Whence the hatred?
I have been interested, to the point recently of somewhere between deep concern and obsession, with the nature of the political divide. We don’t disagree anymore, we loathe. Maybe it was always thus, but it sure has been that way for a long time now. I heard Republican representatives talk today about “taking our country back.” Which was what Howard Dean was saying in 2004. Clearly, although the two sides think differently, they feel the same.
I am aware that many people today hate President Obama to the same extent, or even more, than other people hated President Bush. And one could argue that this equivalency — and there is equivalence, at least in the vehemence of feeling - is in itself sufficient explanation. That is, it’s not who we’re hating, it’s the hating itself: our essential, tribal nature drives us to seek an Opponent and affix to him (or her) all Blame and Responsibility for That Which Is Wrong, and we shall Cure Our Ills by Fighting that Individual. Fine, and I think that’s true, to a shocking extent. We are all far less rational than it is comforting to believe.
But… I watched the President’s speech today in front of the House Democrats. It is entirely impromptu, no prepared texts. And I can understand entirely why people might disagree with him. His central argument that we in America should be “neighborly” and “look out for each other, ” with the unstated implication that this should be done via the power of the state, strikes intelligent people as wrong and dangerous, and as an affront to liberty and responsibility. I totally dig that, and in certain circumstances, usually when paying my taxes, find myself, if not in complete agreement, then certainly sympathetic.
But, how in the world can people look at this well-spoken, articulate, sincere man, who is at least as honest in his goals and his ideology as his opponents are in theirs, and hate him? Loathe him? I honestly don’t get it. Any explanation would be welcome.
(To anticipate one: his opponents to a great degree deny that he is sincere. They believe he is “deceptive,” and is hiding his true nature, which is far more cynical/ideological/ambitious than he allows himself to appear. Thus they can ascribe to him all kinds of unpleasant characteristics for which there is no apparent evidence. But I don’t really understand where the initial assumption of his deception comes from, either.)
(To anticipate another: yes, some of his opponents hate him because he is black. But I am not interested in that, because it is not interesting, nor is it sufficient.)
March 20th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
To a certain extent I fear that people hate obama - not because they’ve looked at his speaches, books, policies, etc and decided they disagree, but simply because the voices that are respected in their social circle hate him. A hatred inherited through the lens of the ideological silos in which they’ve found themselves. I have to admit, I say this in large part thinking about this video from a Palin book signing event http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk . truly terrifying
March 20th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
At present the conservative voice is very radicalized and the progressive voice is not so radicalized. The ‘60’s was a time when the progressive voice was radicalized. I feel very comfortable in laying the responsibility for the current invective at the conservative’s feet.
I am reading Thomas Sowell’s Intellectuals and Society. I only just started, but it is extremely disturbing. In it he lays out the ecosystem of “Intellectuals,” apparently those in think tanks and Supreme Court jurists, “Intelligentsia” those who discuss and disseminate those ideas, such as congress, reporters, talk show hosts, the president, and local political organizations, and the general public who suck up those ideas and adopt them as their own.
So, the radicalization and the tone of the discourse is in fact a purposeful process to advance the dominance of a voice in our country.
The tone of the discourse is designed to increase the FUD factor, increase the alienation with the political process, and allow the “Intellectuals” to dominate our political process.
March 20th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
“(To anticipate another: yes, some of his opponents hate him because he is black. But I am not interested in that, because it is not interesting, nor is it sufficient.)”
To deny this explanation because it’s not “interesting” is to deny the truth. Casual racism is still, disappointingly, extremely pervasive here. Even those (especially those) who claim they are not racist express it in many covert ways. It’s real, and exposing it is the only solution.
March 20th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I’ve been thinking about this as well. I voted for Obama, and don’t regret that decision.
Deceptive? I don’t see it. I think he’s incredulous about how political Washington actually is. I find him good natured and he keeps his sense of humor in a way that Bush never could. In an appearance a couple weeks back I heard him say “I tried to pass a bill the republicans sponsored, but when they saw I agreed to it, they changed their minds and voted against me.” His delivery was sincere and just memorable.
Keep up the good work, I’ve been listening to you since shortly after you started broadcasting.
Joe
March 20th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Just shooting from the hip here, but first off I think you’re right in saying the hate comes first and chooses an available subject to which to adhere (for conservatives, WHAT a subject - an “over-educated” black man with some Middle Eastern heritage!). Many people think they’re being fair and rational, but their arguments and “thoughts” follow from their pre-existing emotional (often fear-based) biases. Their minds made up already (sure, Samir, it’s often just parroting back what someone else said) and what they think is rational thinking is really just fitting their “ideas” to their ego-driven opinions.
