Whence the Hatred II
Thanks, everybody, for your thoughtful comments on my previous post. I may not have the most readers on the intertubes, but you guys sure are swell.
All the comments are worth reading, but let me particularly recommend Alex’s contribution, because he most directly grapples with my central question, which I’ll try to restate more clearly here. I am not so much interested, here, in political opposition to the President. As I said below, there are perfectly good and even noble reasons to oppose the President on health care, or anything else. If anybody wants proof that sometimes the government is not the best way to help people, you can still visit some of the public housing towers in Chicago, before they finally tear those monstrosities down.
I am interested, rather, in the emotional response to President Obama. I referred to his speech before the House Democrats because it was filled with what semiotics majors at Brown (Hey, Damian! Hi, Ira!) might call signifiers which appealed to me: his ability to speak coherently and improvisationally, to touch on certain arguments and themes and words, the way he carefully appealed, if you will, to the better angels of our nature. And I liked the way he quoted Lincoln, because smart, good people quote Lincoln! If we’re honest with ourselves, we will admit we respond to stuff like that — stuff that isn’t substantive at all — far more than we would like to think.
A little while ago, Andrew Sullivan (one of my favorite bloggers, and a college friend) mused about why he went after Sarah Palin so vehemently while giving John Edwards, another Vice Presidential candidate with, shall we say, flaws, a pass. Andrew was typically self-critical, but he didn’t touch on what I think is the real reason, something that certainly affected my reaction to the two individuals: Edwards acted like a smart guy. He had the language, and the nice but modest clothing, and the humility (son of a Mill Worker!) and he lived in a nice house filled with things we might like to have ourselves. Palin, on the other hand… didn’t do those things. She went to five different colleges, none of them particularly impressive! She liked to ride snowmobiles, rather than ski or snowboard! Etc. And I believe that the reaction to both of them, for and against, was based, far more than we would like to admit, on all those subtle clues, rather than anything they actually said or did.
So, like I said, I look at Barack Obama and see things I like, not politically, but personally. I want to hear from somebody who looks at him and sees stuff to hate, much like Jonathan Chait did when he looked at George W. Bush, back in 2004. Anybody?
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:38 am
You are missing out on a different hatred–the hatred of the left for Obama. Lots of my more lefty friends HATE Obama. They think he is a sell-out, sleazy, corporate shill.
I do not agree in the least. His pragmatism irks me at times, but I admire the man.
However, I get what you are saying by signifiers. That’s the strangest thing for me when Obama was elected. He was like someone I already knew. It was odd. The President had always been from a different cultural stream and now here was one from my liberal Ivy League/East Coast uni professorial stream. So odd. (Plus he had the Asia-Pacific thing which is also another stream I swam in.)
So I was comfortable with him as a person. Sarah Palin, not so much. (I do have one strand of my family that has the Christian Right Wing thing going on but not the Palin version.)
However, I never *hated* Bush in the way that some people did. I did get angry at him, very angry. I’m not a hater I guess. OK, I had contempt for him but not the kind of hate you see Tea Partiers have for Obama. I thought he facilitated evil but I did not wish him ill or see him as evil incarnate. I didn’t even think he was cognitively impaired, just disturbingly incurious and ignorant.
The leftists I know who HATE Obama see him as an opportunist liberal democrat and see such people as the real problem in the U.S. They are all overeducated East Coast liberal arts types if not college professors (or even law school professors, in one case) so it’s not a signifier/cultural familiarity thing. And not about race either, as far as I know. Every once in a while I wonder if it is about professional envy. Or if that is not a factor for some. The reason I wonder this is the anger seems very personal and also seems to come primarily from men of a similar age. But I’m suspicious of people’s emotions that way.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:44 am
This will not stand.
No one should be confused about the outcome of Sunday’s vote
This is not the end of the fight it is the beginning of the fight.
The American people spoke decisively against a big government, high tax, Washington knows best, pro trial lawyer centralized bureaucratic health system
In every recent poll the vast majority of Americans opposed this monstrosity
Speaker Pelosi knew the country was against the bill. That is why she kept her members trapped in Washington and forced a vote on Sunday.
She knew if she let the members go home their constituents would convince them to vote no.
The Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine combined the radicalism of Alinsky, the corruption of Springfield and the machine power politics of Chicago.
Sunday was a pressured, bought, intimidated vote worthy of Hugo Chavez but unworthy of the United States of America.
It is hard to imagine how much pressure they brought to bear on congressman Stupak to get him to accept a cynical, phony clearly illegal and unconstitutional executive order on abortion. The ruthlessness and inhumanity of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine was most clearly on display in their public humiliation of Stupak.
The real principles of the machine were articulated by Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings who was impeached and removed from the bench as a federal judge, before being elected to the House when he said “”There ain’t no rules here, we’re trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make ‘em up as we go along.”
It is hard for the American people to believe their leaders on the left are this bad.
They are.
The American people will not allow a corrupt machine to dictate their future.
Together we will pledge to repeal this bill and start over
Together we will prove that this will not stand
2010 and 2012 will be among the most important elections in American history
These elections will allow us to save America from a leftwing machine of unparalleled corruption arrogance and cynicism
Sunday was one more step in the fight against a “Washington knows best” and “Washington should run everything” attitude.
Let us turn now to the Senate to continue this fight for real reform, for real self government, and for policies that create jobs, improve health outcomes and increase freedoms for every american citizen regardless of race, color or creed.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:48 am
“Hate” might be a strong word, but if we’re going to get down into emotional reactions… the biggest thing I dislike about Obama - and the reason why so many like him, also, I believe - is the air of competence he exudes. The signifiers you speak of (and that really is a huge portion of the phenomenon) are great when the person exhibiting them is somebody you agree with. But when those signifiers are employed in the service of policies to which you are fundamentally opposed, they become almost a threat, a dividing line. The disarming folksiness of Bush irritated liberals, not because populism is foreign to them, but precisely because they could see that populism being used to advance bad policy.
