Chris Matthews takes a lot of heat from the left and right as either being to much of a parrot for the right wing, or a liberal tool. Some ways, I feel sorry for the guy.

But no more so than this interview with Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who once called herself a "a fool for Christ."  Hmmm.... you gotta wonder about that after watching the interview.

Amy was that you?

Anyway, Matthews patiently asks Bachmann for the connection between liberalism and anti-Americanism. Bachmann flatly ignored the question and repeated the same mantra. No evidence. When Matthews asks her what percentage of Congress is anti-American? No number was offered. Why, if you didn't know better, it seems Bachmann does not have evidence to back up her accusations. Couldn't be... unh?

So, its on this paucity of "evidence" that we are to accept Bachmann's accusation that liberals, like Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reed, are anti-Americans. And just what are anti-Americans? Bachmann never offers a definition.

In the last minute of the interview, Bachmann suggested that the media do an investigation into anti-Americanism.

Let me get this straight, conservatives constantly whine about bias in the media because they perceive a liberal bias and it's just oh so unfair to them. Really, all that means, is that conservatives object to the media inserting value judgments on facts and events – and rightly so. The media is only "liberal," when a report exposes something unsavory about their ideology or actions. As if, conservatives do not like to be exposed for the beliefs and actions that they otherwise proudly espouse.

Ironically, Bachmann now demands that the media make such likewise value judgments. And how should the media determine who is pro-American or anti-American?

Why, exactly what right-wing conservatives, like Bachmann dictate.

While conservatives and liberals have quite natural and understandable ideological differences, you'll find few examples of liberals attacking a conservative's patriotism. In fact, you'll find many examples of liberals (right on LCL) defending a conservative's right to their conscience.

Let's cut through the bullsheit. When a conservative talks about any other American as an "anti-American" they are accusing other Americans as being treasonous.

To the Bachmann, Hemmers, Hayetts of the world, any shade of liberal equals anti-Americanism.

In the worldview of these conservatives, pro-American is slavish devotion to conservatism; anti-Americanism is anything that is not.

And I mean anything which does not constrain itself to that narrow-minded worldview.

All-in-all, I rather be accused of being a socialist – then a fascist.

One would think in today's virulent and seething partisanship that a lefty like myself would actually prefer the hatred by the Rightwing of the Clinton's and anything liberal in the 1990's. In some way's the hatred against Clinton was less destructive and did not have the mantel of executive power to perpetuate it to its constitutionally destructive ends. Sure Clinton had a little military adventurism and Monica, but he didn't lie to invade Iraq, trash the bill of rights, illegally spy on American citizens, okay the use of torture, let the CIA set up secret prisons, radicalize the Department of Justice, raise the national debt, inflate the size of government, etc…….

The primary difference between Bush-era conservatism and Clinton-era conservatism was that the hypocrisy was hidden and we (I) took their conservative rhetoric hook-line-and sinker and I "a dreaded Liberal".  I actually took the Newt Gingrich's and Bob Barr's at their word. You know what they said, "Fiscal Responsibility, Personal Responsibility, Against Nation Building, Smaller Government, etc……"  In the Bush-era, all of these "so-called conservative" standards that they pushed were all a lie (BTW - Newt and Barr were having affairs of their own during the Clinton Impeachment).

Now, I never turned into a conservative unlike that opportunist cry-baby Charlie Sykes in the mid 90's, but at the time and still at this time some of what they said was right. The one ethic I took most to heart is the ethic of "Personal Responsibility". In a way, the late Clinton period tempered my Liberalism, which I am glad I went through. This period allowed me to actually realize that Bill Clinton as President was wrong, now I don't think his lying about Monica was impeachable, but it was ethically and morally despicable. I will not defend his actions at the time. Nor will I defend Jim Jeffords for taking Bribes, nor will I defend Eliot Spizter, I will not defend politicians or leaders on the left for being hypocrites and liars. I will not defend or rationalize Obama's FISA vote, nor his faith based initiative. In my view they are wrong. I will not defend somebody just because of their political label and party affiliation.

Today this hypocrisy is no longer subterfuge, all of the excuses and scapegoats have been used, all the anger and hatred has become a caricature in popular culture, critics have been beaten into the dirt and lives ruined, the deliberate use of misleading or wrong information to obfuscate reality, the use of seething hateful tactics to destroy ANYBODY who disagrees, to defend blindly these "so-called conservative" ethics, while not living by those standards and ethics themselves. The virulent blind defense of Bush and Republican Corruption is antithetical to the conservative standard of personal responsibility I was reminded constantly by conservatives in the 1990’s.

The conservative standards of personal liberty and responsibility mean nothing in the Bush-era, with this zealotus rage to crush a "liberal" by any means necessary, to defend what irresponsible, criminal, and anti-constitutional actions carried out by the Bush Administration. The win-at-any-cost and power-for-powers-sake philosophy has effectively destroyed what conservatism was supposed to mean in the 1990's. For instance, Kosovo: even though I disagreed with the Republicans in congress they were still loyal opposition and the conservative standard was against Nation Building, and they still were not traitors. Today, Nation building is fine because Bush is president and 9/11 happened???? Hunh??

This hypocrisy is out in the open due to the zealous hatred of critics, the willingness to close eyes and minds to reality, and the willingness to trample over conservative standards for the blind defense of Bush and Republican corruption.

So when I hear people declare themselves as "conservative", I have to ask what kind of conservative?

The one that uses 9/11 as an end-all-be-all excuse for trampling on the bill of rights and constitution and torture or the zealot who's hatred for anybody with a different point of view  manifests itself with personal attacks and dehumanization of that person. Or the kind that states "Liberals are as bad as terrorists" or that "Liberals are destroying America!"  When I hear these words it is funny in a tragic way, but also impels me to hold these "so-called conservatives" responsible for their actions, hold them responsible for their words.

So this is were it stands, if a statement is made against liberals that has extreme implications, you better be able to back it up with evidence and be able to take responsibility for what you write. 

Freedom of speech does not free people from the consequences of the content of what they say. At least this is something I keep hearing from “so-called conservatives.”

_________________

Note: Guest blog by lcl.com post Liberal Hammer