It seems to me as though many of the Obama haters are being manipulated - whipped into a frenzy (used, if you will, as pawns) by Republican obstructionists (and behind them, right-wing idealogues) who have been far more effective for the past 20 years at mobilizing, networking, and articulating their position. The liberal voice in America has yet to find itself in a way that brings the kind of force and clarity to its objectives that the conservatives have (sometime stridently, but whatever works) been doing for decades. There’s an interesting commentary by Kevin Baker in this month’s Harper’s that lays it out this way:
“For decades now, as our public discourse in general has become more scattered, random, and irrational, Republicans—funded by corporate and other elites in the private sector—have stunned Democrats with absurdist attacks that have proved to be effective at garnering votes and, more important in the long term, at hampering Democrats even when they hold the majority… Obama, the congressional Democrats, and most of our politicians at every level now maneuver within political confines defined by financial and military interests they cannot conceive of challenging. Perversely, our ruling elite today is one of unparalleled diversity, and includes unprecedented numbers of women, minorities, and individuals who have worked their way up to power on brains and determination alone, usually without having inherited connections or wealth. It is a meritocracy much like the one long envisioned by many liberal reformers—and it has decided to capitulate, reap its considerable rewards, and draw the ladder up after it.”
(Harpers Magazine, April 2010,
March 20th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
I think there is a very real cultural divide underlying it. Obama talks about universal health care, international cooperation, (and to some extent) civil liberties for gays and lesbians - in short, cultural values common to rest of the industrialized world. He’s talking about getting America on the same set of tracks that has brought germany, france, the UK and japan to where they are today.
This challenges a belief, firmly held by many americans, that america should be on its own set of tracks, going in its own tangential direction. they don’t want to go to germany, they want to go to…well, america as they see it. They look at germany and see a largely secularized society, with short workweeks, readily available birth control and relaxed social attitudes and are terrified by america becoming that way. They loathe obama for being the conductor of the canada express (ouch, my metaphor overextended).
March 20th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Peter,
Your question is one I’ve been asking myself for the last year (and change). I admit I loathed what the Bush Administration did to our country and while I’ve always viewed Bush as a hapless facade and completely clueless about how he was being used by the neo-cons, I truly did (and still do) hate Dick Cheney and believe that he is ultimately at fault for the Iraq invasion.
I write that preamble to suggest I’m equally capable of such base feelings toward our elected officials, too. I also voted for Obama, though I was not on his bandwagon until after he was nominated. But what I find amazing - appalling even - is that the conservative right began the hate-mongering campaign long before he took office and continue to beat the drums of unrest against - get ready for it - “progressivism.”
Whether the hatred is race-based in some cases isn’t important at all; we know that’s one element. But to despise a man who is sincerely trying to right the wrongs in this country in the atmosphere we all find ourselves in really does boggle my mind. Get our military out of a country we never should’ve invaded? God forbid! Try to undo the incredible incompetence of the previous administration so we (and the world) do not face a complete financial collapse? Perish the thought!
It would seem that the conservative right wing of this country (including the directionless tea-partiers) feel obliged to loathe Obama because the previous leader was loathed by so many on the left. There apparently doesn’t have to be a true reason to hate someone anymore - if their policies go against your dogma, you’re akin to the Devil himself.
Frankly, I don’t see us changing. This ship has sailed, so we better get used to it.
March 20th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
I genuinely believe a huge part of the right’s hatred from Obama is essentially defensive. They listened to the left’s criticism of Bush and it was very harsh – deservedly so, in my view; but harsh nonetheless – and they are desperate to find some reason to attack Obama with the same level of intensity. The left (myself included) accused Bush of going to war in Iraq without sufficient legal justification (irrespective of whether he actively mislead the public); of violating his and our obligations under longstanding principles of international law; of authorizing torture; of violating the Fourth Amendment by illegally wiretapping American citizens, “data-mining” and illegally intercepting e-mail communications; violating the separation of powers by usurping Congress’ roll in regulating the treatment of captures in the “war on terror” and by issuing “signing statements” indicating he was not bound by acts of Congress, and so on. These are very serious accusations, any one of which, if true, really could have provided a basis for impeachment – not that that ever would have happened, of course. Any way, add to that the fact that Bush was horribly incompetent, particularly in his execution of the Iraq war, and he was rightly considered one of the worst presidents in modern history.
So, how do conservatives rehabilitate their own image? After all, they not only voted to reelect Bush even after his worst sins were exposed, most of them walked in lockstep behind him despite, and often because of, those sins. So, the only way either to divert attention from their own shortcomings or to make their own sins seem less venal is to make Obama seem as bad or worse than Bush.
