Triggered by another thread, but didn't wanna pollute the stream there.
Triggered by another thread, but didn't wanna pollute the stream there.
Question: Has our entire history been punctuated by virulent, irrational hatred that then affects policy, especially in regards to the person of the President?
I don't understand the rabid hate of Obama. It's almost always couched as an objection to one policy or another, but when you dig down, that's not it; it's him. It's very possible to disagree with his policies, just like anyone's.
However, it's been my experience that it's pretty common for an attempt to understand the stated concerns about a policy to devolve into a list of all the things "those people" have done wrong over time, ignoring that the President can't just arbitrarily order things at the national level, and most of what people don't like is state or local level stuff anyway.
The follow-on then turns into he's not an American, he's a muslim, and even less rational things.
Maybe I'm asking the wrong question. Maybe it's always been a calculated policy of whatever the warring political parties were to personally lambaste the opposing parties' Presidential candidates/President.
I just feel like there's something more wrong, here. Something that not only impedes governance, but is actively destroying the theoretical foundations of what it means to be the USA, and I don't like it.
Question: Has our entire history been punctuated by virulent, irrational hatred that then affects policy, especially in regards to the person of the President?
I don't understand the rabid hate of Obama. It's almost always couched as an objection to one policy or another, but when you dig down, that's not it; it's him. It's very possible to disagree with his policies, just like anyone's.
However, it's been my experience that it's pretty common for an attempt to understand the stated concerns about a policy to devolve into a list of all the things "those people" have done wrong over time, ignoring that the President can't just arbitrarily order things at the national level, and most of what people don't like is state or local level stuff anyway.
The follow-on then turns into he's not an American, he's a muslim, and even less rational things.
Maybe I'm asking the wrong question. Maybe it's always been a calculated policy of whatever the warring political parties were to personally lambaste the opposing parties' Presidential candidates/President.
I just feel like there's something more wrong, here. Something that not only impedes governance, but is actively destroying the theoretical foundations of what it means to be the USA, and I don't like it.
OH it's about then hating him because he's black. I just didn't want to hear it.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't necessarily say always, but...both more and longer than one might think.
ReplyDelete(And on and off again. See also, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans--who called themselves just Republicans, but we call them D-Rs to distinguish them from the party of Lincoln.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, some point in the distant future, historians are going to have to coin terms for the party of Lincoln and the Southern Strategists.)
To be clear, they won't say it either. My grandfather hates the Carolina Panthers quarterback. Why? By all accounts he's one of the nicest guys. Oh! He's a black quarterback. I see.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I get that there's a huge component of we're still fighting the Civil War. It's just that I am trying to put it in context of history, where I know we had some very nasty behavior.
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm pretty sure Hamilton suggesting Aaron Burr committed incest with his daughter was Gore Vidal's invention (nice going, dude), it's definitely true that Jackson was accused of bigamy and blamed the scandal over that for his wife's death.
P.S. I can totally see if Gore Vidal was contemporary with Hamilton and Burr and there was also an internet that false rumor exploding and all sorts of stupidity ensuing.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, there was technical bigamy (Rachel's first marriage wasn't fully dissolved, her husband having not finished finalizing it), so while the link to her death is much more speculative, and even the accusation is pure ad hominem, it was un-slanderous.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the attitudes are new, it's just that with technology, the consequences are a hell of a lot faster, broader, and bigger. Hate can travel vastly faster, reach more people more quickly with less effort, and hit with a much much much much bigger bang.
ReplyDeleteNot only that, I think what's different in a good way is that the targets of hate are now no longer either suffering quietly nor dying meekly. It's sort of how I personally don't think there's more cop abuses than there were in the 1960's, it's just that we actually hear about them now, thanks to technology.
The same technology allows all kinds of minority groups who might in the past simply be silenced and steamrolled, to fight back. And so I think we see a lot more conflict than we used to, hear a lot more about hatred than we used to, because people are actually getting called out for it. Because the abused parties can actually mount a public defense.
Just because it's factual doesn't mean it isn't a scandal that was manipulated to great effect. Plus, it was a much bigger deal back then. Now, I think most people would be like big deal, so he didn't finish the paperwork. Then, it was treated pretty much the same as if they hadn't bothered to get divorced at all, which was itself a pretty scandalous thing.
ReplyDeleteTrue.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it really is just plain ol' bigotry at the root of 95% of the rabid hatred of both Obama and Hillary Clinton. The thing is that I also think very few of those haters realize it. Or will admit it to themselves. So of course they can't/won't use it to justify their hatred, because most of them genuinely think that isn't the source. Even though it totally is.
ReplyDeleteSee, I am thinking that, but was concerned about my own biases and wanted to have a context so I didn't completely wrap myself in my own opinions.
ReplyDeletePlus, the economy and jobs situation really does and has sucked for a lot of people for quite a while. So they don't need to be prejudiced to be pissed off about that.
ReplyDeleteI'm beginning to think they can't separate it, though, and if it's being officially unofficially endorsed, well, that doesn't help.
Unexamined bias is the greatest boogeyman of the quest for parity, if you ask me. You can't fix something everyone insists isn't there.
ReplyDeleteWithout bias doing its work, blaming Obama for the economy and jobs is flat out ridiculous, as far as I can tell.
ReplyDeleteJust on the economy-and-jobs angle specifically, while I freely admit not being one of the closest students of political history (or political present, for the most part), I do fairly vividly remember lots of folks blaming W. for the economy in the aughts. And on a smaller level, everyone in KS is blaming our governor for the shitty state of our more-local economy, too. I think it's human nature to blame higher-ups (be they school superintendents, presidents, or gods) for Bad Shit, and ones that have recently promised to make things better are very tempting targets when miracles fail to manifest.
ReplyDeleteI mean, it's stupid and crappy and people should stop doing it, but that's true of most aspects of human nature.