When Conservatives Come to Believe Their Own Propaganda

Today's debate over at the National Review is both hilarious and deeply disturbing. It was kicked off by David Frum, who wrote the following in a post yesterday:

My pals over at the Corner are very excited by the last-minute attempt to transform Bill Ayers into the Willie Horton of 2008. Well, good luck

In 1988, crime was a huge and rising problem - and Democrats still by and large resisted the effective crime control policies being developed at places like the Manhattan Institute and that would achieve such great results in the 1990s. So Willie Horton, the furloughed rapist and murderer, symbolized in very graphic terms something important and significant about Michael Dukakis the candidate.

But Bill Ayers? Does anybody really seriously believe that Barack Obama is a secret left-wing radical? And if not, then what is this fuss and fury supposed to show? It's like Ronald Reagan's opponents trying to beat him by pointing out that Birchers once supported him.

This set off The Corner crew--most of whom have now managed to convince themselves that Barack Obama is in fact a secret left-wing radical and terrorist sympathizer. First there was Mark Levin:

With all respect, I don't think this — "Obama is not some wild-eyed radical. He's a normal Chicago politician. That's the problem." — is a fair take at all. How can anyone who actually follows this stuff, who reads Freddoso, Kurtz, and scores of other reliable sources of information, conclude that Obama is not some wild-eyed radical?

Then came Peter Kirsanow:

Obama consorted with a terrorist who brags about planting bombs and whose organization planted hundreds of bombs. Some were meant to kill cops. Some were meant to kill soldiers. Some were meant to kill civilians.Let's put this quite simply: This is an abomination. This alone disqualifies Obama from being president. Even if he can heal the planet. Even if the Dow tanks to 5000. Even if he puts a unicorn in every garage. A majority of Americans will not vote for a candidate who they know has had a working relationship with a terrorist — foreign or domestic.

And then the most unhinged person of all, Andy McCarthy, chimed in:

"Does anybody really seriously believe that Barack Obama is a secret left-wing radical?"

You're right, David. Why would anyone think this guy is a left-wing radical? Just because sought (and got) an endorsement from the Chicago branch of the Socialist International, got his training from ACORN and a Saul Alinski outfit, wanted to surrender to terrorists, thinks the Constitution vests alien combatants with rights against the American people, fought a law prohibiting infanticide, praises Bill Ayers' views on education and the criminal justice system, approved millions in subsidies for hard Left education "reform" projects, wants to nationalize the healthcare industry (for starters), wants to transfer $850B to the international community through the good offices of the UN, and (having voted against Roberts and Alito) says he thinks the key qualifications for a Supreme Court justice — after considering a candidate's positions on affirmative action, reproductive rights, and the rights of the disabled — are "empathy" and "what is in the judge's heart"?

What on earth was I thinking?

The degree to which conservative "intellectuals" have thoroughly succumb to their own propaganda is downright scary. No rational human being could look at Barack Obama's career in politics and conclude that he is anything but a mainstream center-left politician. Even during his law school days, well before he entered the national scene, everyone who knew him described him as an open-minded pragmatist. That was how he was able to win the support of conservatives on the Harvard Law Review and become its Editor in Chief:

“I saw no evidence of a radical streak, either overt or covert, when we were together at Harvard Law School,” said Bradford A. Berenson, who worked on the Harvard Law Review with Mr. Obama and who served as associate White House counsel under President Bush. Mr. Berenson, who is backing Mr. McCain, described his fellow student as “a pragmatic liberal” whose moderation frustrated others at the law review whose views were much farther to the left.

The notion that Obama has ever been some kind of fire-breathing radical is just not supported by any actual evidence. Even the Ayres connection can be easily put in perspective. In 1995, Obama served with Ayres on a six member board dealing with education reform. Ayres is a professor of education at the University of Illinois. It was a part of a project established by the Annenberg Foundation, an organization established by a former Nixon administration official. There were Republicans on the board as well. In 2002, Obama served on another charitable board with Ayres (and several conservatives). No one has put forth any evidence that Obama had anything other than a professional acquaintance with Ayres (something that was true of most Chicago area politicians, Republican and Democrat).

Yet from this we are supposed to infer, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary from the rest of Obama's well-document public career, that he is actually some sort of closet radical and terrorist-sympathizer.

I understand why Republicans want to convince gullible voters that this is true, but I can't for the life of me understand how they've managed to convince themselves that it's true. These folks are far dumber and more paranoid than I ever appreciated.