March 20th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
To be honest Peter, I don’t think you set this up fairly. The answer is in the first part of your post–there is no real logic in hatred. When you ask the question “How can you hate This Particular Man, who is just so unhateable,”to me you’re implying that, on the other hand, hating Another Particular Man, like Bush, makes at least a little more sense because of [x, y, z]. But in politics, [x, y, z] is more subjective than we’d like to believe, and as far as I’m concerned, hatred doesn’t, and shouldn’t, ever make sense. I come from a conservative family, consider myself moderate, and voted for Obama. I was just as disturbed by blatant Bush hatred as I am today by Obama hatred. In some of my circles, rampant, violent Bush hatred was a given. In others, people would honestly claim that Bush was himself an “articulate, sincere man, who is at least as honest in his goals and his ideology as his opponents are in theirs,” and they were completely baffled by such vitriol. I imagine if you asked Obama haters, they would give similar reasons to whatever the Bush haters said–the answers don’t matter much; they’re just excuses for irrational mean-spiritedness.
-a huge wait wait fan!
March 20th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
For a lot of people, politics is the new relgion. That there is only ONE true way to believe and anyone who has a different way of believing not only against (their) way of thinking, but actually a THREAT to their belief system as a whole by challenging it. So they try to make their case with fear.
Look, Obama is not perfect, but he is WAY better than the last four presidents. I voted for him, and for the first time in my life (I’m 50)I felt comfortable with my vote for President. I do not have the feeling that those who disagree with him are evil, rather I am bemused that there are still people (and a lot of vocal ones) who think that the previous Administration was better. Or God forbid, the alternative of McCain with Sarah Palin in the #2 spot (her appeal is beyond me)would have a greater appeal.
The Right doesn’t seem to want to compromise and collaborate. They find comfort, as do religious zealots, in seeing everything as “My way or the wrong way”.
March 20th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Perhaps those who supported Bush (and support Palin) simply distrust a leader who is a bona fide intellectual; and/or, a “government takeover of health care” is perceived as a genuine threat to American Freedom. It’s not unlike the fear of those who are Pro-Choice–after all, take away a woman’s right to choose and what other choices will be taken away? Hence this point of view from The Right: If the government “takes over” health care, it will then take away our guns, shut down coal mining and oil drilling, hand legislative powers over to the U.N., and ultimately force us all to become vegetarians. So, in this way, a great many people feel threatened by the Obama administration.
March 20th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
For my part, I think we’re seeing the opposite end of “Roosevelt got elected while in a wheelchair because he didn’t have to be on television” and “Nixon v Kennedy: debate winner depended on whether you could see them or not”.
The advent of the Internet as a force in civilian life has had — for all the many positive effects it’s had — the negative effect that it’s made it possible for many thoughtless, cunning demagogues to put themselves in front of the majority of the electorate … which, let us face facts, is composed of some really thoughtless people itself.
As Carlin once said: “Think about how dumb the average person is that you meet, and then realize: half of them are dumber than that”.
But now, they have people to whom to listen to validate them in their unwashedness, or so they believe… and moreso: *we can also hear what they have to say*, as they comments on blogs and newspaper websites on both sides, and so we *know* they’re underinformed and not really well read.
I think it’s these two sides to the same coin that have contributed the most to the level of polarization you see. I don’t recall King George I inspiring it; it seems to have come on during Clinton’s term, and gotten sharply worse as Bush II put the country in a tailspin you wouldn’t have thought possible after seeing all the good Clinton managed to do in between BJs.
(PS: Please do the Zombie show)
March 20th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
To a large extent, the hatred felt towards Obama is informed and inflamed by a deep undercurrent of racial intolerance and a subconscious recognition of the end of the American century. This breed of extreme conservatives feels their very way of life (god, country and guns) is threatened. They see the complexion of the country changing from majority white to plurality non-white. I seriously wonder if any of these people listen to non-partisan radio or read any material that doesn’t support their narrow way of thinking. I doubt any of them have ever traveled outside the United States and visited any of the “socialist liberal” countries they are so appalled by. These deeply unhappy people want someone to blame for the end of America and it’s so easy to point at the brown skinned guy in the White House.
The problem is, it doesn’t matter who is in office. The American century is already over. The fantasy that conservatives cling to of America the Cold War power is over. In fact, I doubt it ever really existed. The United States rose to become the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world by accident of geography. When the rest of world was trying to dig out from the ruins of catastrophic world wars, we were sitting pretty with our modern factories and vast natural resources. The American century arose because there was no other alternative. The singular dominance of the United States was bound to come to an end.
Yes, I loathed George W. Bush down to the core, but I never once took to the street calling him racial epithets or Hitler though. Why? Well, I am an elitist, bleeding heart liberal and liberals are kind of wimpy, nice guys. We want to help poor people and live in peace while recycling our paper and aluminum and riding our bikes to work. When we protested George W. Bush, we didn’t spit at him and throw rocks except inside the darkest part of our little souls. Liberals have an inherent faith that we can work with the system to change it. Liberals think that writing articles and making documentaries is social protest. We’re above the rabble screaming for blood. Michael Moore is sort of our liberal champion, but most of us liberals feel a little uneasy claiming him as one of our own. He’s a little too bombastic and loud to be comfortably one of us. Air America failed because liberals aren’t terribly comfortable with one-sided partisan media. We prefer NPR because we at least pretend to let the other side talk too.
