Solemn Reflections on the American Police State

A good sign of an unhinged left-wing nutter, we think, is his use of the phrase “President Bush and his cronies.” As far as we’re concerned, anyone who describes the Bush administration in this unnecessarily partisan manner is already verging on loopy.

It came as no surprise to us, then, to find that one Jonathan D. Edelfelt, who employs this lame phrase, turns out to be a moron. Mr. Edelfelt penned the following letter to The New York Times, which, for some bizarre reason, saw fit to print it in its November 19 issue:

To the Editor:

Re: “We Won, Now What?,” by Leon E. Panetta (Op-Ed, Nov. 12):

It’s difficult for Democrats to be magnanimous when for the last six years President Bush and his cronies have squelched all dissent (even to the extent of calling dissenters unpatriotic and treasonous). The clear message from the midterm elections is not an intolerance for gridlock, as Mr. Panetta suggests, but a rejection of the entire Bush agenda, including his ill-advised invasion of Iraq, profligate spending and sullying of America’s reputation by the use of torture, secret prisons and so in an indeterminable war on terror.

Why should Democrats compromise until Mr. Bush’s swagger and smirk are replaced with some hint of contrition and humility? Failing to extract at least a pound of flesh would be to squander the victory.

True, Democrats should work to foster trust between themselves and Republicans, but should be wary of being too accommodating. Had the election gone the other way, there’d be no compromising.

Jonathan D. Edelfelt
El Paso, Nov. 12, 2006

We suppose we first ought to suggest to Mr. Edelfelt that he re-read Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. We think he’ll find that demanding “at least a pound of flesh” isn’t that pleasant an expression.

But that is neither here nor there. Rather, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” found Mr. Edelfelt’s missive interesting because it is another example of a strange left-wing phenomenon: The dubious argument claiming that America under the Bush administration—or, we suppose, “Bush and his cronies”—is tantamount to a police state.

Read this bit of the epistle again: “It’s difficult for Democrats to be magnanimous when for the last six years President Bush and his cronies have squelched all dissent (even to the extent of calling dissenters unpatriotic and treasonous).” Wow, Bush and his horrible minions sure are nasty.

But this made us think: If the current President of the United States has worked so tirelessly to “squelch all dissent,” how in the good Lord’s name did Jonathan D. Edelfelt manage to have his criticisms of Bush published? We mean, come on: Isn’t this one example of “dissent” that hasn’t been “squelched”? Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Edelfelt could find a few other examples of such daring criticism of our Totalitarian-Fascist-Leader-in-Chief?

For starters, perhaps Mr. Edelfelt would like to check out the following underground, samizdat, or otherwise banned American publications: The New York Times; The Boston Globe; The New York Review of Books; The Nation; The Progressive; The Utne Reader; The Washington Post; The Los Angeles Times; The New Republic; The New Yorker; The New York Observer; Z; Dissent; The San Francisco Chronicle; The American Prospect; The Boston Review; &c.

Boy, the Bush junta’s crusade to “squelch all dissent” sure is going well, isn’t it? We applaud the courage of Jonathan Edelfelt to be the lone voice of criticism against the evil Bush minions.