Freudeschaden: The coalition of the pissy’s Schadenfreude

Freudeschaden: The coalition of the pissy’s Schadenfreude
: The DNC and Dean blogs are experiencing the opposite of Schadenfreude — that is, rather than pleasure in another’s pain, they are experiencing pain in others’ pleasure — with the capture of Saddam Hussein. Call it Freudeschaden.

Tim Blair finds the tears at joy on Dean’s blog; Matt Drachenberg finds them on the DNC blog.

I once worked in a company where the politics were so bad that people actually wished for the company to fail so it would make their enemies look bad — not stopping to think, of course, that such failure would backfire on them and put them out of a job.

That’s the state we’re in with American — and European — politics and the Iraq war. Some people want the U.S. and the president to fail in this war — not stopping to think, of course, that such failure would backfire on the people of Iraq (let’s see a few bleeding hearts for them and their future) and on the people of the modern world (with another base for growing terrorism). It’s not just short-sighted. It’s suicidally selfish.

Let me give you a hint, Deanies and DNCers: The war is not a winning issue for you. Look at the poll results here; it will only help win a primary, not the presidency. How about finding an issue that will really help people — say, health care. How about turning the Democratic Party back into the party of positive change rather than the party of pissyness.

38 responses to “Freudeschaden: The coalition of the pissy’s Schadenfreude”

  1. lk Avatar

    If someone has a difference of opinion with the administration, the capture of SH (ShitHead) is proof positive that they are wrong.

  2. Becky Avatar

    Was the democratic party ever a party for positive change? Hmmm…I guess I must be too young to remember that. All I can remember is that they have been the party of, “if you give us more money, we will create utopia”. Of course, they never did…but that was their slogan.

  3. Reid Avatar

    Good point, Becky. I’m 40 and, at least in my lifetime, the Democratic party has not been the party for positive change. So much so that I have to question whether they ever were or, if they were just always the party of hyper-effective spin.
    This time, the Dems have bet the farm on the effort in Iraq being a failure and no significant WMD effort ever being found there. The jury may still be out on these questions but, nobody can argue that it is an awfully risky strategy. If significant WMD are found in Iraq, the Dems may cease to exist as a viable opposition party. And, that is not good for anyone.

  4. Katherine Avatar

    Dean’s been talking about healthcare for months: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_health
    He’s also a doctor, which makes him at least as qualified to talk about healthcare as General Clark is to talk about foreign policy.

  5. judson Avatar

    A lot can happen in a year…

  6. O'McSomething Avatar
    O’McSomething

    Coalition of the Pissy? Come on, Jeff. Make it official. You don’t give a piss about the Dems. You have been looking, walking, talking, linking and trashing like a duck (or elephant) for months now. Just admit it. I think it is official. Buzzmachine is a right-wing blog. OK. There are you happy now?

  7. Reid Avatar

    “A lot can happen in a year…”
    Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Or, a total abdication of responsibilty, a passive yearning for fortune to break one’s way, instead of a proactive campaign to create the reality of one’s desires.

  8. Frank Avatar

    I just wonder why in the obvious celebration of catching Saddam, blogs like this one, Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan have almost immediately unleashed a flood of vitriol on their opponents, especially European governments. Not only is it childish and distasteful, it leads one to question what is more important to these commentators: that Hussien was captured or that somehow this makes anti-war opponents look bad?

  9. Tim Avatar

    Hmmm, just another example of the ongoing miserable failure that is the modern Democrat Party in America: America marks up a significant win in the war on terrorism, and the Democrat Party only sees gloom, doom and lost opportunity. You’d think they are actually hoping we’d lose the war – at a minimum they sure hope for more American war dead. I’d ask whose side they’re on, but that seems pretty damned evident these days, doesn’t it?
    Anyway, notwithstanding the “smarter than thou” crowd at the DNC (and the tiresome “a year in politics is a lifetime” rubric), Bush wins in landslide in ’04; they’ll never see it coming. They just don’t get it.

  10. ....a moment with Easycure Avatar
    ….a moment with Easycure

    Calling something “right-wing”…….is that supposed to be an insult? Ouch. That may keep Jeff from wanting to blog anymore……

  11. Chris Josephson Avatar
    Chris Josephson

    I’ve visited some sites that are anti-Bush and the reaction to Saddam’s capture is: “how will this impact our chances in 2004?”.
    I find this attitude amazing. Here we have captured a man that has tortured and killed his own people for decades .. and there are some who can only wonder how it will impact the 2004 election?
    This takes the worship of a candidate, party, or ideology to a whole new level. These folks have gone beyond being ‘true believers’. They are more like the priests and priestesses for their candidate or party. They will instruct others in their faith.

