« Excellent Read on What (I hope) US Foreign Policy Will Move Towards | AmericanDreamer's Blog | A Comment on How the Health Care Debate is Evolving »
On the Obama Hating
This is the only post I hope I make on this odious subject.
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.
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. |
Advertisement
Thanks, did you read Frank Rich today?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14rich.html?ref=opinion
Similar thoughts.
June 14, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. And thanks for the Frank Rich link--I've read him now.
June 14, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah Palin smiled to the chants of "kill him, kill him," after she delivered her many inflammatory, "Obama is a terrorist" stump speeches. Did she ever ONCE get called out for that? Not that I am aware of.
Instead she repeatedly got labeled as a victim when she was ridiculed for her inability to answer a single cogent question. She couldn't even answer the one about what she reads, and is still pissed that Katie asked it.
Priorities anyone?
June 14, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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."
Like the rules of the regular repubs they have no rules fixed in stone on any subject. Ha
Good post.
Oh, and post the damn link. Ha!
June 14, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the kind words, dd.
Here's part of what my friend wrote in his email:
"I thought this interview with David Neiwert, about his new book The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right, was great. He articulates really well the critical difference between free speech and resonsible speech."
June 14, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
A key difference is, the hate for Bush that developed on the left was mostly due to what he actually did as president. Bush's catastrophic leadership failures and blatant contempt for the Constitution and the middle-class. The hate for Obama on the right is mostly due, IMO, to what they IMAGINE he has done.
The lies and personal smears about Obama - some of it initiated by the Clinton campaign - was amplified by the McCain/Palin campaign. It has continued to fester after the defeat of the Republican ticket and has now fully taken on a life of it's own. One only need peruse Freerepublic to see many examples of what I'm talking about.
June 15, 2009 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the reply new10. You write:
"A key difference is, the hate for Bush that developed on the left was mostly due to what he actually did as president. Bush's catastrophic leadership failures and blatant contempt for the Constitution and the middle-class. The hate for Obama on the right is mostly due, IMO, to what they IMAGINE he has done."
I agree that some of the hatred towards Obama is anticipatory. The folks who say he's a socialist appear not to know what the word means, if they are not deliberately twisting language for effect. Redistribution and rebuilding the safety net is not socialism. It's interesting that on the whole question of what to do about the financial crisis, Obama has so far rejected the more socialistic options that have been surfaced. That doesn't seem to matter to some.
There certainly was a group, however, who, based on the way he gained office in the disputed 2000 election, were never going to treat Bush as legitimate (in part because he wasn't) or give him any benefit of the doubt. If he had governed more consistently with what he had said during the campaign, and especially the presidential debates, the reaction wouldn't have been nearly as strong. As it was, the combination of the radicalism of his agenda, and the perception of deception (based on many of his campaign statements) that accompanied it even before 9/11, was pretty much guaranteed to trigger a strong backlash.
June 15, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dreamer, your alarm over hate speech that encourages violence is amply justified, as is your appeal to denounce that kind of incitement. Nevertheless, let me suggest one other way to respond to the threat that might complement the denunciations. I'll quote three statements you made:
"Bush was deeply hated by many..."
"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..."
"What is also inexcusable is the deafening silence when it comes to condemning that rhetoric from so many in the right-wing commentariat."
I agree that a failure to respond would be deplorable, but I'll also suggest a response that might resonate with the large majority of moderate Americans, perhaps even more than an exchange of denunciations between left and right.
My response to the haters from the right would be to proclaim as vehemently as I could, "I do not hate George Bush, nor do I hate Dick Cheney!" I would tell the haters, "In my life, I'm not sure I have ever hated anybody. I have despised some, and I have condemned others, but I have not hated them. Hatred is a cancer that eats from within, and I refuse to be eaten. Try as you might, you cannot make me hate."
And I would hope middle America would be listening, and coming to a judgment between the haters on the right and the non-haters in that little portion of the political universe where I find myself.
