On the Obama Hating
Bush was deeply hated by many. But I don't believe I have ever seen a single comment by a tpmcafe denizen even suggesting or intimating violence against Bush or Cheney. Not one, that I've seen, anyway.
A major difference between right-wing hate versus hate emanating from other parts of the political spectrum is the public visibility of implied violence coming from the former, and the utter depravity of right-wing figures with a major media presence in failing to condemn it unequivocally. Threats of violence surely come from people of all--and no discernible--ideology. But that seems to me a major difference.
|
Before the presidential election, Sinclair Lewis' classic It Can't
Happen Here was creeping its way up the queue in my reading pile. (I
note that Tom Wright read it a few months back.) I was specifically concerned with what might happen if we had another presidential election close enough that the outcome was seriously and credibly disputed, after having come to the conclusion awhile back that it is more likely than not that the 2004 presidential election was stolen. Fortunately, we didn't. After Obama won I
breathed a big sigh of relief and hadn't thought about it much since
then.
Playing by the rules of the radical right wing I could say that these people "hate America", the charges they levy freely against their fellow citizens who have strenuous objections to specific US policies adopted by particular Administrations and Congresses. It isn't as though they don't have lots of levers to block the Obama agenda without resort to violence or threats of violence. A good friend of mine--huge early Obama supporter, very active in
media reform circles, and heavily involved in launching an interfaith
reconciliation project (Muslims/Christians/Jews)--is not someone easily
given to paranoia. He sent me an email a couple of days ago on an
interview done with the author of the book The Eliminationists. I've
not had a chance to watch the clip yet--my friend says the author
emphasizes the distinction between free speech versus responsible
speech. Indeed. Glad to post the link if anyone is interested.
The haters never go away, alas. They just stew and
eventually regroup or refocus politically. Their right-wing allies publish books called The
End of Free Speech. If the Justice Department were to launch one or two high profile incitement-to-violence prosecutions, the loonies would love nothing better. It would "prove" their point that "liberal fascism" is here. Oh happy day for them--time for the gloves to come off!
Their standard is: thinly veiled threats of violence are legit coming from them; intense criticism of particular public officials and public policies by those opposing them from a point of view not their own, however, amounts to "hating America." These people--the haters--are sick. There are always going to be people like that out there. What is also inexcusable is the deafening silence when it comes to condemning that rhetoric from so many in the right-wing commentariat. |












Oversimplifying somewhat, there are two basic reasons for the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership to be open to accepting ideas/requests for changes from individual or groups of Congressional Republicans to a bill they are trying to move.
The first is that a Republican member might have a good idea, one that improves the bill substantively, from a policy standpoint.
The second is to draw Republican votes so as to be able to claim whatever enhanced legitimacy and public support may (or may not) come from having Republican votes.
Where the point of accepting a particular Republican request to alter the stimulus package was to try to win a Republican vote, but the White House thought it made the bill worse, then accepting the change was a "concession" that should not have been made in the first place. Now that the Republican bad-faith MO has been revealed, such "concessions" should not be made in similar situations in the future.
With Congressional Republicans who are now showing their MO to be as negative as the Republican minorities in Congress in 1993 were with Bill Clinton, then the way the White House should think about the benefit of being bipartisan is solely for the first reason above--to be open to ideas that would improve a bill and policy, and not to be able to say they had bipartisan support for something they did to try to obtain greater legitimacy.
If they think a particular Republican-offered idea improves the bill, they should take that suggestion. Just don't imagine it will draw any Republican votes--unless they secure a formal commitment that that member or the group asking for the change is "on" the bill--will vote for it--if the change is accepted.
Because if they take a Republican change that they didn't really think was a good idea, with the hope of getting some support from across the aisle, and then that member or group of members votes no on the bill anyway, where are they? They've made the bill and policy worse, with no benefit to show for that.