I comfort myself by saying that no amount of political rabble rousing is actually going to result in the down fall of this nation. We will all go one with our lives. I am an architect who has been out of work for over a year. No matter what happens with the health care vote, I will go on searching for work. No matter who the governor is or who the president is, we will all just march on. I always looked down on liberals who threatened to leave when things didn’t go their way. It just seemed like such an obnoxious statement to make. Only now, I am seriously wondering if I would just be happier in a less conservative nation. I always liked France. I could be happy in Paris with my croissants and cafes.
Thanks for being rational, Mr. Sagal.
March 20th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
We don’t see government as having a purpose tied to the common good. If we did, hearing the President talk about being “neighborly” and the role of government in helping us do that would make sense. Instead, as you say, it “strikes intelligent people as wrong and dangerous, and as an affront to liberty and responsibility.” To me that’s speaks to the success Conservatives have had in framing the national conversation regarding the role of government since Reagan.
An old American Express slogan was, “Membership has its privileges.” I think they were one of the first credit cards that charged a fee to use it. I may be wrong about that. Still, we perceived value and paid the fee. We upgraded to Gold and Platinum cards and their higher fees in part because we thought they had more value. We don’t see value in taxes. We see our hard earned money being taken from us and given to people who don’t work and haven’t earned it. We’re the ones entitled to the money. I think liberals–to the extent they find themselves in agreement with that sentiment–need to acknowledge their acceptance of the Conservative frame of reality. We don’t necessarily agree with it, but we accept it and it influences us.
A quick comparison of the favorability ratings of President Obama’s with President GW Bush’s seems to indicate that more folks see Obama favorably than they did Bush during his second term. I point this out because I’m not sure there’s an equivalency here between the two as you indicate. Do some loathe President Obama? Yes. Still, more admire him than they did Bush.
What often strikes me about Obama is that he works hard to avoid accepting a Conservative framing of questions and issues. In his interview the other day with Fox’s Brett Baier, he was repeatedly asked if he would reject a “Deem and Pass” approach by the House. He didn’t answer the question, because it of the way it was framed. “Deem and Pass” is a valid way of approving of legislation. It’s been poisoned. Obama wasn’t going to touch it. Instead, he reframed by expressing his belief that the bill will pass because “it’s the right thing to do.” When he was asked about special deals in the legislation, Baier wanted to talk about specifics in Montana and Connecticut. Obama would have nothing of it. Instead he spoke of folks in LA still trying to recover from Katrina and that the bill would help them and help HI with it’s 2006 earthquake. Katrina makes sense to people. NB didn’t make sense, so it’s out. His focus was on the fairness of the lens. He reframed the conversation.
I think folks who loathe him, do so to an extreme not because he isn’t thoughtful and sincere. It’s because he lives in a different world-view. He frames questions and issues in ways they never would and which not many people do anymore. They can’t bridge the gap. And as you said, we’re far less rational than we’d like to believe.
March 21st, 2010 at 2:44 am
It’s because he’s a Commie. LOL It’s easy to stir up negative feelings by calling people commies or unpatriotic. If you create a patriotic fervor people will be afraid to say anything against you. Glenn Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity etc. use this tactic and it seems they influence about half the American public. Of course public health care is socialist, but so are social security and public schools. It’s simply people getting together to take care of each others’ needs. I am totally in favor of a public health plan, but I also share some of the Right’s concerns of government inefficiency.
March 21st, 2010 at 4:29 am
I, too, find the antipathy toward all things Obama hard to fathom. To me, he is everything we’ve been taught to value: an intelligent man from a modest background who excelled academically and pulled himself forward through effort and the expression of his native talents–and with an attractive family to boot.
I agree, too, that race cannot be dismissed as a factor underlying all the seething and screaming, but it’s not as simple as being overtly racist, i.e., as thinking blacks are inferior to whites. It’s more that people fear large changes in the social order–an America with a non-white majority, a world in which our economic hegemony is waning.
I hear more fear and distrust than hatred. The right-wing noise machine (forgive the cliche, but it’s apt) has been stoking fear for a long time. Think of how often you’ve heard the phrase “government-run healthcare rammed down our throats”. Obama has become the focus of all that fear and resentment.
Finally, there is ignorance and cluelessness. When you have people on Medicare raging against government-run healthcare, you know that things have gone badly wrong. The American economy has been such a powerful generator of wealth for so long that people haven’t really had to understand very much about how the world works to live comfortably. Now that we are facing limits, change, and uncertainty on many fronts, people are coming unglued.