I recall the occasion, many years ago, when the segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace was shot and paralyzed by a would-be assassin. I felt sorry for Wallace, but I admit to some ambivalence - some sense that he deserved it for his willingness to deprive black Americans of their civil rights. Fortunately, I didn't express that sentiment, because I would have felt shamed, had I done it, by the comments of an African American colleague of mine, who simply said, "I'm sorry that happened. I would not have wished him any harm".
As some may know, there's almost an element of divine prescience in that response, because years later, Wallace, in his wheelchair, evolved into a powerful friend of the African American community in Alabama, and when he died, none among that community would have had cause for anything but sadness.
For those who wish a more eloquent perspective on the antidote to hatred in America, I recommend that old Steven Vincent Benet short story, "The Devil and Daniel Webster". It would be worth fifteen minutes of your time.
June 15, 2009 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Devil and Daniel Webster - http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/devil/devil.htm
June 15, 2009 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fred Moolten, thanks for a wise and thoughtful post and for the link.
Not that he can afford to get into back-and-forth on the violence issue but what Obama says and his demeanor both exude calm and send the message that he isn't going to get drawn into the gutter with the haters.
No matter who the president is, there are always threats of violence, coming from both those who are politically-motivated and those who aren't. That isn't the point that has caught my attention because there's nothing new there.
What has caught my attention is the way that some of the right-wing commentariat with ginormous bullhorns transparently enjoy publicizing this stuff, all the while conveying a Casablanca-like "shock, shock" that there are people with such awful thoughts. They are playing a dangerous game.
My concern is that this tends to feed and possibly legitimize that type of mentality with many among the hardcore Fox News crowd. We're not talking tens or hundreds of thousands of people here as we are with Kos, but many millions.
Not that a whole lot of deliberation and open-mindedness and genuine desire to engage with others with different points of view appears to exist when it comes to political discussion in our day. But the effect this has on the public climate is utterly toxic and cancerous.
June 15, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great excercise in political profiling: violence = right wing = conservatives. That's what cops used to do with black people.
It's no use pointing out to folks like that the DC shooter hated Bush and peddled 9/11 conspiracies like the craziest of liberals, or that he had National Review on his list of targets.
And of course nobody is going to even remember the pacifist Ayers and "God Damn America" Wright.
For a primer on visible threats of violence, you could do a quick search of DailyKos and Open Left posts.
You're playing a clearly political game with a clear political goal of marginalizing the opposition into a perceived political fringe. Or maybe you're so high on KoolAid you can't even think straight.
June 15, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ad much as I hate to say it, Lalo's got a point here. I definitely remember quite a bit of hate from the left during the Bush years. Not just despising or condemnation, but hate. I do feel that there is a qualitative difference in the hate from many on the left then compared to the hate from many on the right now, but I'm also suspicious of that feeling.
That said, Lalo, you'd do well to look up the "God Damn America" bit from Wright and understand that it was taken out of context. I'm not a big fan of Wright (especially now), but I think if he's going to be judged, it ought to be on what he's actually said.
June 15, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Same should be applied to the so-called "right wing extremists". No?
June 15, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the problem when referring to a group, especially one with a label that's semi-ambiguous. I can find you comments (in fact AmericanDreamer references many) made by an unambiguous right-wing extremist that are unassailably vile. One problem is that these comments are then attributed to all right-wing extremists, and then that label is applied to those to whom it might not apply (or at least haven't made the comments they're being held responsible for).
June 15, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that if someone is extremist it doesn't matter if (s)he is left or right-wing.
And most of the time it's not so clear-cut, as with the DC shooter. Most normal right-wing or left-wing people are as very far from extremism and linking either one to it is a political game, played for a clear political PR purpose, nothing else.
