Why are the Left So Angry?

I've been reading a couple of bloggers ponder this puzzle here and here. One would think that with their Chosen One's 'historic' victory coupled with control of both houses of congress, they would be floating in ecstasy.

But the lefties aren't happy. In fact, many of them are in a state of conniption. Much of the problem can be traced to the failure of certain people (like yours truly) who refuse to worship their Messiah on bended knee. Even worse, many of us have gathered in Tea Parties and had the nerve to protest against their god's policies. They feel that protesting is something only they should be allowed to do.

Jeff at Protein Wisdom has some interesting thoughts on this phenomenon:

Watching people like Garofalo or Olbmermann or Congressional House Dems or Janet Napolitano or our sad little friend with the pet filipina wife, Gordo, quickly lose their stride and so offer conservative psychosis, extremism, and racism / xenophobia / misogyny / homophobia as a retort to policy issues merely firms up what many of us already knew: that many progressives have learned to parrot the few things it takes to make them sound smart, but once pressured, they haven’t the critical thinking skills to extrapolate out even from their own positions — which often leaves them forced to defend arguments that run counter to their own stated positions (recall how Amanda Marcotte’s “social construction” of “woman” argument took her into uncomfortable when the same posts-structural linguistic necessities she applied to “women” were applied to “homosexuals,” eg.), and leaves them with little recourse but to try to stave off “debate” altogether.
And the best way they know to do this — because it is the lesson they’ve learned since they were old enough to admire their first lefty butcher — is to use one of the magic words that, through a social and media consensus, they’ve come to be able to rely upon as kind of gameshow lifelines.
Which is why their “arguments” are often little more than assertions that their opponents or interlocutors are some combination of racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic extremists — people who are either bad by choice or bad by brain chemistry / genetic weaknesses brought about by southern breeding practices.
Progressives are joiners; they crave group acceptance; and it is their ability to consider themselves well-educated and politically conversant for having memorized the party line that more than anything else defines them.
That they’ve been able to create a frame that protects and nurtures their ignorance — indeed, that elevates it to popular acceptance — is hardly surprising: it is easier to pretend to be smart than it is to learn, and, once this lesson is learned at the macro level, it is easier to get a group of people together who will all pretend to see the emperor’s topcoat than it is to find a brave few who will wonder why the old geezer’s let his balls hang out.

What Jeff says is very true. In particular the part about 'little recourse but to stave off debate altogether.' If I only had a dime for every time I have heard someone on the left try to stop debate whenever they start to lose an argument. And this is why the left often attempt to place restrictions on free speech, press, and assembly.

For example, consider the controversy over whether human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. I personally feel that anyone who believes that is true is a gullible idiot. But people have a right to be idiots if they so choose, and in a free society we give them a wide berth.

But consider Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel, who proposed that the American Meteorological Society revoke its seal of approval from any TV weatherman who questioned the global warming orthodoxy. Or, even better, consider David Roberts, who advocates Nuremburg-style trials for members of the 'denial industry'.