March 21st, 2010 at 8:50 am
Good question, and one that I have been pondering for some time now. At first blush, it would seem that ignorance, fear and hate go hand in hand, and are being used by the right wing to try to regain power. At times, those on the right are surprised at what they sow Sen. McCain found that out during the campaign, and did seem somewhat nonplussed).
FTR- while I “hated” what he did to this country, I certainly did not Hate G.W. Bush, from all accounts he is a personable man, and I really do believe that he did what *he* thought was best for the country. I just believe he was dead wrong.
Actually, in final analysis, hate does go along with fear and ignorance, I believe.
March 21st, 2010 at 9:23 am
Our founding fathers warned us of the dangers of political parties, and I think the current state of “extreme partisanship” is perhaps their worst fear realized. Radical a thought as it may be (although considering the founding fathers’ position, it would not be), I would suggest that the time has long passed for he abolition of political parties. Of course, that cannot and will not be, as the two-party system has gained a foothold in our system, and it’s far too late to turn back the clock.
While there were/are legitimate reasons to criticize Bush and Obama, the tone and fervor of the critiques of each were present long before either one did anything worth criticizing. The same can be said for the spirit in which their supporters come to their defense. Nobody is putting issues, decisions, and logical reasoning first - as you’ve suggested, how they feel, how they respond, and ultimately what they believe has been pre-decided by loyalty to their party and/or ideology.
Unless we change our ways, and start putting needs, wants, and issues ahead of party, and start looking at the message without putting the messenger through a filter, we will continue see this play out during not only this administration, but future ones as well (Republican and Democrat alike).
March 21st, 2010 at 10:08 am
Well, there were beatings and shootings all through the fifties and sixties, right? There were riots in the late sixties and early seventies. None of which was terribly new even then. The term lynch-mob came from somewhere. Now, I’m sure I’m blurring and missing details, but the point being that the hate just isn’t something new.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:03 am
I think a lot of it can be boiled down to ideological differences, taken to their logical extremes.
If you are someone who believes in limited government, and/or a conservative moral code, what Obama is doing isn’t just something you disagree with. It’s something that you feel is disastrous to society. He’s not someone whose policies you disagree with, he’s someone who is destroying America. In that case, anything you feel, say or do is justified, in your mind.
Even if you personally think he’s the nicest guy, it’s irrelevant. It makes it easier, of course, if you prescribe to him negative qualities, but it’s not necessary to do so.
I also think that the religious aspect cannot be overstressed here. I have some acquaintances, friends and coworkers, people who seem to be rational in other areas, but who have a religious-based fear our President. They are being told in their churches that what Obama believes, and is trying to do, is evil. These individuals think nothing of stating in casual conversation that the end times are near, and our dear President is a large part of the reason for that.
These are nice ladies-grandmothers, who bring in freshly-baked cookies. But they believe, fundamentally, the same way that some of the more vocal, vitriolic individuals do.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:20 am
1) If you can’t think about the irrational thinking in your own mind, or the minds of those you generally agree with, you will have quite a hard time understanding the irrationality in the minds of those you disagree with.
So, why have I hated public figures? I don’t mean “why have I hated what they have done?” and I don’t mean “why *should* I have hated them?” I mean, “Why have I actually hated them?”
2) I prize being able to talk with others, trying to understand their views, arguing while acknowledging one’s opponent’s real argument while acknowledging its strengths and finding the root of disagreement. Last — or first — I value acknowledging the differences that are on the axiomatic level, and trying to trace others back down to that level. And I find that the less others value or attempt this sort of approach, the less I can engage with them, the less I want to engage with them, the less I can stand even to listen to them, and eventually the less I can even stand the sight of them. (Mind you, Peter asked about the hatred, not the behaviors that have disturbed so many.) I’ve got to admit, I resent people in positions of power — people who can impact me and things I love — that those who are not capable of such things and/or do not value them.
3) So, what is the real basis there, and how might it have analogs on the “other side”?
Obama is not just a leader they disagree with. Let’s be honest here. They don’t think that he is really a leader. He doesn’t fit the role. Sure, the skin color might be some if it, but there are others, too. He’s never served, literally preferring intellectual pursuits. He prefers talk and discussion to demands. He does not declare what other should do. Remember, Bush repeated said something like “You might not agree with me, but you’ll know where I stand” and consistently stuck to his guns. Colbert brilliantly said “The greatest thing about this man is he’s steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change; this man’s beliefs never will.”
And his supporters LOVED him for it. He was strong. Decisive? You bet!!
What I — and Obama — see as a strength, they see as the very definition of weakness. Just as W displayed so very many traits that I believed were antithetical to real leadership and had power over me and *my* country, Obama displays “weakness” and has power over them. Just as I resented W — and grew to hate the very sight of W, his walk, the way he held his arms, etc. — they hate Obama.
