Leftist elites dislike conservatives because they resent reality.

1. The GOP has achieved what Obama could not have accomplished. Kudos to Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul. Most likely, the next President of the USA is again Barack Obama. The words “well-deserved” come to mind.

2. For the time being, the European Union, by massing its resources, might have saved Greece. This is so if one accepts the official numbers regarding deficits, the efficacy of corrective measures, and the country’s prospects. The picture darkens if the equation is burdened by the trend and the excluded information. The politically possible, namely the ability of any government to retain control, contributes further doubts. In case that a significant country needs rescuing, the image is black.

In the case of Greece, the measure that might bring relief is a taboo. It has to do with the careers of EU politicians and their pet projects. These have staked their political life on Europe’s centralization and the € as a sacrosanct currency. Retreat is, because of the loss of face, not possible. In moving ahead there is a cliff. 

An unscientific survey of the readers of a business journal reveals that 78% of the respondents do not believe that the euro will survive in its current form.

3. What liberals and the openly leftist elites dislike about conservatives is that the latter’s realism collides with the fantasies of the former. At the same time, conservatives suffer from a disadvantage that matches the ultimate (post election) failure of leftist projects. Being a fantasy construct projected over the world that is what it is the left-liberal dream sells a ladder to escape to Pollyanna. 

Conservatives need to create convinced majorities in matters that transcend the voter’s conscious experience. In such cases, castles in the sky are proposed as makable projects and dreams lose their speculative character. The image is that if one votes for bliss the good life will happen. In such instances, simple theories must be proven irrational by complicated reasoning. When pipe dreams are compared to realistic predictions, the dream turns out to be more attractive. Challenging the ideal world of promised heaven on earth makes the rational critic appear to be a nasty foe of the projected ideal. This supports the claim that conservatives do not wish the happiness that all could have if only approval could be mobilized at the ballot box.

4. Equality, if separated from performance, is a threat to any democratic and reasonably governed society. A system with the power to implement equality by ignoring the facts is more frightening in its implied use than are most conceivable systems of social or economic inequality. 

5. “Goodpersons” and the leftist-liberal cabal like to place in letters to the Editor their opinions regarding a Near Eastern settlement. A synthetic composite is “The Israel lobby is contemplating war against Iran. The consequences are unfathomable. An attack on Iran would not bring peace. More could be achieved by a denuclearized zone. The negotiations would need to have Iran’s approval and disarmed Israel’s participation. The agreed upon order could be put under the UN’s supervision and enforcement”. 

While the UN is incapable to enforce anything, it is unable to mediate a peace that all parties would adhere to. For that, the UN is too weak and its power is divided between those that want a settlement and the parties that crave a stepping-stone to a re-draw the map. By folding, the entity to disappear would fulfill a militarily not achievable goal.

A critical crack in the above is “peace”. One suspects that the term means “unopposed violence”. 

Another error of the speculation is that Israel’s presumed nuclear status hinders peace. An argument can be made that Israel’s bomb –whether existent or a fantasy- is a component among the factors that prevent a new conflict. Regardless of whether Israel would win that conventional war or not, such a clash is hardly desirable. 

The assumption that it is Israel that prevents the Arab world from developing economically and politically is tenuous. So is the implication that without Israel, the Palestinian state would be democratic and tolerant. The regional record and the performance of the lands under Palestinian sovereignty speak volumes.

The crowning logical contortion is so genial that it has to be shared in its original. Its writer reacts to an Israeli rocket that killed Palestinian radicals. It is claimed that the decision to fire a missile is the equivalent of a death sentence. In a democracy, no such judgment can be made without due process. The radicals did not get their day in court. Therefore, liquidating them is a violation of democratic principles. The piece does not evaluate the firing of rockets from Gaza.

6. Ever since language has been invented, the terms we use to define what we mean enjoy a utility. Words have consequences and create, through the projected image, a reality that is accepted as a fact. With words, a war can be fought. Whether a something is called “Counter-Reformation” or “Catholic Reformation” implies a propaganda victory. If a derogatory term can be attached to an object, a battle is won. The reverse can upgrade a matter and hide a reality under an iconizing term. 

A classical one is the Left’s “Fascism”. When National Socialism emerged, the consternation of the International Socialists (Communists) was great. Dimitrov, a Bulgarian leader of the Communist International, came up with a saving idea. Everything to the right of Stalin was deprived of the “Socialist” label and was “Fascist” whereby Social Democrats became “social Fascists”. With the help of the intellectuals, the verbal trick worked. In the world of the real, albeit collectivistic, Fascism is “national” while National Socialism is “racial” with a socialist economic concept.) 

Even the trivial - think of “liberty burgers” - can be idiotically politicized. Ethnicities, races, and religions can also carry distortive tagging. Often the re-branded dislike their new name. Some Gypsies wish to be called “Roma”, other Roma are proud to be “Gypsies”. Without changing in any way, the US’ “Negroes” have undergone a series of renaming. The newest from here is that “Fräulein” and “Mademoiselle” is now out. According to PC, the terms are an insult. It is up to you to determine whether because (a) they suggest too much innocence in a promiscuous age or that (b) the terms indicate that the person thereby identified is unable to grab a partner. (Note the PC-inspired gender neutrality of the last word of the previous sentence.)