  12. Sandy P. Avatar

    — that Hussien was captured or that somehow this makes anti-war opponents look bad?–
    We’re Americans Frank, we want it all. And some days we can have it.
    I find it interesting that we’re never allowed to answer back. We must always take the slings and arrows in silence.

  13. Charlie T. Avatar
    Charlie T.

    I find this attitude amazing. Here we have captured a man that has tortured and killed his own people for decades .. and there are some who can only wonder how it will impact the 2004 election?
    Chris, are you equally upset with pro-Bush comments regarding the 2004 election implications? Just a few posts below this one, there’s a post about Bush’s polls going up. Is Jeff superficial for thinking about such things at a moment of national triumph?
    The warbloggers are having to dig into comment sections now as part of their never-ending search for “proof” that everyone on the left is insufficiently patriotic. What, did Ted Rall have the day off? It’s really pathetic.

  14. Frank Avatar

    Sandy,
    I’m not sure if I understand you correctly. To be American is to be pro-war?
    It just seems strange that on this day of obviously good news, prominent right-wing bloggers should spend it lashing out at their opponents. It doesn’t seem to me a very sincere joy. When I win the lottery, I won’t spend that day phoning up all the people I didn’t like at school.
    Check out Sullivan’s blog, where he devotes 90% of his space to ridiculing anti-war reactions to Saddam’s capture and 10% reporting the joy of Iraqis. That to me shows that Sullivan never really gave a damn about the Iraqis and was always more concerned about eliminating “the fifth column” in the U.S. and Europe.
    To a lesser degree I see similar traits here and at Instapundit.com (although to Buzzmachine’s infinite credit, he has concentrated on Iraqi joy, but has still indulged himself with a little gloating at his opponents).
    By the way, agree totally with Charlie T. I personally think it’s a little distateful to consider U.S. elections with such monumental news, but to say it’s only confined to the opponents of Bush is delusional.

  15. Frank Avatar

    Sandy
    Read your post again and it does make sense. Sorry, I must be a little slow today. But I would question the idea the pro-war movement has been silent. For use of irresponible rhetoric, for my mind the pro-war movement has been unmatched, calling opponents anti-semitic, terrorists, fascists, or variations thereof etc etc.

  16. Jack Tanner Avatar
    Jack Tanner

    ‘it leads one to question what is more important to these commentators: that Hussien was captured or that somehow this makes anti-war opponents look bad?’
    Why either or when it’s all good? Saddam’s just about on death row and his cheerleaders get to eat all the crow they can stuff down their pie holes. What’s the bad in that?

  17. Frank Avatar

    Using phrases like cheerleaders doesn’t really helpfully describe European governments. The U.S. supported that monster more than anyone else to get him to his postion of power and consolidate it. Let’s be happy that psychotic is going to die, but let’s not start talking about “cheerleaders”.

  18. Reid Avatar

    Bzzzz. Wrong answer Frank. Who were Saddam’s chief allies, historically and today? Russia, France and Germany, that’s who.

  19. Frank Avatar

    Hi Reid, That’s just not true. Saddam acted as the U.S. strongman in the region to fight against the spread of radical shi’itism emanating from Iran. James Baker is on record as saying the U.S. supported Saddam against Iran (even though official policy at the time was to proclaim the U.S. neutral in the war). The entire reason for his invasion of Kuwait was because he felt so confident of the U.S. needing him that they would let him keep the country. Of course, all this changes with the invasion of kuwait, and once again a U.S. strongman turns out to be threat to regional stability, which old Saddam certainly was.
    Now since 1991, you can certainly say that Saddam’s been closer to Russia and France than the U.S., but in the times of Saddam’s worst crimes, there was only one cheerleader – the U.S.

  20. Frank Avatar

    Reading over my post would like to correct one thing. There wasn’t one cheerleader. Saddam was supported by many in his fight againt Iran, notably all the Arab gulf states. But the U.S. was certainly a principal cheerleader in that era.

