There used to be a line that few crossed. That line separated what was acceptable and what was not acceptable in media attacks of the President of the United States, and by extension, any politician.
There was a time not so long ago that the office of the POTUS was respected, even if the person in that office was incompetent, or a fool, or immoral, or lead us to mistakes that cost lives. The incumbent might be chastised by the media or derided by late night talk show hosts, but a certain respect for the office remained. Disagreement might exist with the President’s policies (or morality, in the case of Bill Clinton), but actual hatred was usually not a factor.
No more. Beginning with President Bush: the media, Hollywood, and others on the left, began a hate-mongering propaganda campaign that has lasted for most of his term; there was so much of it, and it was so virulent, that it has become a major factor in shaping this election. In effect, the liberal left and the media has brain-washed a large part of the population of the U.S. to hate Bush, and revile anyone remotely associated with him.
Understand, I’m not talking about disagreeing with Bush’s policies. I’m talking about the virulent, naked hatred that the liberal left and the media have spawned.
This hate-mongering has now been established as the way anyone on the liberal left (including most of the media and Hollywood) attacks anyone on the conservative right.
For instance, consider the instant, intense, vicious attacks on Sarah Palin. These attacks were way, way beyond reason; most of them were not based on her policies or qualifications. They even descended to attacking her family, and telling a great many outright lies. Why? Just because she had the temerity to run on the ticket with John McCain.
And another example: The left gave Joe the Plumber the Palin treatment, and all he did was ask Barack Obama a question. Obama caused his own embarrassment by his answer; that wasn’t Joe the Plumber’s fault. So now, anybody that asks Obama a question more difficult than what color his socks are can expect to receive vicious, personal, hate-filled vitriolic attacks.
This behavior marks a fundamental change in the way politics is done in the United States. And not for the better.
Many people are no longer making voting decisions based on policy – they’ve been conditioned to vote against anything associated with Bush and the Republicans. It doesn’t help much to point out logically the many reasons it might not be a good idea to vote for Obama – reason doesn’t enter into it.
And that may eventually be the downfall of the U.S.A.. A large portion of the population have handed their voting franchise over to the propagandists; they will not do their own research, and think about probable outcomes of policies, and vote for the best outcome. Instead, they will vote for reasons having nothing to do with reality.
We should not allow our own opinions to be distorted by the propaganda of either the liberal left or the conservative right. We should do our own research into each candidate’s background, voting record, and history; and form our own opinion about what is best for the country. If enough honest, informed voters actually try to make informed decisions, the country will do well. If too many of us vote according to baseless opinion and outright lies, this country will eventually fail.
Just like with computers – garbage in, garbage out.
-Popgun
October 28, 2008 at 8:41 am |
Lots of people have doubts about both tickets, but in order to complain that the Presidency is now being treated terribly by partisan attacks, you have to rewrite history. The Republican Party went after President Clinton from the moment he took office, with the more extreme attacks including unfounded allegations of murder and (for Hillary) lesbianism. The party affiliations and the mechanisms were different, but the vitriol was the same.
Bush 41 enjoyed something like what you claim, a sort of general respect by most opponents that mostly (not entirely) kept disagreements on the level of policy rather than personality. He left office almost sixteen years ago. Anyone with a pulse and access to a TV, radio, or newspaper from 1992 to 2000 couldn’t possibly believe that “The Line” has only been crossed since Bush 43 took office. That’s not just revisionism, that’s mendacity.
October 28, 2008 at 9:00 am |
Hi, Tom;
You may be right; I’m telling it like I remember it. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen the sort of vitriol I’ve seen applied to Sarah Palin, though. Attacks on her family, implications of incest, for goodness sake – within a few days of the announcement that she was running? They didn’t have time to find dirt, so they made it up as they went.
I don’t think I’ve ever personally seen anything like the naked hatred that has been put forth in this election. And that’s neither revisionism nor mendacity.
My objection is to the hatred; I feel that is out of line for a political attack.
-Popgun
October 28, 2008 at 10:35 am |
What you may remember is different from what occurred. The extremes on both sides can always be counted on to go bat-shit; you have to be careful not to conflate what Dewey McWingNut says (either on The Daily Kos or Limbaugh’s show).
One key difference between this campaign and the 92/96/Lewinsky era — who’s making the attacks? Accusations of incest came from the extreme edge, not the DNC or the Obama campaign. The actual campaign and most Democratic leaders have been remarkably quiet about Palin, a smart strategic move. By contrast, if you didn’t see naked hatred from some (by no means all) mainstream Republicans from 92 to 2000, you weren’t paying attention.
Now, Bush 43 has definitely reached that status with almost all self-identified Democrats, I don’t deny that. Of course he’s also compiled record low approval ratings in a center-right country, so it’s not just those dastardly liberals who dislike him. But it’s completely ahistorical to suggest that The Line existed and was respected UNTIL Bush 43 came along, and that now this Bush hatred is pushing people’s treatment of Palin over the line. Even if we limit the discussion to the last 30 years, thereby leaving out right-wing hatred for Kennedy and the huge public turn against Nixon, many elements of the Republican Party didn’t just cross the line from 92 to 2000. They stamped it out of existence. And if we go back a little further, the partisan atmosphere of the late 80s was described as poisonous.
October 28, 2008 at 10:37 am |
Ah, there’s a phrase I forgot to complete. Nice.
“you have to be careful not to conflate what Dewey McWingNut says (either on The Daily Kos or Limbaugh’s show) with the platform of a party or the general population.”
October 28, 2008 at 11:05 am |
Hi, Tom;
I will respect your view. I confess that I really did not get intense about watching politics until 9/11. Before that, my knowledge is based on what I encountered more or less randomly. So your statement that I wasn’t paying attention before 2000 is correct. However, what I wrote is indeed how I perceived it. I will submit that you apparently have a better grasp of political history before 2000 than I do, and I appreciate your input.
Being human, there are holes in my knowledge. What I do remember from back then is people laughing at Carter, and (around here) being disgusted with Clinton, but I don’t remember anybody outright expressing hatred of either. Now I DO remember my father expressing virulent hatred – of the communists. He was a WWII veteran and had strong feelings about that.
It could also be that the wing-nuts from both sides are more noticed (by me) due to the increased use of blogging and the internet to promote it. I know that this is certainly where I’m seeing most of what I’ve been talking about. Also, I don’t browse the Daily Kos nor do I listen to Limbaugh. But individuals from the extremes do have a much louder voice on the internet than they ever had when news was limited to newspapers and TV. This may contribute to my perceptions.
Thank you for your input. It is appreciated.
-Popgun