For Obama, he comes off as an exceedingly distinguished intellectual, able to consider many different conflicting ideas and speak with them all. He seems thoughtful (which I do find appealing). For liberals this is more than endearing - finally, government will be used for the public welfare! But for people like me, who see competence in governance as competence in dominating and ruling me, it’s terribly threatening. The managerialist liberalism Obama represents is abhorrent to me, these policy wonks who think the American populace is just a big machine that they can tinker with through social engineering. Of course they think of caring for people in batches of 300 million at a time - to them, it’s all about centralizing control and power so they can make America better. There’s an arrogance, like it or not, that comes with that view of the world, and I think many pick up on it through subtle hints.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:55 am
I love Barack Obama like a fat kid loves cake.
That’s probably not what you’re looking for, huh?
Sorry.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:06 pm
The man is arrogant and condescending. He’s also transparent — he tries to do the everyman act but just can’t hide the fact that he is, in fact, an elitist, and his colloquialisms and down-home dialogue fall flat. George W. could pull off the faux-po-folk thing, but it doesn’t work for Obama . He is contemptuous toward those who disagree with him, and often becomes visibly agitated when challenged — especially if he’s off-script. He comes across as duplicitous. I would not buy a used car from him. Nor would I have a beer with him, even if he was buying. George W. embarrassed me every time he opened his mouth, and I came to regret voting for him, but I would still let the man buy me a beer. I guess that’s the basic difference: drinkability.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Hi Peter,
I can’t speak from a point of emotional dislike, because I like the President and voted for him (and even donated $25! a first!) for many of the reasons you point out. But I know many people (family, co-workers, neighbors — it’s that kind of community in which I live) who don’t like him.
One referred to him as ‘arrogant’, ‘elitist’, and ‘condescending’. When I asked why, he pointed to the very qualities that I liked! Too cool, too reserved, too rational, too well-spoken. There is a good old fashioned streak of anti-intellectualism in this great land.
Amongst others, who tend to be Republicans — and not the golfing martini-sipping Eisenhower kind — his merely being a Democrat makes them suspicious. It’s not just that Obama is a socialist; every Democrat is, along with being anti-Christian and anti-American and anti-gun.
His name is odd to them, and sounds too much like the names of people who like to bomb us, which makes him more of an anti-Christian. Oh, and that middle name of his really got to a couple of them. They looked at ‘Hussein’ as evidence of his subterfuge. Jeremiah Wright didn’t help Obama with this crowd either.
And, quite honestly, some of them just don’t trust an African-American in the position, or any position, or within a half-mile radius. I’ve heard them say so, but they didn’t necessarily use the phrase ‘African-American’. They wouldn’t have been fond of Hillary either, but they wouldn’t lock their car doors if they saw her on the street.
They do tend to like Sarah Palin. A couple of them like her just because she’s pretty.
I tend to like your show, and this blog, and your Twitter feed. Thanks for all, and thanks for reading. I hope it helped.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Presidents now are the victim of their own media produced hype. Presidential campaigns now, are not what they used to be. The direct access to immediate information regarding what time a candidate took a bathroom break on the campaign trail in Hoboken is now a matter of media interest. Every bit of minutia that can be covered, is covered. Why, someone in the bathroom with the president may even have videoed the encounter and put it on Youtube! Being a matter of media interest also means that same bathroom break is broken down over and over on 24 hour TV news outlets by 15 different panels of political “experts”. Which means people sit and watch those experts debate the bathroom break over and over, on and off all day long. Now an innocent bathroom break has become a matter of national interest. In the most lopsided consumer culture in the world’s history, what the media dishes out is lapped up by the consuming mobs. And the mole hill, is now the mountain.
Obama was billed to the people, by the media, as the great unifier. The post partisan hero of the people. The abolisher of modern day racial strains. He was billed to be something more than a human being. He was a savior. Being portrayed as something other worldly, in my opinion, is what subconsciously invites the vexatious personal attacks. After all, you aren’t hating a real person, you are hating an entity. The media does the same thing with athletes, (see Tiger Woods). It does the same thing with historical figures (see Abraham Lincoln) and does the same thing with movie stars (see any of them). They are made to be above humanity itself. Unflawed deities. The person receiving all the attention and talk relishes the attention and the publicity they are getting. Until the media does it’s next favorite thing, which is tear down the monster they created to begin with (see Tiger Woods).
People are people, flawed and egocentric with flashes of kindness and good deeds. If people aren’t put on pedestals to begin with, there would be nothing to knock them down from.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:23 pm
It’s not that I *hate* him, I just hate all of his promises, but that may have more to do with my lowly expectations of his “change” platform. I would have been happy with a simple change away from Bush and “The Bush Doctrine”, away from the schoolyard-bully-esque “hold em down and spit in their face until they say they love you” method of foreign relations.
But the thing is, he didn’t deliver even that. He took at look at the bully situation, said “Meh, that sounds about right. Now let’s talk about the food in the cafeteria.”
Mr. Obama, there are bigger fish sticks to fry than healthcare!
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Adam, did you even read the blog you were responding to, or did the mention of the President trip a pre-programmed script?
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
I’m a non-religious conservative guy, and I’m hating Obama’s practice and policies and the whole lot, but you’re right, he’s a friendly guy. It’s apparent now that his easy-going coherent speech consisted of a whole lot of practice and never being 3 yards from a teleprompter in many situations, but hey- you might find someone who likes George W. Bush as a warm person (probably someone who met him in person, but nobody will call his speech easy or untroubled.
You’re right– Obama does his easygoing man-of-the-people bit very well. Compare him to Al Gore, still wooden after all these years, or John Kerry, who came off so smart as to be out of touch, and who ramped his temper up and down so much, it was hard to tell how what he was passionate about.
Now I’m even more cynical about Obama– I still feel as though his past is a mystery (no, I’m not now and never have been a birther), and I feel as though he’s a people-pleaser with the press in his pocket– his focus-group-tested claims of what’s in the current bill, for example, won’t ever get compared to the actual bill, nor his campaign promises about what would be in the bill, etc.