  21. Sandy P. Avatar

    –For use of irresponible rhetoric, for my mind the pro-war movement has been unmatched, calling opponents anti-semitic, terrorists, fascists, or variations thereof etc etc.–
    Frank, I’m a tail-end boomer. Since the election of RR, when I started paying attention to the world, I’ve been called a jack-booted thug–evil, fascist, cold-hearted, imperialistic, cowboy and mean, among other terms. (And those have been by our “allies.”)
    What has changed in the 20-odd years? The internet and a younger generation have been answering back in the last 5 or so. That’s what some are not used to. That’s why I wrote what I wrote. We’re not being silent anymore.
    Free speech is not free – check out Gregg Easterbrook’s 11/5/01 column. Good summation IMHO.

  22. R. C. Dean Avatar
    R. C. Dean

    Frank, if you think that US support for Saddam was ever in the same league as that of France, Germany, and Russian, then you are truly delusional.
    Vichy France and Nazi Germany conspired to create the Baath Party, back in the the day, and the Baathists quickly siezed on Stalin as their new totalitarian sponsor after the Americans and the Brits had disposed of their old sponsors.
    Russia, France and Germany had the oil deals with Saddam, not the US.
    Russia, France, and Germany sold Saddam the makin’s for his WMD, not the US (aside from a vial or two of over-the-counter anthrax).
    Russia and France sold Saddam his conventional weapons, not the US, and I believe it was a German firm that designed and built his bunkers.
    US support for Saddam was strictly temporary and localized, as a counterweight to Iran. Russia, France, and Germany have always been his consistent supporters and enablers, from day one, through the Iran war, and right up to the present day. Even now, they are trying to get him transferred to a court they control in order to spare his life.
    Lose the Blame America First blinders, and much will be made clear.

  23. Frank Avatar

    Dean.
    Firstly, let’s conduct this discussion without resort to bumper-sticker arguments (“Lose the Blame America First blinders, and much will be made clear.”)
    How did the Ba’athist party, which took power permanently in 1963, get power from Stalin when he died in 1953? Now, normally I would let it slide but it’s this level of ignorance about the region that I find typical in discussions of the history of the Middle East.
    I’m not disputing the European support for Saddam Hussien, I’m just reminding people who are spitting venom today that Saddam got to where he was because of U.S. support because he was needed for U.S. foreign policy goals in the Middle East.
    Strictly temporary and localised support against Iran? What about the aid they gave him at the end of Desert Storm? If you think it’s just a case they didn’t kill him, you’ve got a lot to read about Norman Schwartkopf (sic?) agreeing to free up the Republican Guard and crucially the use of attack helicopters to put down the insurrection. This i find amazing: the people who now chant for Hussien’s head talk about the fact that WE DIDN’T SUPPORT THE INSURRECTION against Hussien, and rarely seem to know WE WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN PUTTING THE REVOLUTION DOWN.
    And those atrocitiies didn’t bother us when we needed him, so let’s not get all morally superior today. Crimes against humanity? why not go read UN accounts of the U.S. limp protest at the use of chemical weapons. And I believe (although can’t immediately find verification on net) that the U.S. vetoed an investigation of Hussein’s gassing of the kurds.
    Then there’s the military, economic and covet supplies of munitions the U.S. provided during the Iran-Iraq war.
    I see the picture of Chirac with Hussein and know that Chirac knew of his atrocities and know that Chirac is scum.
    You look at the picture of Rumsfeld and Hussein and you instantly forget about it, and then feel emboldened by your self-imposed amnesia to criticise others for supporting Hussein.

  24. Frank Avatar

    correction to above post: Ba’ath took power permanently in 1968 – had forgotten that their 1963 coup was overthrown. Apologies