4) So, it’s not so much that he doesn’t *look* like them. Rather, it’s that he doesn’t think like them. It’s not the conclusions as much as the approach.
5) If you want a more academic and developed theory, look at Dr. Robert Kegan’s Constructive Developmental Theory, especially his book “In Over Our Heads.” Obama seems to be an inter-individual and asks others to be the same, something that is simply too much a stretch for almost all people. Liberals will resent him because he won’t defend their conclusions like they’ve projected him to do, and conservatives because they long have known he won’t defend their. And his approach is alienating to so many, especially the majority, who Dr. Drago-Severson label instrumental or socializing.
His ability to make people feel understood and well held in private looks quite different on the stage and on TV. Seeing him do that with others make him appear ungenuine to those who disagree with the target of the moment for his supportive words.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:28 am
I’m sorry I’ve overgeneralized on the religion bit above, and apologize if I’ve offended. Obviously not all who are religious (and I should have been more specific and said “Christian”) have any problem with Obama whatsoever. But there is a fair bit of preaching from the pulpit that, if it doesn’t always come out and say “Obama=Evil” it’s a pretty obvious message if you read between the lines.
An anecdotal example here, but as I go to church, occasionally, mostly when I’m visiting relatives, I do get to hear sermons. They usually focus on the “right to life” aspect (Catholic). I heard one last month which stressed the real presence of Satan out there to destroy and deceive. It was also against the separation of church and state. It was passionate, enthusiastic, It was fascinating.
Now, Obama’s name was not mentioned at all, and later in the service there were exhortations for the congregation to pray for political leaders to make the right decisions regarding “respect for life” etc, but I could easily see how, in that environment, someone could make the logical step to “Obama does not hold the same values I do as a Christian, therefore he’s not a ‘real’ Christian.”
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:03 am
The hatred and fear is not new, and at the very least, we have not had any canings on the Senate floor recently, but I do feel that the invective has reached a fever pitch in the past year, and I think the reason is racism. It can’t be ignored.
I also agree that we will get through this as we have other very trying periods in our time, and I can only hope that Mr. Obama’s reasoned, measured approach will win in the end. The rhetoric on the right makes it seem like he has been president forever, but it has been a little over a year. Mr. Reagan got this ball rolling decades ago with his whole “most terrifying words in the English language*” bit, and it will take a long time before that idea–hysterical mistrust of the government–can be eroded.
(”The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”)
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:08 am
This isn’t entirely new. I was shocked when I moved to the US and discovered the level of hatred aimed at the Clintons, along with the accusations that they were murderers who would stop at nothing to fulfill their lust for power.
But it is getting worse.
Since then we’ve had an administration that derided “the reality-based community” and reveled in constructing an alternative reality. It was seen as smart politics to lie.
Then we had the rise of the internet, along with the ability for like-minded people to avoid, as much as possible, people they disagree with, and to have their most lunatic imaginings reinforced by others, making it seem (to them) as if they’re not actually on (or beyond) the fringe. It you want to believe that Obama murdered his grandmother during the election campaign in order to get sympathy (or shut her up — what did she know about his birth certificate anyway?) you can now find hundreds of other loons who think the same way. A few years ago these thought would have simply crossed your mind, and if you were foolish enough to mention them to another human being they’d have backed away rapidly with a fixed smile on their face. Now you can post your thoughts on obamaisthe antichrist.com and be validated.
Then we have the idiotic “political” discussion programs where no one, however insane their theories, is welcome. Why, exactly, do they keep letting Lynne Cheney near a microphone?
And then Obama’s black. You really can’t ignore that.
The only puzzle to me is why liberals have not shown quite the same level of venom, although it’s come close with Sarah Palin. I still find myself wondering whether Trig is really her child. Where’s the birth certificate?
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:10 am
I think that some of the reason for the hatred is because they think he isn’t fixing our economy fast enough. The economy tanked long before he went into office, and because of the promises he made to us during his campaign, everyone expected him to make a quick fix, which was not feesibly possible. All the financial experts have told us over and over again that the economy will be slow to recover from this crisis that we are currently in, but to the people that are still losing their jobs on a daily basis, that is little comfort to them, as they worry about how they are going to pay their bills, mortgages, and put food on the table to feed their children. Our government, instead of bickering about health care, should be thinking of a way to fix our economy, and get the millions of unemployed back to work.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:31 am
Hate? Really? Demonizing someone who doesn’t agree with me is so Bill Mahr. I don’t agree with some of the policies the president espouses, I don’t agree with his speechwriters making things up for him to say that aren’t true and I don’t believe making me buy health insurance is constitutional, but I don’t hate Barak Obama. Now Howard Dean is another story. . .
