Conservative and Christian political organizations whom he hounded with the full power of the FBI and IRS.

Moreover, America should never forget the significance of those fourteen hundred FBI files, illegally brought to the White House no doubt to neutralize a “dangerous” foe (albeit a political one). All the while, the gathering storm clouds of Militant Islam were virtually ignored, since forcefully dealing with them did not promise to yield any tangible political benefits.

Honest individuals, especially those who have spent their entire lives being schooled in the rigors of public life, rarely react in the hysterical manner Bill Clinton displayed, regardless of the speciousness of any accusations against them. The former President’s minions, including his wife, can attempt to spin the situation in any way they want. Yet Bill Clinton still looked very guilty. And despite their relentless efforts to put a good face on the spectacle, everyone knows why.

Most distressing to the left during this past week’s events is that Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Clinton allowed America a glimpse into the soul of modern liberalism. All of the sanitizing efforts on the part of the old-media cannot revise those images or the words that accompanied them.

Nor can the commonality of their motivations ever after be erased from public awareness. It was not a pretty sight.