This reminds me of the Bloom County strip in which the FBI sought Oliver Wendell Holmes and his Banana 2000 computer for the crime of hacking and stealing secrets, which the agent enumeraged: “The secret formula for coke, the secret of George [H.W.] Bush’s appeal… “The Secret of George Bush’s Appeal?” asked Opus, “He doesn’t have any!” “That’s the secret!” screamed the agent.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:01 pm
well played, sir! zugzwang if you ask me.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:34 pm
A small thing — regarding the difference between Sarah Palin and John Edwards: Palin has influence and a following, Edwards has neither. If Edwards was getting as much airtime as Palin and was held up as the future of the Democratic party, I’d hate him too. Now he’s just irrelevant. Pity yes, hate not so much.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:34 pm
LAN3 says “I still feel as though his past is a mystery”
There are books you could read about Obama that might give you insight into his past. Dreams of My Father would be one way to start. Bonus: borrow it from a library, thus not enriching Mr. Obama.
I have no illusions that you’d like him afterwards. I don’t doubt that you’re a principled person who most likely dislike Obama’s policy prescriptions.
But if the man is a mystery to you, there are large accumulations of clues available.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Peter, my question back to you would be whether you were asking the same question when people were spewing bile in vast quantities about Bush. It went far beyond the politics, it was very, very personal. Was there THAT much more to hate than Obama? Sure, he was not overly bright, but that really is about the worse you could say about the man. He was good-natured, generally honest, consistent in his viewpoints (to a fault), loyal to his friends, inspiring at times. His idiocy could easily be the subject of jokes, but hatred? Making him the face of evil?
The real question for me here is not why folks hate Obama, but why the hated of Obama is so shocking to you after four years of people genuinely hating a genuinely good guy.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:04 pm
I would love to enge with Aubrey Heckshire.
>The man is arrogant and condescending.
Yes, he IS arrogant. But no more so than W was, and much smoother about it. On the other hand, he is NOT condescending, or at least not my traditional definitions of the term. He does not talk like others cannot understand him or his thinking. Yes, he explains himself like a teacher sometimes, but to say that teachers are condescnending is really to stretch the term. He is not patronizing. He openly shares his thinking, and is happy to explain it. In my view, he clearly thinks that if only he can explain his thinking, he can reach people in the middle and maybe even some on the other side.
>He’s also transparent — he tries to do the everyman act but just can’t
>hide the fact that he is, in fact, an elitist, and his colloquialisms and
>down-home dialogue fall flat.
Can you give some examples? I don’t know when he tries to act like an everyman, unless you mean talking about his relationship with is wife and daughters. That stuff seems pretty genuine. I just don’t know what you are referring to. In fact, even his opponents think that he’s a greater talker, so I am confused why you think dialogue and collquialism has such problems.
>George W. could pull off the faux-po-folk thing, but it doesn’t work for
>Obama . He is contemptuous toward those who disagree with him,
“Comtemptuous”? Here is where I really start to have a problem with what you’ve written. You done a lot of characterizing *him* without addressing your own reactions to and where they might come from. I would disagree with you about W being able to pull that thing off — and I would say that Obama actually has a lot more experience with the reality, whereas W has none. But that’s not even the point here. Peter wants to know why people are reacting so differently than he does. Again, can you give a specific example that you heard or saw that led to you believe that Obama felt such comptempt?
>and often becomes visibly agitated when challenged — especially if he’s off-script.
>He comes across as duplicitous. I would not buy a used car from him. Nor would I
>have a beer with him, even if he was buying.
Again, I would love to better understand what you are referring to. When has he appeared visably agitated? I certainly don’t want to throw counter-examples at you, as that wouldn’t prove anything. I wouldn’t want to buy used car from his, either, but that’s because I don’t get the impression that he knows anything about cars. But I wonder when, specifically, you think he’s seemed duplicitous. I presume that you don’t mean that is actually IS duplicitous, because he’s not governed any MORE from the left than he ran. I mean, he’s really been much more centrist than his campaign was. But you aren’t talking about policies here, anyway. You wrote, that he “comes across as…” Can you say a bit more about that.
>George W. embarrassed me every time he opened his mouth, and I came
>to regret voting for him, but I would still let the man buy me a beer. I
>guess that’s the basic difference: drinkability.
And oddly enough, Obama is the beer drinker, whereas W is a teetotaler.
The question here is not how you and others characterize Obama. Rather, the question is WHY you characterize him like, why you feel this way, and — most importantly — how you can come to such different conclusions that Peter has. The reason I ask for particular examples is so that I can better understand whether you key on different key moments as significant, or whether you key on the same moments but do so differently. If it’s not racism — and I agree with Peter that that’s not a major issue generally, and certainly does not seem to be an issue for you — then why such a different view?
Literally everything you’ve said about Obama I believed of W, and the only thing that I agree with you about Obama is the arrogance — which doesn’t bother me. Why is that? We’ve both basically seen the same thing, the same news conferences, the same interviews, the same State of the Union addresses, etc.. And yet, you come to quite different conclusions. If neither of us are idiots — and one of Peter’s unstated premises is that neither of us are idiots — then how is that possible?
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:06 pm
I’m with Christopher Moore (comment #4), whose books everyone should buy. Really. They’ll make you laugh and, if you dislike the President, you need cheering up.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:04 pm
I think there is a more visceral reason for the reactions we are seeing toward President Obama. I think fear is easy to spread, and easy to change into hatred. People have been living with fear for quite a while, it is a natural part of life. I mean no one gets out of here alive, and that’s kind of scary.
However, since the take over of talk radio by hate mongers, on both sides but mostly on the right if we are honest about it, I’ve seen a different fear springing up. A fear that someone, somewhere is getting something they didn’t earn with blood (besides those born wealthy, they get a pass), someone, somewhere is having sex, someone, somewhere is having fun and therefor, laughing. But besides those fears, there is that fake fear that gets spread with blatant lies being told for the sake of political power.
