I dunno, Orwell.
The democrats and others might one day have to negotiate and make a deal with Republicans or Christians, but that doesn't stop some of them from calling the latter "right wing fanatics", "fundamentalist morons", etc. Also, as long as the Taliban & co. were attacking the USSR, they (as American allies) were despised by the bien pensant people as "heating up the cold war", being part of American-planned "agresion", etc.
It isn't as if using emotional, loaded language is considered a bad idea per se by progressives; on the contrary--as long as it insults the right kind of bad people, such as conservatives, or some government which opposed Marxist "revolutionary" thugs with its own thugs, it is not only permitted but encouraged. It's only the use of emotional, loaded language against the USA's enemies that is discouraged as "simplistic"; and the more murderous and fanatical those enemies are, the more shrill the demand that one should not describe them as fanatical murderers in order not to "judge" them.
The eiptome of this attitude is, of course, Howard Dean, who claimed a Republican senator "should be in jail", but refused to say Osama bin Laden is guilty before he is convicted in trial. (Taking Dean's logic to its logical conclusion, no suicide bomber should ever be called guilty of anything, since by definition they cannot be put on trial for their crimes. Neither, for that matter, should we emotionally prejudge Hitler or Stalin as "evil" or "guilty"--they were never on trial, were they? But I digress...)
This attitude, of course, is just what one would expect from those who believe in the two "progressive" dogmas, namely, 1). The USA is in the main a force of evil and opression in the world due to its "capitalist imperialist system", and (more importantly) 2). that being "nonjudgemental" and devoid of moral outrage is the highest moral stand one can possibly achieve; the more horrified and outraged "unelightened" people feel at some enormity, the more virtuous one is for refusing to be outraged, shocked, or "judgemental" about those who did it.
Moral flatness, usually a sign of psychopathy, is considered by the enlightened crowd as a sign that one is an "independent thinker", not "controlled by irrational emotions" or part of the "mob" which is being "bainwashed" by the (evil USA) government, which is using the "tragedy" for propgadna purposes. "Tragedy,of course, is not used by them in the Shakespearian sense, but in the sense something bad that nobody in particular is to blame for (except, perhaps, some "root cause" which usually has to do with US imperialism or zionism).
What puzzles me is that this moral flatness, so devoutly wished for by some people, is totally fake: when I tell such people that, if I were to take their pronouncements literally, they are obviously psychopathic as they have no moral guide, they tell me, in outrage, that they privately feel as much rage and anger and loss as everybody else, they just won't let it "affect their judgement."
So they are not psychopathic--they do not lack a moral sense; they just refuse (or pretend to refuse) to use it in public. Making moral judgements has replaced what kinky sex used to be: something that isn't so much bad in itself, but still embarrasing, something not to be done in public, something you wouldn't want your neioghbors to know you enjoy doing.
