So how do the Spanish bomblasts play in the Democratic Underground? Once, again, we get a chance to do a little study of applied psychology. One can only hope that DU is some kind of elaborate Republican hoax; if these commenters represent any significant subset of the Democratic faithful, our country is in deep, deep trouble...

It might be reasonable to claim that since Spanish voters were against the war in Iraq, the Socialists might have won regardless of the bombs of March 11. This seems a bit of a stretch, given that the Popular Party was ahead in the polls before the bomb blast, but it's not completely impossible.

But over at Democratic Underground, we think a different way. Consider this precious bit of analysis:

1) We assume al-Qaeda are rational actors. Indeed, the Republican spin assumes just that: Al-Qaeada has a set of strategies and goals, and uses force to implement its goals, based in part on precedent. The assumption here is that all rational actors consider precedent carefully when making decisions (i.e., rely on induction as a form of reasoning about action).

2) All recent precedent has shown that populations of Western/Westernized countries under terrorist threat behave more rather than less conservative. For evidence, we would show the rightward shift in the US immediately following September 11, the pro-government feeling in Australia immediately following the Bali bombings, and the general rightward leaning of the Israeli population as each intifada expanded its scope.

3) If al-Qaeda are rational actors, and precedents point to a rightward shift, then one could conclude that the bombings were intended to produce a rightward shift in Spain, turning the PP's victory from slim to huge, thereby radicalizing the Spanish populace and furthering polarizing the EU. In fact, a leftward swing seems stupid given al-Qaeda's objectives of instigating an intensifying conflict between the West and Islam.

4) Therefore, the Spanish people's decision to oust their rightwing government was NOT a victory for al-Qaeda, but precisely the opposite of what they expected and desired.

Sadly, this seems to play extremely well with his audience, who issues a long set of approvals.

Sane people in my audience -- of all political stripe -- will recognize immediately, at some gut level, that this is nonsense. But if we take a moment to ask why it's wrong, rather than just asserting our kneejerk sensibilities, we might learn something about how this group thinks.

The first major problem is that the author seems to confuse his worldview with that held by Islamic extremists. For example, he calls Al Qaeda "rational actors" who will "consider precedent carefully."

All well and good! But remember terrorists are rational actors, if so, within their own worldview, not that of the author. A Muslim jihadist may "rationally" be much more concerned about bedding 72 houris than increasing the bickering in Belgium.

The author also subtly shifts his terminology. One minute he tells us a rational actor will "consider precedent carefully", and the next attempts to get us to only consider "recent precedent". The author clearly does not want us to examine the longer record.

Again, he fails to understand the difference between his mindset and those of the terrorists: Muslim extremists will not confine their thinking to the last decade or so, but are steeped in a thousand-plus years of successful conquest.

Next, he's wrong even on what "recent precedent" shows. He gives exactly one example to prove terrorism produces a "rightward" shift: The US after 9/11. Indeed. But he ignores France, who regularly negotiates with terrorists. And that the family of Saud negotiated an uneasy truce by yielding signficant influence to extremists. That attacks on the UN troops in Rwanda led to the desired pullout. That the UN fled, again as desired, when the situation got bad in Kosovo. That terrorism has been quite effective for advancing the political desires of the PLO among the international community. And that, as desired by the warlords, Clinton ran quickly and altered his policy in Sudan when American blood was shed.

The author and his supporters are either woefully ignorant of these other outcomes from terrorism, or they know of them but are being willfully self-deceived or deceitful. Sadly, I fear Islamists are not similarly afflicted.

Next the author frames this very interesting admission: "a leftward swing seems stupid given al-Qaeda's objectives of instigating an intensifying conflict between the West and Islam." This is deeply revealing for two reasons.

One is that he admits he believes those of his political alignment won't "intensify conflict" between the West and Islam, e.g. that they will offer no physical resistance against whatever agenda or behavior extremists may Muslims desire from us.

This is troubling enough. But wait! there's more...

The second thing we learn from this is that the author and his supporters are willing to think Al Qaeda's objectives are, in fact, merely "intesifying conflict" with the West.

Again, the author shows his ignorance of Islamic theology and history: Muslim warriors have always been happier with peaceful surrender, such as in the conquest of Alexandria by Amr ibn Al-Asi. The goal of jihad is not conflict, per se, but Islamic domination. Conflict is merely one means to an end. If control can be achieved without it, so much the better.

In the end, the author uses all these errors to conclude that Muslim extremists would certainly not want him and his kind to hold power in Spain.

Put together, we see a woeful or willful ignorance of ancient and recent history, an inability to understand the difference between the mindset and theology of an Islamic extremist and an American liberal, a willingness to believe that terrorists ultimately mere desire conflict, not control, and a backhanded admission that some American Democrats would be willing to do whatever it takes to appease Islamic extremists.

And what's here for a Muslim terrorist to dislike, again?

Folks, the people thinking this way are not found in some foreign country. These are among the faithful supporters of the Democratic Party right here in the USA. Where is the outcry against this kind of thinking? Indeed, it passes as mainstream, or is cheered.

I don't care how you feel about Bush. I don't care what political party you felt an alliance to in the 80s or 90s. As their complete estragement and abuse of Joseph Lieberman demonstrates, the Democratic party of yesterday is deceased. Forget JFK's stirring visions of supporting friends and Democracy. Forget Clinton's ideal of using the military to topple dictators and build nations. That's all gone, gone, gone.

Democrats: This is what your party will give you; this is what you must decide on this year. I wish you the best, for all of our sakes.