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:43 am
I will answer only for myself rather than attempt an explanation for others. I was one of those who was a vehement hater of the Bush administration and the damage I saw these people doing to our country and our world. I cried the day Obama was elected, envisioning the change he was peddling as the beginning of the shift in national conciousness that I believed we sorely needed. On Inaguration Day, my daughter and I fashioned an American flag as we celebrated the dawning of a new era of American government. Then came the cabinet appointments. After promising to not have any lobbyists in his administration, Obama appointed almost exclusively special interest representatives, most notably those from Wall Street/Fed. Fast forward to now and all of the promises about the war(s), Guantanamo, NAFTA, etc. have found the same fate. Sounds good during the election…..
I don’t hate Obama. For that matter, I don’t even hate Bush anymore. The only thing I hate now is the fact that I allowed myself to buy into the promises of a politician. We can eternally debate whether the rhetoric of the right or the left is better but the fact remains that there is no difference between the two. Determining who’s ’side’ has a better vision for America has about as much affect on the real direction of our country as picking the national champion correctly does in your NCAA tournament pool. We are falling victim to the distractions put in front of our faces. The real question should be “What are they trying to ditract us from?”
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:54 am
Peter:
I don’t hate the man. He has take our country in the exact direction he promised. This is what the people voted for in 2008.
With that said, unfortunately, the POTUS is taking spending to a whole new astronomical level. This is not new and has been going on for decades. Both parties are at fault, and we have a mess that I believe we will not recover from.
I would have been impressed if he put his campaign agenda aside and addressed how the nation debt and other obligations were being paid for,
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:57 am
What I find most unappealing about the Obama supporters is the righteous indignation so many exhibit in reaction to the hatred of Obama without EQUAL critique of the degree of bile and venom which had been cast at Bush. If a person objects to the “hate”, in particular, then he should have, *at the time*, equally objected to the “hate” that was leveled at Bush. If you raise it above specific political issues and want to discuss the nature of the reaction itself, then it is entirely hypocritical to do so without indicating up front and loudly that the same rules should have applied to Bush. The truth is that most who shake their heads in disgust with the Obama-bashing either raised no objection at all to the Bush-bashing, or actually engaged it in gleefully themselves.
To answer your specific question, Peter, I think some of the hatred is simply and return “in kind” for the extreme degree of hatred shown toward Bush. I feel absolutely confident that if the liberal extremists had not gone so incredibly far in pillorying Bush, the backlash against Obama would not be so horrendous in return. Extreme hatred begets extreme hatred. Both are equally wrong, so let’s make sure that whatever criticism we level against Obama haters we equally level against Bush haters.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:06 am
Years ago, I, a white woman, brought home my boyfriend, a black man, to meet my family. I was taken aback by the reaction of my parents. Suffice it to say that, at age thirty, I had not a clue that they harbored the opinions they did. I was brought up right by well-meaning people who wanted me to live in a better world and so taught me good values. They didn’t want to be racist, and they didn’t want their kids to be racist. But reality triggered some latent fears and prejudices. Then they calmed down, and everything was fine.
Brain research has shown that a large majority of decisions are made within an instant of being exposed to information, even before we begin consciously “thinking” about the information. We then backload rationalizations to fit with the decisions we’ve already unconsciously made. Hate is a decision. What this means is that our decisions are largely unconscious and triggered by the fight-or-flight part of the brain. Decisions are at first emotional — research also shows that when the amygdala is damaged, people will focus on logic and reason and be unable to decide. The emotional, reactive decisions we make CAN be changed after we calm down and process them through the neo cortex, but we can’t process anything if we’re stuck in fear mode. Hate is a decision; fear is primal. Unfortunately, the place in the brain where primal fear lives is very close to where speech lives, which is why, when we’re afraid, we can say horrible, horrible things, even to people we love. Some of our long-buried fears, even the ones in opposition to our values, rear their ugly heads.
People fear the unknown. As every mapmaker knows, the unknown is where the dragons be.
I think that economic conditions are at the heart of all this. When bad things happen, people look for someone to blame. Unfortunately, with a full quarter of the American public getting its news from Fox, people have fallen prey to, not only to bad information and outright lies, but also to the manipulation of those who have figured out that fueling people’s fears keeps ratings up and donations pouring in. (See the RNC’s marketing strategy here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866.html) Keeping people in a constant state of panic and hysteria means that they can’t calm down and think things through.
The best thing our President can do right now is be non-anxious presence to the anxieties and fears of the American people. He has a demeanor that is calming, reassuring, confident, intelligent, without being condescending or insincere. His skill at being the most grown-up person in the room will, I hope, help Americans remember who we want to be as a people.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:07 am
We’ve become a nation of haters. This isn’t just limited to politics and presidents. It’s a phenomenon that we can all participate in and many of us do.