I mean one political commentator says President Obama isn’t really an American born citizen, therefore he can’t rightfully, legally be President, and a bunch of people rush out to protest the birth certificate Hawaii (that great foreign land) posted online.
Personal comment here, I know Illinois politics is questionable, but give the state a break, they would have noticed by now if the man wasn’t born in this country. Even Illinois can find that information.
Another states that the health insurance reform will have death squads, and a bunch of people rush out to protest.
Do we even do research anymore? Is this how we want to live.
Our education system, do they teach research before the college level (cause I know they teach it in college) any longer? I know they don’t teach grammar after 2nd grade, but what about how to find an objective source?
Anyway, I’m ranting and I’m at work, love your stuff Peter, you’re awesome. But of course you are cause you are in Chicago, which is also awesome.
No one pleases everyone, and if you are doing your job right when you are president, you please almost no one.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:20 pm
[…] Peter Sagal, of “Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me” fame, throws out some fightin’ words to all you University of Idaho Vandals in his latest blog post when he says none of the colleges Sarah Palin attended are particularly impressive. That’s right: the University of Idaho is not particularly impressive. […]
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Hi Peter. Thanks for starting this discussion. I’ve really enjoyed reading everybody’s thoughts.
I can’t talk about my hatred for President Obama, because I’m a big fan of his. But I think I can speak about hatred of George W. Bush, and as you and others have pointed out, those are probably opposite sides of the same coin. So perhaps this will shed some light.
I’m ashamed to admit that I hated President Bush. And that I can still feel that hatred if I look for it. My godmother (a far-left academic who became a far-right academic before she passed away) met Pres. Bush once and talked warmly about what a wonderful man he was, and how honest he was. I’m sure that’s true, but I find it hard to reach beyond my hatred.
For me, the hatred is grounded in fear. But sometimes it’s easier to hate than to fear: hatred makes us feel powerful, while fear makes us feel weak. I think most of us would rather feel anger than fear.
So what am I afraid of? Well,
* I’m afraid of angry people with guns. I wish there was more gun control, and the fact that there are people out there who will fight as hard as possible to defeat even the most modest gun-control laws scares the heck out of me.
* I’m afraid of widespread ignorance. I think that as we get more knowledgeable (which I think we do, as a society), we make better decisions. The fact that there are people actively trying to suppress scientific findings and rewrite school curricula without consulting experts (hello, Texas) scares the heck out of me.
The list goes on (terrorism / fighting the wrong wars; the economy going down the tubes / deregulating the people who keep screwing it up; …). But, like I said, I’d rather hate than fear. It feels better.
And you know what else? It’s difficult to hate a vague “them”. I can try to use vague groups (Corporate Fat Cats, the NRA, the Right-Wing media), and that works pretty well; but it’s much easier to focus it on one person.
For me, and many people on the Left, President Bush became the focus for that hatred. Which is definitely unfair. But maybe understandable.
I think that a similar thing is happening now with the Right and President Obama. We can laugh and roll our eyes at people talking about Nazis and Socialists and Terrorists, but I think that people are truly scared about things (”they’re going to take away all the money I’ve worked so hard to make,” “they’re going to take my guns, which are my only defense,” “they’re going to set up death panels”) and it’s easier to hate a person than a vague “them”.
The frail economy and lack of jobs is not helping. Liberal intellectual snobbishness (which I’m guilty of) is not helping. Fox News is definitely not helping.
It’s possible that a more stable economy could remove a lot of the fuel from this fire. And maybe some more time with the sky not falling could make people look up and realize their fears were unfounded. But there are some people who won’t be budged from their positions.
So there’s my confession and my hypothesis. Looking forward to the rest of this discussion.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:51 pm
I’m not an Obama hater, but it seems to me that people who are pick up on a perceived elitist, aloof vibe that really turns them off. Such people are wary of intellectualism and think he’s always talking down to them. Also, supposedly he seethes resentment.
Which reminds me. Alex’s comment (15) in response to Aubrey’s (5) is particularly intriguing to me, esp the part about seeing the same things described about Obama in Bush instead. During the 2008 election, within the same week, two people on opposite sides of the fence said the same thing to me about their opposing candidates: “He’s so resentful. He has such an obvious chip on his shoulder.” A Democrat friend said this to me about John McCain, theorizing that he still had simmering anger issues as a result of being a POW. A few days later, a Republican acquaintance said the same thing about Obama, theorizing that he had a bone to pick with rich white America because of his background and upbringing. Crazy, huh?
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Well, I came here to engage in an honest exchange of views, and find myself in another lefty echo-chamber. Aubrey excepted of course.
I too don’t feel hate for this loathsome creature. Simple disgust, much like that reserved for the rest of you elitist who know better than all those state university shlubbs out in flyover country. You are frauds, and he is a fraud. You’re not smarter, nor do you produce something of more value to this nation. In fact you and he are the byproduct of the success of men who created this nation, an indolent class. Who else could elevate a man to the Presidency who had done quite literally nothing in life? Oh, he did the shuck & jive in Chitown to obtain a sinecure here and there to polish his C.V., but nothing of substance. Like Chauncey Gardner, he was “present”.
Like all frauds, his beginnings are a mystery. We do know that he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, thus becoming an Indonesian citizen, but nobody wants to talk about how he returned to the US, and established US citizenship. Nor do they wish to speak of his travels to Pakistan certainly with an Indonesian passport in the 1980’s when US citizens could only travel there under sponsorship of the embassy. More basically, he didn’t grow up with the values of this country, like many of you, so he doesn’t know what they are. Like the rest of you elitists, because he has no frame of reference for what an American is he attaches himself to the statism revered by the left as their salvation. America deserves better. In their collective gut America has figured this out.
I could go on to list the electoral criminality with which he attained office, particularly the avalanche of illegal foreign contributions, but to what point? The end justifies the means, and anyone who’d lift those rocks will either be bribed or shouted down. Totalitarians have been doing it for years.
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:17 am
I love Barack Obama because he is just like me: smart, good-looking, awesome jump shot, and takes advice from a foul-mouthed nine-fingered Jew. I hate him because only the last thing is true about me. (I told her, if you drop the something in the disposal, leave it, but no…)
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:19 am
Ahhh, take the “the” out after drop in that last post. GAH! I’ll bet Obama types better than me, too!
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:26 am
The more I read the critiques of Obama (and the lame defenses of Bush), the more convinced I am that my original comment was correct: The Obama-haters are desperate to persuade themselves that Bush really wasn’t that bad. (Yes, he was, by the way …) This is about tearing down a smart, competent and likable Democrat to rehabilitate the image of a hopelessly incompetent Republican who made one horrible decision after another, and to make themselves feel better for having voted for that hopelessly incompetent Republican.
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:19 am
Facts. I base my extreme dislike of Obama’s policies on facts, historical evidence, and the ability to look to (and fear of) the far reaching consequences of these policies.
Fact, gun control only works on law abiding citizens. Study Australia and what happened when they all turned in their guns. Study early American history and why the right to bear arms was important enough for our forefathers to add it to the constitution. WWII and why the Japanese felt that a land battle on American soil was impossible to win.
Fact, socialism is a system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people. America is,supposedly, ruled by the people. The buyout of the banks and the auto industry are, by definition, socialist. As is Obama’s health care plan. Marxist theory states that socialism is the state between capitalism and communism.
Fact,@ Robert W., although more are graduating from college, people are not getting more intelligent as a whole. Our schools have lowered standards so much as to be laughable. Study the early American schoolbooks. (The Prairie Primer is a good one that was widely used for primary schools.) Fact, most Americans only read at a 5th grade level. My 8yr olds (yes plural) read at a 5th grade level.
As to why I have a severe dislike of the current President as a person. I think he is too slick. He is an obvious hypocrite, espousing changes that he himself does not and will not follow. He came from nowhere with very little political experience. His years in a muslim school are suspect, at a time when radical muslims have declared holy war on the United States. He claims to be a Christian, yet his policies and agenda do not follow. He appears to be a highly intelligent man whose main concern is wanting what is best for America, yet his policies are contradictory to that concern. He makes promises, then makes no effort to fulfill them. Respect for America’s military and those who give their lives per his orders, is token at best. As the daughter (sister-in-law, niece, grand-daughter, etc…) of a soldier, I am biased. No man (or woman) should have the right to direct our soldiers, who has not stood in their boots. While I don’t rabidly hate Obama, he is not someone I would choose to spend time with. More importantly, he is not someone I want to be in charge of my country. If he was my neighbor I could choose to ignore him. As my President, I can not.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:15 am
Robert W, I think you have hit upon it. People hated Bush because of fear, and fear makes them feel weak, so they hate instead. And, I think those who hate Obama (and I don’t, even though I disagree with him on many things), also do so partly out of fear. They fear we will become France. :0)
Dave von Ebers: it is not about Bush not having made bad decisions, he did. It is about being worthy of the venomous bile that was spewed at him for years. To earn that requires more than just bad decisions, it requires being a really bad person. And he was not that, and only those truly caught up in their fear and the self-righteous empowerment which hatred can give, believe he was.
Which is why I don’t hate Obama. I am not fearful enough of how much he can damage our country to convert that fear to hatred. And, he is not inherently a bad enough guy to deserve hatred.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:28 am
Thanks to Nicole and Casca, who responded to my invitation to come here and say what they thought, and did so honestly.
If any choose to reply to them, I would encourage you to do it politely and without invective. Yeah, I know, it’s the internet, but what the heck. I’ll delete anything I think is too unpleasant for my weak constitution.
Peter
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:29 am
So I guess, Peter, calling the President a “socialist” who disrespects our military doesn’t constitute “invective”? Sorry, but as the son of a (very liberal) World War II combat veteran, I don’t think those kinds of attacks on the President warrant any response at all.
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:56 am
I think the problem is that, increasingly, we don’t just disagree about what the facts mean–we don’t even see the same facts (see the book “True Enough” for a nice exploration of truthiness in all its modern weirdness). Not that we don’t agree on them. We don’t SEE them.
When I look at George Bush or Sarah Palin, I see an incredibly arrogant anti-intellectualism and disinterest in facts or science, and a high level of pandering to “regular folks” that always makes me feel as though, secretly, they’re laughing at their own supporters. Their supporters obviously don’t see the same people that I do.
When I look at Obama, I see a moderate, pragmatic, and fiercely intelligent man still learning the ropes of leadership. Other people see a raving socialist, devilishly manipulating the reins of power to destroy the country. They really see that.
So how can you have a reasoned discussion on any topic when your debate partner doesn’t agree on ANY of the premises you want to argue about? Imagine abolitionists trying to argue about slavery and having their opponents claim not that slavery is good, or sanctioned by God, or economically necessary, but that it doesn’t even exist. Slaves? There are no slaves here. There never have been. I’ve never seen one. My friends have never seen one. Clearly it’s just an elitist invention of Yankee liberals.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:37 pm
i see a huge difference in why people hated bush vs why they hate obama. i hated bush, both as a president and as a person. not because we differed in opinion, but because while he was in office he made it very clear to everyone that disagreeing with him was not an option which would be tolerated. he wanted what he wanted and that was that, end of discussion. that arrogance, and the utter disregard for the more than 50% of the american population who did not actually vote for him, was what made me hate him. he was a leader whose ambitions seemingly extended only to the support of his friends and to continued republican leadership, and had nothing to do with the needs of the nation. before you disagree with me, google katrina. or 911. or weapons of mass destruction. etc. that list could go on for pages…
it seems to me that obama is hated mostly due to fox, or more precisely, fox’s willingness (or neediness) to encourage its viewers to hate obama, and to hate anything contrary to their Doctrine. i have spoken to people from other countries who do not realize that fox news is slanted. they have done a simply brilliant job of positioning themselves as a trustworthy news source. i am certain that if fox did not preach complete disdain for anything non-republican, the hatred against obama would not be the same. in trying to work across party lines and keep everyone happy, he doesn’t push people away like bush did. he is unfortunately somewhat ineffective as a result, but he doesn’t simply flip the bird to everyone else from the “cool kids” table in the lunchroom. all these diatribes about where he was born or who adopted him or whether he has it out for “the man,” etc, do not come from any kind of analysis of the work he is doing. the hatred seems to arise out of an unwillingness and/or inability to defend policy on the right, and so they go for anything else. kinda like the kkk.
as for casca’s remarks, do we really need to address the racism in his “shuck and jive” comment? or the xenophonbic/conspiracy theories regarding international travel and foreign contributions?? and, i am fairly certain, being a resident of chicago’s west side, that those in obama’s chicago community would disagree with your claims that he’s never actually done anything.
or nicole’s remarks, like only a former soldier should lead the country??? well, if we play it both ways, guess bush shouldn’t have been in office either. or does his “service” count? ok let’s do this your way… fact: a shotgun does not fit in your pocket and thus cannot be used to surprise anyone very easily. the notion that citizens need handguns or automatic weapons in case we need to either hunt or revolt against the government is nutty. fact: all political systems by design are utopian in their intention. socialism is not evil, it just is impossible to effectively employ and thereby attain utopia, and the same goes for democracy (unless i missed something over the last 8 years). fact: if intelligent discourse were practiced (on fox news, for one), people would be more intelligent because they would be exposed to the depth and breadth of ideas and would have more ability to make their own decisions rather than swallowing whatever is fed. it takes a certain skill set to be able to debate and feel and decide. it is not the same if you are not open to other ideas, or if your emotional reactions to being told “you are wrong” get in the way of being able to consider other possibilities. finally, fact: more crazy conspiracy stuff about muslim school and christian values are not actual facts that lead us toward your conclusions about why you hate obama (slick, hypocritical, etc). disagreeing with christian fundamentalism does not constitute being anti-christian, especially in light of chirstianity’s true intent: peaceful coexistence. any claim regarding knowing what god actually wants us to do is loony. i’ll finish with a paraphrase gil scott-heron talking about oral roberts: here is a christian leader who said that he met god, and god said that he needed to either raise a million dollars, or come to heaven. i’d have said “should i pack a bag?” this man chose to raise the money. now, if he met god and decided such, just how excited should i be?
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Thanks Peter for allowing my blather unabridged.
That there is anti-intellectualism in America is given, but the problem isn’t with the anti-intellectualoids. It is with those who set themselves up as being smarter/better/more worthy, none of which are true. If that’s your starting point, you’re not one of us.
The foundation of wisdom is that the spectrum of human intellect isn’t all that broad. Going to a prestige university doesn’t make you smarter, in fact a good case can be made for the converse. However, human nature enters the equation, and the uniform product of these institutions have entered an orbit where they revolve around ideas not grounded in reality. They grasp onto Kipling’s Gods of the Marketplace. That’s where their love of statism comes from.
The divide in America is between the statists, and the anti-intellectualoids for want of a better word. I’ll stand with the anti-intellectualoids any day, because they are grounded in fundamental truths, not being distracted by airy fairy fantasies based on wishes, ifs, buts, and CBO math.
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:42 pm
BTW, having grown up in a rural county that mustered a thousand men at the county fairground in 1862 to send to war, I assure you that it was bible-thumping Yankee conservatives who were the abolitionists. They’re the same people who know that the abortion of babies is murder today. Grapple with that truth.
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:01 pm
But, Dave von Ebers, I would say that saying someone is a socialist who does not respect our military is mildness itself compared to what I would bet half of the folks here (yourself included?) have said about Bush during his presidency. And yet those folks would never characterize their much more incendiary remarks as “not warranting a response at all”. And, I think that gets to the heart of this “hate” issue: everyone assumes their extreme viewpoints and statements are warranted and supportable and everyone who is in the middle or at the other extreme just sees hate.
March 23rd, 2010 at 3:54 pm
BTW Peter, I’m not a shrinking violet. Unleash the hounds.
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Peter, I think Obama hatred all comes down to that shocking statement by Sarah Palin a few weeks ago: “How’s that hopey-changey thing working out for you?”
The root of conservatism — and of fundamentalist beliefs of any kind — is resistance to change. Don’t take my word for it; listen to William F. Buckley: “A conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling ‘Stop!’” In its most constructive and benevolent form, conservatism is about respecting what has worked in the past, and preserving important values that may be lost in the rush of the new. In its most pathological form, it’s about abject fear of anything that is new, different, alien, or challenging … a fear that can easily lead to hatred, as Robert W. points out in post #19 above.
Sarah Palin’s “hopey-changey” line laid bare that very fear — in Palin, and in her supporters. It’s the fear we saw running rampant through Capitol Hill over the last eight months, culminating in the slurs and epithets hurled at black and gay legislators this weekend. Deep down, I don’t think Obama haters feel that way because they think Obama is being duplicitous about his promises of hope and change. Rather, it’s because they think he means it, as he has just proven he does. Barack Obama has just changed America in a significant way, and there are plenty of people who don’t want America to change any more than it already has. Sarah Palin genuinely doesn’t want change. And if hope means that change is on the way, she doesn’t want hope either.
We can’t discount the factor of race as easily as you’d like to, Peter, because Obama’s race is a powerful symbol for Obama haters of just how different he is, and how much of a change he promises. Post #21 above is a perfect example. America is more of a multi-cultural nation every day, and that scares the hell out of people who enjoyed imagining that they lived in a white Christian country. You can call that racism, but like most forms of prejudice, it’s just a way of projecting fear onto an available target. The very familiarity of the feeling is comforting to someone who fears change.
It’s only slightly off-topic, but Dan Savage has a terrific and relevant podcast up this week, about the forced outing of rabidly anti-gay California State Senator Roy Ashburn. As Dan points out, we have seen this particular farce so many times that we can write the scenario ourselves. At this point, we can safely assume that EVERY rabid anti-gay crusader is a closeted homosexual, and that our assumption will be confirmed sooner or later. As my friend Ed Weissman puts it, “People who are down on gays in public have usually been down on gays in private.” Like Obama hatred, virulent homophobia is a hysterical reaction to fear — in this case, fear of being found out.
None of this is new. People who hated Roosevelt hated him just as much as Obama haters hate Obama. Ditto Abraham Lincoln. Ditto Andrew Jackson (and I might have been one of them if I had lived back then). And as it did before, this too shall pass.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Casca hit the nail on the head through his own example. To wit: Who does Obama think he is? Just because he put himself through Harvard, works hard, thinks deeply speaks well doesn’t make him any more qualified to be President than me! It’s one thing when someone “like me” gets to be President. It’s another thing when someone “not like me” gets to be President.
If someone “not like me” gets to be President, then what does that say about ME? Where am I on the ladder?
People who resent where they are on the ladder feel — not think, feel, which gets at your question about emotions, Peter — that the guy above them on the ladder needs to be taken down a notch. It’s not fair!
To liberals, I think, the reason GWB was hated was that we didn’t feel he deserved to be President. We thought he was stupid, clueless, thoughtless, shallow, lacked compassion. Not like “us,” and especially not like the “us” we aspire to be. We didn’t understand how someone so undeserving of such great responsibility could become President.
To Obama-haters, I think (but could be wrong), Obama uses unnecessarily big words, flaunts his intelligence and education, makes us feel stupid and emasculated. He’s not like us. He’s uppity. We don’t understand how someone so unlike us could be elected to represent us. Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad if he weren’t black, but, man, it really grinds us that someone like THAT could be held as somehow “above” us. Who does he think he is?
My own experience with “the ladder” is that people are furious with the notion of hierarchy, elitism, power, influence, authority, etc. — until those people make it up the ladder. Once they’re at the top, the ladder looks pretty good, and now they are endorsing the very hierarchy they once railed against. This is why there is hazing in military schools. This is how the GOP manages, year after year, to persuade people to vote against their own best interests. The people at the bottom hold out hope that they’ll make to the top one day. This phenomenon was illustrated in that Kansas book.
In the meantime, even if we’ve abandoned the Dream of hitting the Powerball jackpot, we’ll be doggoned if we’re gonna let any uppity know-it-alls or man-hating dykes think they’re better than us — (read: make us question our own manhood or racial superiority or true religion or whatever we’re insecure about) — they need to be taken down a notch or at least frightened. And, since we know we can’t win an intelligent, reasonable, non-hysterical, non-name-calling argument with them, at least we can burn a cross on their lawn and scare the shit out of them.
I stand by my comments in your earlier post about the emotion of fear.
To Obama-hat
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:04 pm
PS I think that comparing Bush-hating to Obama-hating is like comparing pro-lifers to pro-choicers. You’re arguing two different sets of standards. A pro-choicer is never going to win an argument with a pro-choicer because pro-lifers want to frame the argument around the beginning of life and pro-choicers want to frame the argument around a womans right to rake control of what’s going on inside her body. A pro-lifer can’t use a “life begins at conception” argument with someone who is using a “I have a right to decide what to do with my body” argument, and vice versa. By the same token, I think that what conservatives want from a President and what liberals want are apples and oranges. It doesn’t matter how well one argues the merits of a particular apple if what the other guy wants is an orange — and if Fox News keeps barking at him that the reason he doesn’t have an orange is that the apple and all of the apple-lovers intend to see to it that he will never ever again in his whole life ever have anything even remotely resembling an orange. The only way that he will stand any chance of coming near an orange is to poison all the apples. Or at least remove any mention of apples from the history books.
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:07 pm
I meant to say “a pro-choicer is never going to win an argument with a pro-lifer.”
March 24th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Vance, well said. I guess I’m old-fashioned enough to be offended when people call my president a “socialist” or say he disrespects the military, and it’s hard, sometimes, for me to see beyond that.
But here’s the thing: the harshest criticism of Bush was based on the things he actually did, not speculation about his “loyalty” or his “motives.” Bush took us to war in Iraq based on two – and only two – premises: that Saddam Hussein still had stockpiles of illegal weapons, and that there were operational links between Hussein’s government and the planners of 9/11. Both of those premises were false. Maybe he was just “mistaken,” or maybe he actively mislead the country; but he was wrong. So, at a minimum, Bush was negligent, and his negligence cost thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. That’s a pretty serious mistake, even if it can be characterized as an innocent mistake.
Then there’s the issue of harsh interrogation techniques – techniques which were approved, in some cases, by Bush himself. I have no doubt that if any other country on earth used the kinds of techniques the Bush administration used, we’d all consider them to be torture. But regardless of how we choose to characterize them now, it’s beyond question that those interrogation techniques violated Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions. And, contrary to the Bush Administration’s position, the Supreme Court ruled that Common Article III did, in fact, apply to detainees in the war on terror. So, again, whether Bush’s mistake was innocent or not-so-innocent, he directly approved violations of not only international law, but U.S. law (because the Geneva Conventions are part of U.S. domestic law under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution). That, too, is a pretty serious “error” on Bush’s part.
I won’t go on; you are, I’m sure, well aware of the other liberal criticisms of Bush’s presidency. But let’s compare those criticisms to what Obama’s done so far. As to TARP and the bail out of the auto industry, let’s not forget that those things began under Bush and Bush himself argued that they were critically necessary to save the economy. And if memory serves, both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain voted for TARP. So, what Obama’s really done so far is pushed for a stimulus package, one third of which was comprised of tax cuts – meaning that 95% of Americans saw their taxes decreased under Obama – and supported a health care package that did not include a public option but did include a huge number of Republican proposals. The most controversial aspect of the health care bill seems to be the individual mandate, which doesn’t go into effect until 2014; but that’s exactly what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts, if I’m not mistaken. So, again, it’s hard to see much socialism in anything Obama’s done – unless tax cuts and “tort reform” are socialist.
So, anyway, on Bush’s side of the ledger you’ve got things like a war based on false premises (innocently or no) and serious violations of international law (even if we choose not to characterize it as torture) … not to mention warrantless wiretapping and data-mining and so forth; and on Obama’s side of the ledger you’ve got admittedly huge government spending, albeit accompanied by significant tax cuts, and a fairly centrist health reform bill that has an unpopular individual mandate provision. Neither of them should be compared to Hitler or called a fascist; but is it really that hard to see why some of us on the left think our harsh criticism of Bush was more warranted than the right’s harsh criticism of Obama?
March 24th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Dave, I would agree entirely that any conscientious Bush supporter (and, yes, there are some) would not want to start a ledger!! :0) But, much of the Bush-hatred was excused by an implication that he *was* misleading, deceitful, etc, which are very equivalent to Obama-haters crying “disloyal”. I think both are decent men who are forced to make HUGE decisions. Once you get in that office, things change dramatically and you start to see things in the stark light of reality, not the soft glow of idealism. Clinton was willing to send in a hit squad to take out Saddam, Obama has been waffling on actually banning tough interrogation and closing Gitmo, and Bush decided to go into Iraq without a full mandate of the world behind him. No one wants to be the one who “pushes the button”, but no one wants to be the Neville Chamberlain who, arguably, could have saved a few million lives if he had been willing to take a tough, but unpopular, stand.
But that is all getting off track, I think the “hatred” is simply not justified for either guy, both of whom were truly “voting their conscience”. And, I also am convinced that both made their choices based on what they believe Americans wanted. I would bet that the polls in favor of invading Iraq were actually higher than the polls in favor of the Health Care Reform, but health care is what Obama ran on, and he did win. Both felt as if they had a mandate, and both realized that they were going to take harsh punishment from those who disagreed. And both did it anyway. Whether you agreed with their relative decisions, you really do have to admire that, at least.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Just to put the Obama-as-socialist argument in a little better perspective, it turns out Mr. Contract With America himself, Newt Gingrich, argued as recently as 2008 that Americans who could afford health insurance should be required to purchase it: Said Newt, “we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond). Meanwhile, we should provide tax credits or subsidize private insurance for the poor.” (Link: http://mediamatters.org/research/201003240027) Which sounds just about as socialist as Obama’s health care bill.
March 24th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
For me, what it comes down to in regard to “hating” a president is this: Has anything this individual has done during the election or while in office caused me to act, behave, or think in a manner contrary to what my upbringing, and my adult ruminations on morality, have taught me is wrong? Or, put another way, have I ever felt obligated to oppose this president’s policies out of the belief that they were not just misguided, but deliberately manipulative or even evil?
Obama has not done this and frankly, I don’t truly believe he ever will. And given that he’s a decent, well-spoken, kind of nerdy, and rather boring personality (we had enough flamboyancy with Bush 43 and Clinton), I rather like him.
Bush 43, on the other hand… well, I disliked the idea of an Iraq war from the moment it was raised as a possibility. Up till the instant it started, I prayed and prayed that somehow it wouldn’t happen, all the while worrying uneasily about Saddam Hussein and his (supposed) connection to al Qaeda and his alleged WMDs. I was divided against myself, and when the war began, I reluctantly concluded that if Colin Powell said there were WMDs, it must be true - a man of HIS integrity wouldn’t lie - and despite my own inner conflict, expressed support of the Iraq action. We all know what happened next - the slow unfolding of the truth, that there was no al Qaeda connection or WMDs, and the whole Iraq operation was an exercise in egotism and deception. In short, Bush & Cheney manipulated my fears to betray my moral judgment, and that, my friends, is EVIL. Hence the hostility. I tend to take such things very personally!
Clinton? I never hated him, but I was very, very annoyed with him over the sex scandal.
Bush 41? Dull as ditchwater. Did his best, I think, and would have done better if he’d had any clue what the concerns of normal people are/were. What’s to hate? Other than the fact that he’s a member of the secret cabal that’s trying to imperialize the US Executive Branch.
Reagan? Loathed his policies. Grew up fearing he would have us in a nuclear war with the Soviets. Wound up voting for him when I was 18, though, because he was just so likeable. Have come around to realize he wasn’t such a bad president in some ways, though I still loathe many of his policies.
Too young to hate any other presidents, though Nixon really bummed me out because Watergate hearings interrupted many of my Saturday morning cartoons.
March 25th, 2010 at 5:33 am
Hi Peter
I believe there is an essential ingredient that is almost never mentioned: A hatred becomes a blind unreasoning hatred when it acquires the extra dimension that “Those People will turn my children into Bad People.” If we are honest, we will see that element in both directions.
It goes beyond politics. How come people hate each other over the teaching of Evolution in a way that they don’t over, say, the teaching of reading? This is the 10000 volt wire at the heart of that.
PhilN
PS - my whole family never misses your radio show. Thank you.
April 8th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
I find it interesting that much of the first paragraph of the comment from “steve” (#30) applies to President Obama, in my opinion:
“…because while he was in office he made it very clear to everyone that disagreeing with him was not an option which would be tolerated. he wanted what he wanted and that was that, end of discussion. that arrogance, and the utter disregard for the more than 50% of the american population who did not actually vote for him, was what made me hate him….”
Replace “did not actually vote for him” with “were firmly against the Health Care Reform bill” and you have one of the main reasons I am not a fan (although “hate” is too strong a word). The blatant disregard shown by the President, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid for the opinion of the vast majority of Americans concerning the Health Care Bill (now law), is evidence of that arrogance.