  25. Reid Avatar

    Frank, wipe your chin and settle down. You are obviously one who believes anything bad that anyone says about your country and never consider the bigger picture. Did we provide intelligence to Iraq in their war with Iran? You betcha’. And, if we had it to do all over again, we’d do it again. Iran is also a member of the “axis of evil” my friend, and the Mullahs in charge are responsible for their own thousands upon thousands of deaths and disappearances. In a grown-up world, sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils.
    Moreover, it is true that the US facilitated Saddam’s rise in the Ba’ath party hierarchy at a time when he had not yet demonstrated himself to be a psychopath and the alternative was A) no less brutal and B) aligned with the greatest mass murderers of the last century in the form of the Soviet Union. If you want to know what Iraq may have looked like without our intervention, take a look at the worker’s paradise in North Korea sometime.
    Grow up, little boy. It’s a big bad world out there. But, until you are ready to present incontrovertible evidence from reliable sources, STFU with the reckless and ridiculous charges that we created Saddam’s military might and weapons of mass destruction. Saddam’s planes and tanks were demonstrably, incontrovertibly Russian and French in origin. The French firm Protec and German firm Karl Kolb were the ones who provided his chemical factories. The Germans also built the impenetrable bunkers under his palaces. This is well documented. The military goods he got from us were A) dual use and B) miniscule compared to the support from these countries.
    Watch your sources. There are a lot of people out there with hidden and not-so-hidden agendas. You should not be so credulous. And, even if you believe all the crap they shovel into you, you still have to deal with the fact that, had we genuinely been responsible for Saddam’s depredations, that would only make the case stronger for it to be incumbent upon us to fix things. So, you lose either way. Good night, Junior.

  26. ronnie Avatar

    Jeff,
    Since you raised the issue of health care, how about my idea for funding a national health plan. I’ve formulated it to make it appealing to both the right and the left.
    Liberals like the idea of taxing the rich. Conservatives are concerned about the increasing costs of litigation because of medical malpractice and product liability lawsuits.
    I propose that the national health care system be funded through a 28% surtax on tort litigation attorney’s fees. Those fees run about $40 billion annually, so the tax would raise over $11 billion. I don’t know if that’s enough to fund a national system, but it sure would be a good start.
    Since liberals have no problem with double taxation in the form of capital gains and estate taxes, they shouldn’t object to a surtax like this. As for the trial lawyers’ concerns, well they have already established the precedent of forcing an entire industry, the tobacco companies, to contribute huge sums of money to state governments. Now it’s time for the trial lawyers to pay their share.
    BTW, Howard Dean may have a medical degree, but he’s a politician now and doesn’t practice medicine. What a waste of a medical education. When the Dean true believers start calling the Senate majority leader Doctor Frist, I’ll believe that their calling Dean ‘doctor’ is something other than putting on airs.

  27. TDK Avatar

    As Lisa Simpson aptly pointed out, the opposite of Schadenfreude that Jeff Jarvis referred to is better known as “sour grapes”.
    “Yeah, well, deposing and capturing a genocidal dictator isn’t really anything to be proud of anyway…”

  28. JorgXMcKie Avatar
    JorgXMcKie

    The problem with a tax on attorney’s fees would only increase their efforts as they attempt to recoup their (perceived) losses. This in turn makes estimation of costs more difficult for both practitioners and insurers, thus leading to the perverse effect of raising costs faster than the tax brings in money.
    In this way it is similar to the tax on luxury boats (new boats costing more than $200K) a few years ago. It was scored inelastically and predicted $5M in revenue. In actuality, people really, really quit buying expensive boats (it *is* optional, you know). The boat building industry suffered massive job loss, the tax went into negative territory, unemployment costs shot thru the roof, the industry *still* hasn’t rebounded.
    Don’t confuse (as Congress so often does) the ability to levy a tax with the willingness of people to pay it.

  29. Frank Avatar

    Reid,
    I guess when you hold forth at your barbecues about how right this war is, it helps if no one standing around gormlessly nodding has read any history. One-eyed man in the land of the blind and all.
    Face it: we supported a psychotic (yeah others did too) and I’m ashamed of that fact and I’m ashamed that ignorant people will now believe that somehow morality has seeped its way in to conversations about government’s motives.
    So you when you want to speak with adults drop the bullshit about how great we are, and how our motives our only altruistic, and let’s talk seriously about what the geostrategic goals the U.S. was trying to achieve. Oh and just so you don’t waste your time and your finger joints, writing that Saddam was a threat to the U.S. doesn’t get you into an adults conversation (if it was really a threat, exactly why was all intelligence manipulated by Cheney’s office in the lead up to the war as extensively documented by Seymour Hersh (and before you embarrass yourself with some lameass observation about liberal media, ask Jeff about the fact-checking at the New Yorker)..if the threat was so apparent, why change the way intelligence was collected and evaluated? I’ll wait for that answer as well).
    I’ll tell you what: you provide evidence, i.e. dollar figures of arms sold from France, Germany, U.S., Russia, U.K. to Iraq say from 1980, then I’ll know them for myself and I’ll also know that you aren’t pulling things out of your ass as your post gives the impression.
    It’s people like you that have made me understand truly what Orwell was getting at in 1984. Peace with Oceania, our great partner, (then all clippings are removed). War with Oceania, Oceania is ruled by a savage psychopath.
    These are scary times, and when my innocuous posts can lead you to come in here like a roaring mouse hurling insults I know they’re only going to get scarier.

  30. Frank Avatar

    Reid,
    It helps if you know, actually read my posts. Show me one line or even suggestion when I said the U.S. supplied Saddam with WMDS? I didn’t so don’t build straw-men arguments. If you can’t debate without recourse to inventing arguments I’ve suppoedly made, I’ll take that as it should be taken: you can’t refute the arguments I DID put to paper.

  31. Jack Tanner Avatar
    Jack Tanner

    Frank – you’re right
    ‘Using phrases like cheerleaders doesn’t really helpfully describe European governments.’
    Collaborators is a much better description of the Axis of Weasels. As soon as the fighting stops I’m sure they’ll be glad to send help.

  32. Frank Avatar

    This is getting pointless. I’m sorry, I thought I was in a place where people were required to provide evidence and well-argued points.
    No, instead, all we have is people just coming writing “collaborators” as if that’s an argument. So after the extensive evidence of U.S. help to Saddam, are we collaborators as well?
    And right now it’s just struck me: you’re not open to argument or rational points, because I’m dealing with dumb, blinkered nationalism. That’s it, right? I can make arguments all day long about the rights and wrongs of U.S. foreign policy, but in your mind whoever (and I’m not refering just to the war on terror) opposes the U.S. whenever is a “collaborator” or fascist? We help Saddam and its power politics, but when Russia helps Saddam its collaboration?
    Well, I think I’ll withdraw from that conversation. Life really is too short.

  33. ronnie Avatar

    Frank,
    When the US does something, why is it more evil than when some other country does the same thing?
    You claim to know world history. Identify a country, society or culture, from any time or place on this planet that did more for the cause of freedom or justice for the average person than the United States.
    If you really knew history, instead of just knowing selective facts that support your argument, you would have some perspective. For most of history, for the vast majority of people on this planet life was short, brutal and oppressive. The United States, with all its flaws (slavery, natives, yada yada), was truly a revolutionary change from all that. It continues to be a revolutionary concept in light of how many people there are like you that don’t like it. The only people who are socialists are the ones that think that they will be in charge of planning.

  34. Andrew | BYTE BACK Avatar

    Jeff, you know better, surely.
    Healthcare – most of the Dem candidates got plans. Nobody’s listening. As evidenced by the fact that you think they’ve never talked aobut it.
    Sorry. Perception is both a wonderful thing and a curse.
    Frank, you said things people aren’t prepared to hear – and which Jeff has, since you posted, pointed to from Iranian bloggers he admires (not to say Jeff believes all that they post, but …. )

  35. Jack Tanner Avatar
    Jack Tanner

    Frank – not so right this time! When you continually violate the UN imposed sanctions by selling banned material then use your security council vote to protect your illegal contracts while Saddam pockets billions thru the UN and turn a blind eye to mass murder I’d call that collaboration. It’s well known that we sorta supported Iraq against Iran. But we didn’t support him stealing and starving his own people so we could illegally profit from it. You’re right that we should have killed him in ’91 so he got a 13 year reprieve. Funny how Kofi the collaborator wants to make sure he doesn’t get his trip to Hell now.

  36. Rube Avatar

    Health care? Do people still want to socialize health care in the US? The proper term isn’t health care, it’s HEALTH INSURANCE. Health care is already universal, you just have to pay for it.
    Jebus, I live in Germany, where health care is FREE, and I paid $400 dollars a month for it last year. 400 HUNDRED DOLLARS PER MONTH. That’s damn near 5 large just for the insurance! I never even went to the hospital!
    Why would anybody want to put health insurance in the same hands of the idiots who run the DMV?

  37. M. Simon Avatar

    The Brits have government run health care and it’s a scandal.
    The Canadians have governmentrun heath care and it’s a scandal.
    The French. Ah the French. They are different. In August government run health care is on vacation.

  38. M. Simon Avatar

    Frank,
    Why did America support Saddam?
    Because we were not willing to invade Iran.
    Doesn’t that count for anything?