Look at comments around the Net about something fairly apolitical, the iPad. As soon as it was announced, blogs and social media were flooded with responses from people who hated the product simply because it didn’t meet their needs and expectation or because they didn’t want one. The Internet and mediasphere of full of examples of people expressing hatred despite a lack of relevance to their own lives. As a friend jibed, “I heard on the internet that someone in Detroit is producing a car that I really don’t want, and charging too much money for it. I’m thinking of writing my Congressman an angry letter about it.”
How many people rallying against the health care bill will see significant changes in their coverage and their bank accounts as a result of its passage? How many people do you know who “hate” Facebook or Twitter or Microsoft or Tom Cruise or whatever it is that they can easily ignore or choose not to participate in and get on with their lives?
It’s no longer enough to state simple displeasure with something, state a preference for something else, or rationally weigh anything’s merits and faults. From celebrities to consumer products to politicians and policy, if we’re not in agreement the response is unequivocal hatred.
The reasons for this heightening of rhetoric and invective are probably very complex. Over the past few decades, public discourse has been distilled into soundbites which oversimplify issues. The ratings-hungry news media has become better served by depicting and feeding polarization. The electorate feels more and more disconnected from their representatives and government. Candidates and politicians feel pressured to practice the politics of hate and division. The problems predate the Internet, but being able to join communities of millions of like minded haters certainly exacerbate them. Judging simply from what’s posted and discussed online, it would be easy to think our culture is suffering from a deep and pathological hatred and anger towards almost everything.
On my most optimistic days, I recognize that all this bile—and all hatred—simply stems from fear. It’s fear of a fast-moving world we no longer understand, fear of a future we may not have a place in, fear of moral uncertainty, economic instability, and fear that the greatest nation on earth may be going in the wrong direction. It’s fear of issues too large and complicated for us to fully understand, fear of numbers expressed in trillions and fear of becoming irrelevant. It’s fear that our lifestyles, aesthetics, hopes and beliefs are fading into obsolescence or being marginalized. And it’s fear that any ambivalence in attitude or opinion means that we just don’t matter.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:46 am
I love that I can totally disagree with Art’s analysis and proposed solutions, but very much respect what drives his thinking and empathize with his worries. I wish standard GOP talking point had even a fraction of that honesty. Thanks for standing up for your principles, Art, while being respectful in a way that would make your mother proud.
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Polling report just released these numbers:
His handling of his job as president aside, what about Obama as a person? Approve of him 70% / Disapprove 25% (CNN) http://bit.ly/193yzs
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president? Approve 46%/ Disapprove 51% (CNN) http://bit.ly/DbKds
To me, these suggest the effectiveness of conservative spin. If the economy continues its slow rebound during the next two quarters and there is a jobs gain of any measure. If that happens, and folks acknowledge that this Presidency is working. What will happen to the haters then?
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Some have hypothesized that the Civil War never really ended, for some people….
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:54 pm
I’m less interested in why people are so forcefully outspoken and more interested in what to do about it. If for no other reason, then I’m not really convinced there is one reason for all the vehemence. Or, that sooner-or-later, it all boils down to fear of the other and what it might take from you.
I have known democrats who hated republicans and republicans who hated democrats, and they all said exactly the same thing about the other. That the other would bring about more government intrusion. Harm liberties. Curtail rights. Squash freedom.
Hate? It’s all one.
No, I’m far, far more interested in not hating. Not becoming a reflection of fire. Twin mirrors, indistinguishable, slowly melting. Reflecting each other into infinity.
Forget payback. Forget reasons. Who said what first. How smart. How smug. How dumb.
Betrayed principles. I don’t care.
Sarah Palin. John Edwards. Barack Obama. John McCain. George Bush. I don’t care who you hate.
You can be strong without hate. It can be done.
I know it sounds stupid with people screaming but somebody has to be the first to stop.
Stop hating. You know you want to.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:59 pm
To the person(s) who would argue either of your points, there is no counter argument as both are based on “gut” feelings to one extent or another.
I think the hating far exceeds Obama. I think Hating has become a pastime.
March 24th, 2010 at 1:24 am
Quite simple really - we are a nation of anti-intellectual idiots - we always do as we’re told - even when it’s against our own self interest. Why bother to read Camus, Voltaire, and Locke, when you can listen to Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity? Makes life a whole lot simpler doesn’t it? … Texas School Board vs Thomas Jefferson …. I rest my case….
March 25th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
History buffs will know that FDR was hated as a “traitor to his class”. Your grandfather did not hate President Eisenhower, but contempt is a good description of his (and other knee jerk liberal’s) views. My father would characterize President Eisenhower’s decisions as “…that poor dumb soldier..”. Your grandfather could not recognize that a career military officer,turned Repubican politician, could be an effective leader.