Barack Obama is a Socialist who consorts with domestic terrorists. He is a Muslim who was born in Kenya and is therefore not constitutionally eligible to be president. He wants to import homosexuals, destroy the Second Amendment, and encourage abortions. According to Sean Hannity, he has thrown Israel under a "bus full of suicide bombers." According to Glenn Beck, he has "a deep-seated hatred for white people." According to Rush Limbaugh, he has "nothing but contempt for this country."
And on and on and on.
The tenor and tone of the right-wing assault on the President of the United States should disturb all Americans. It is, to say the least, unseemly. Of course, we cherish the right to free speech. But having the right to do something does not mean one should actually do it. The Nazis had a First Amendment right to march in Skokie and the Klan has a First Amendment right to burn a cross, but that doesn't mean we should join or applaud them. With rights come, or should come, maturity and personal responsibility.
Although the ugliness of our current political discourse is distressing, it is not unprecedented. In 1798, a critic of President John Adams fumed that under Adams' leadership, "every consideration of the public welfare" was being "swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice." During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was variously attacked even in the North by those who opposed the war, the draft and the Emancipation Proclamation as a "despot," a "liar," a "monster," a "perjurer," an "ignoramus," and a "tyrant." And during the McCarthy era, the columnists Joseph and Stewart Alsop observed that "something has gone wrong, very wrong, in the capital of the United States," noting that a "miasma" of political accusation "is seeping in over the nation's capital, like some noxious effluvium from the marshy Potomac."
False, misleading and vitriolic attacks on our nation's leaders do not serve our democracy. But do they really have an effect? I was struck this morning by a recent report from the Gallup organization about how self-described Democrats, Independents and Republicans perceive the ideology of President Obama and the seven remaining candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
In this poll, Gallup evaluated ideology on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being the most liberal and 5 being the most conservative. Not surprisingly, Republicans incline toward the higher number, Democrats toward the lower number, and Independents fall in-between. What was striking to me about the results of this poll was that for each of the Republican candidates, Democrats, Independents and Republicans all assessed the candidates' ideology very similarly. But as the following chart reveals, there is a dramatic gap in their respective assessments of President Obama's ideology.
Although Democrats and Independents come to fairly similar conclusions in their evaluation of the President's political ideology, the Republicans are simply off-the-charts. If we assume, as seems sensible, that Independents have a reasonably neutral understanding of each candidate's ideology, then the data suggest that Republicans have a wildly distorted perception of the president's views.
This, I fear, may be one very troubling consequence of the aggressive and often nasty assault on truth and reason in our contemporary political discourse. The attacks, exaggerations and lies do, indeed, seem to have a significant impact on public opinion, especially among those who are already inclined to believe them.
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Back in the 1700s how many people would read the attacks? How long would it take the pamphlets to be published and who would be reading it? Same question for the attacks in the 1800s, though the attacks would be more widely read. However, such readers would probably be higher in the economic and educational brackets for their times.
Today, with new instant posting of information to cable outlets, social networking, people can get this information often as it is being typed. There is less and less vetting of statements being made, and with some distributors, such vetting is actually not seeked or desired.
Such things can occure from both sides of the political spectrum, of course, but it is more heavily balanced from the right and far right. Until we can better regulate our discourse to being more civil and honest, our politics will only grow more and more vitriolic.
The US populace is being very carefully and very cunningly played.
People tend to believe the worst about others, especially political figures. 'Caniculus' said: "False, misleading and vitriolic attacks on our nation's leaders do not serve our democracy.". The juvenile antics of Republicans in both Houses is reprehensible. Dems CERTAINLY have their own reasons to hold their heads low over the years, but this is hitting an all-time low. Obama said it well when he said the obstructionists need to act like 'Leaders'.
NO ONE HAS ALL THE ANSWERS...particularly relative to the recent economic problems...on EITHER side of the political or economic isle. All anyone/everyone can do is to take their BEST educated guesses & pledge to EVERYONE that they will correct things as we go...together...until we find what works best for all concerned. Even the Health Bill should have been proposed with the promise that tweaks & other corrections will be made as we go.
We need to get this better...as a People & a Country...WE are better than this.
To put it another way, Dem fans detested George W. Bush for what he openly was and what he openly did, whereas GOP fans loathe President Obama for what he "secretly" "really" is and what he "secretly" "really" wants to do.The reality of what this man has actually done, said and written does not fit the narrative they want to tell themselves and others about him, so they invented a fictional character our of whole cloth and convinced themselves that Obama truly is that character; he's just uncommonly good at hiding it.
He needed to confront, oppose & defeat the GOTP's destruction of the nation. Instead, he joined them even though they cannot & will not ever consider him more than worthless. He lacked the stones to invite their hatred. He invited his base's hatred & contempt instead. With it, he destroyed any remaining chance the country may have had.
It's not.
There's a world of difference between calling Dubya a dummy and calling Obama a foreign-born subversive bent on destroying America from within.
The right's no-holds-barred attacks on Barack Obama during the past three years have set a new low for American politics. In full view of the rest of the world, they have spit on the office of the President of the United States. And far from being remorseful, they're proud of it. They feel this president does not deserve any respect, not the slightest bit, and therefore anything goes, including not-so-thinly veiled racism and xenophobia.
They have no shame.
The attempts to call Bush stupid were about trying to delegitimize his presidency. the same goes for "selected, not elected" nonsense.
It is about viewing the person in office as being unfit, unable, and not capable of being in that office.
The Bush is dumb stuff was an attempt by people who are dumber than Bush--yeah, the guy working at Walmart after graduating a state school is more intelligent than a millionaire who was president. But it also fed into the do not view this person as being a "real" president.
Your attempts at blaming "racism" fail. The larger group of "racists" were actually supporters of Mr. B. Obama. People who said things like, "he speaks so well." You know, because it is surprising that an Ivy League educated attorney who is working as a professor is able to speak...
O. was elected because he convinced a majority of US that he possessed values & beliefs that he in no way does. Our problems have only gotten worse because he has so closely followed the failed governance of his predecessor & mentor, W. Unfortunately, as his party has refused to even primary him, the nation's choice in November id limited to 4 more years of W. III or 4-8 years of W. IV. Either shall equate to an unmitigated disaster for the nation.
No it’s not scientific, I grant you. But in one example take Fox News viewing. This act is definitely identified with conservative mind sets. It is the place where propaganda and distortions are an everyday occurrence. Yet you will never hear any complaints from right wingers.
Progressives on the other hand would look on such force feeding of falsehood as so disturbing that they could not support a Fox News even if it were left instead of right wing. They would find it an insult to their own intelligence, which they do prize and a delusion not worth their time or loseing their self respect. Yet we still have fox news parrots chirping about how Fox is fare and balanced. If only they new, or cared?
One can almost always set one's watch by the GOP's declaration that the Democratic candidate, in any election but particularly the presidential, is the "most liberal [insert candidate's current office here]" in the country or in history. Obama was the "most liberal Senator" in 2008, Kerry the "most liberal Senator" in 2004, Gore the "most liberal vice president in history (who was once the most liberal Senator)" in 2000, Clinton the "most liberal president in history" in 1996 and the "most liberal governor in America" in 1992, Dukakis was the "most liberal governor" in 1988, and on and on and on. Non-GOP fans stopped paying attention to this long ago.
I would imagine that GOP fans (typically, not universally) think that Obama is super-liberal for no other reason than that's what they're being told by whomever they turn to for "information" (i.e., to explain the world to them and tell them what to think).
wake up