June 15, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the 9-11 conspiracy theorists are excellent examples of what you're talking about. A lot of conservatives like to claim they're left-wing extremists, and there are definitely some left-wing extremists amongst them, but I think I've seen just as many who would more aptly be labeled as right-wing extremists. Of course, as you suggest, even amongst the individuals, it's not that clear cut.
June 15, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, you wrote: "I think that if someone is extremist it doesn't matter if (s)he is left or right-wing."
The thrust of my comment is a comment on the Hannitys, O'Reillys, Limbaughs--people who by any definition would have to considered major opinion leaders of the right wing in this country.
If, during the Bush Administration, Krugman and Dionne and Zakaria and Herbert were pulling the kind of crap those folks have been pulling I'd think they were way out of line as well.
The question I asked, and which I haven't heard an answer to yet is: who amongst the center/left punditocracy during the Bush era was acting as these 3 are now? I maintain that their actions have a toxic, cancerous effect on political discussion in our country, such as it is.
I've acknowledged that no part of the political spectrum has a corner on the market when it comes to individuals who themselves threaten or imply violence (as opposed to the Limbaughs and O'Reillys and Hannitys, who make sure these people get as much attention as possible). And I've also acknowledged that people who talk that way are not always politically motivated, either. So I don't think I'm oversimplifying in any of those senses.
June 15, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The question I asked, and which I haven't heard an answer to yet is: who amongst the center/left punditocracy during the Bush era was acting as these 3 are now? I maintain that their actions have a toxic, cancerous effect on political discussion in our country, such as it is."
I can't honestly believe you're asking this seriously.
First of all, you're carefully specifying "center/left". Do you consider Hannity to be center/right? I don't.
Secondly, i'm not clear on why these comparisons are important, despite what Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi may have said early on in Bush presidency.
Thirdly, I understand you don't like what people on Fox News say, but then if you're really honest - wouldn't you admit you wouldn't like ANYTHING they say regardless of the tone of voice?
Fox News is a price we pay for democracy. I'd rather have Fox News that I can switch off then optmistic and forward-looking Government propaganda USSR style.
June 15, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okayyyy...
Well, that was illuminating.
June 16, 2009 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, is there a left-wing analog to the right-wing militias in our country?
Say it's "political profiling" if you wish to--but I don't think it is possible to deny that the most prominently reported-on militias in this country have ideologies which portray the US government as the tyrannical enemy, sucking taxes out of its citizens and regulating or seeking to regulate behavior it has no business regulating, such as whether people who are not police officers or members of our armed forces can purchase AK-47s at their neighborhood gun shop.
Government-hating in this country is very much in line with the rhetoric of the modern national Republican party and its most prominent public faces--Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, et al.
You can try to deny that if you want to. But that is the reality, ugly as it is. That is what the base of the national Republican party has become as of today.
If you don't like that image then the only way that changes is if there are some heavy duty conversations among self-identified or wannabe Republicans about what the party is about, today.
Not 30 years ago, or 160 years ago, but today. Because it's changed a whole lot.
June 17, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo35adm: I don't hang out at either of those two sites. I am willing to stand corrected.
My intent wasn't to "marginalize" opposition to Obama's agenda by suggesting those opposing him are by and large some fringe group obsessed with thoughts of violence. I don't think that's true at all. There is plenty of opposition to him, the vast majority of which doesn't fit that description, although many are extremely angry and frightened as was the case with many re Bush.
That said, are there center/left members of the highly visible political commentariat (analogs to Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, say, for starters--their audiences and visibility dwarf that of the Kos crowd) you would identify who gave the sort of attention to threats of violence against Bush that the right-wing crowd is now, let alone transparently relished discussion of the subject?
June 15, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not defending Hannity and Limbaugh. But I also remember flag-burning stories. Both sides have played this game with abandon. The question is - do liberals need to, in the age of hope and change?
June 15, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo35adm, thanks for your comment.
You wrote: "But I also remember flag-burning stories."
Not sure what you mean. Could you explain?
June 15, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink