The Left - or at least that cranky, noisy element of it visible online and in fringe media such as the ABC - feels smug and content when things go wrong.
Give them an insurgent attack on Australian troops in Iraq and they'd be exultant.
The Right - historically seen as cruel and unfeeling - draws strength from events that, by any objective measure, are positive: peace in Iraq, a powerful economy, and a polar bear in every backyard.
Now I have to admit that my first thought when I read those lines wasn't shame and remorse, as it should have been. It was more along the lines of "how the hell does an idiotic rant like that get published in a serious newspaper?" (before I remembered we were talking about the Daily Telegraph).
Then I read through the expose again, to gasp in awe at Mr Blair's penetrating insight and deep understanding of his political opponents.
[Marx's approach is] influential, obviously, right down to the lust for bad news we see from the present-day crazy Left, whose entire belief system is structured around sadness.
Consider this. Opponents of the war are encouraged in their opposition by disasters in Iraq. They feel validated by suicide attacks on coalition forces (including Iraqi forces, fighting to quell insurgents).
Imagine a month of reduced insurgent activity, with related reductions in coalition losses; imagine feeling disappointed by that, because it undermines your argument that the war is wrong. Imagine being a peacenik who craves an ever-higher body count.
I don't have to imagine it, Tim. I *am* one of those shameless peaceniks.
Which makes me a bit of a silly-billy for opposing Bush's completely brilliant and totally competent invasion of Iraq, doesn't it? His administration was trying so hard to give me and my sinister buddies on the left exactly what we "crave". We clearly wanted suicide bombers and utter chaos, because we take such pleasure in them - if only we'd had the foresight to see that this is exactly what the occupation would achieve. Those of us on the left who weren't repeatedly telling you ahead of time that this is what was going to happen are really sorry for doubting your ability to achieve something so in tune with our death-loving natures as Iraq in 2007.
Imagine if our government leaders had listened to our protests and instead of invading Iraq had concentrated on Afghanistan, showing us that they could in fact build a functioning liberal democracy after such an adventure. From where would we diabolical lefties have got our "validation" then? WHERE?
As you know, describing the problems arising from a policy with an aim to changing it is indistinguishable from taking glee in those problems. When reporting an attack in Iraq, it's not the left arguing that it's a terrible tragedy that can best be avoided in future by doing X; it's us being "exultant" at those deaths.
Clearly we liberty-detesting traitors on the left make a big deal out of disasters solely for base political purposes, but I raise the issue to help our friends on the right be conscious of how easily they could be made to look as if they were guilty of the charge on which they justly indict us.
For example, when those mass graves of Saddam's victims were discovered, war proponents on the right reported them in a calm, dignified way, perhaps drawing a link in passing between such a discovery to how bad Saddam was and how good it is that he's gone, but certainly not trying to make political capital out of those deaths. Still, you guys have to be careful - if you were to go into too much lurid detail, or argue to explicitly that these horrible murders prove your invasion right, it wouldn't be too difficult for some creepy, dishonest "mainstream media" liberal-biased reporter to portray you as craving the "validation" of such atrocities.
Which wouldn't be fair at all, 'cos you guys aren't like that.
Meanwhile, look at how nasty we lefties are. Environmentalists, taking pleasure in the destruction of the environment:
Environmental activists thrill to claims that polar bears and other creatures are imperilled because it boosts their argument that urgent change is required.
Why do these people have to ENJOY the animals' suffering? Why can't they just publicise when terrible things happen solely to try to prompt change instead?
You know what would really delight the working-class solidarity types in upper-middle-class leftist professions? If some sudden economic event were to cause a spike in unemployment, thereby harming the Howard Government.
Imagine being a friend of the workers who wants those workers out of work.
I see Tim's point. We leftists don't make any sense. It might be okay if we were just warning of our legitimate fears of the consequences of some Howard government policy, and then using evidence in support of our argument to try to argue for a change that would help, in this case, the workers. But, as Tim points out, obviously that's not what we're doing; he correctly pegs us as being merely ghoulishly delighted in every bit of bad news that proves us right on something.
Imagine if the great leaders of the right stopped botching everything up and making the world worse! We leftists would have nothing to complain about. We must encourage them to continue to make hideous blunders and unbelievable mistakes; and since whatever method we're presently using is working so well, we should keep doing that.
Meanwhile, that Tim Blair is a real menace. We've been so successful in concealing our true malicious motives under the guise of opposing policies that harm the world and cause death and destruction, not because we care but because we're evil megalomaniacs; only Tim and his Mighty Brain have been able to see through our plot. Comrades! We must be careful.
ELSEWHERE: How any tragedy proves that we should adopt my political views.
