If mental disturbance is, as it seems (and as I discussed in my last post), at the root of the shootings in Tucson, that leaves another question: what's at the root of all the rancor about political rancor?
Sure, some of it is outrage that outrage on the other side may have a political motive. But, let's be grownups: what do politicians, and their acolytes, ever say on any subject that doesn't have some political motive? There is something deeper going on now, some undercurrent that's more turbulent than the normal jungle-ball ethos of American politics. It's been with us now for almost two decades, and there's no sign that it's going away.
When Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, he won a large electoral vote victory but just a popular vote plurality thanks, in large part, to a third candidate in the race, Ross Perot. And thus began an attack on Clinton's presidency, ranging from murder rumors to impeachment, that was based on this fact: his opponents could never quite allow themselves to believe he was legitimately elected.
Anybody who lived through the Nixon or Reagan years, or the Carter years, for that matter, had seen furious opposition, founded in many cases in deep loathing of the occupant of the White House. But it never occurred to those opponents to suggest that Nixon, Reagan or Carter were anything but the legitimately elected president of the United States.
Flash forward to the 2000 election. Florida. Bush v. Gore. A conviction by Democrats that George W. Bush was not really, legitimately the elected president. He'd lost the popular vote. The Florida recount had been lawyered up and judged over. The war was bad, the post-9/11 behavior was often atrocious, but before any of that had occurred, a lot of Bush's opponents were convinced in their bones that he was illegitimate. That, as much as the Democrats' favored accusation -- our opponent is dumb (hello, "chimpy") -- flavored the anti-Bush world view for eight years.
And now, President Obama. Clearly elected, clearly legitimate, except for -- well, it started with birtherism, the insistence that he wasn't really born here. Other observers have linked that persistent charge to fear of The Other (first black president, after all). But there have followed all sorts of Manchurian-candidate fantasies, all based on the notion that we, the people didn't put this man in office. Illegitimacy -- not in the "bastard" sense, but in the sense that an electorate normally, however grudgingly, grants legitimacy to the product of the system -- has become the new currency of presidential opposition.
Its popularity, as a review of this little history will suggest, is not in its effectiveness: both Clinton and Bush won second terms. But it is a psychological Rubicon. Once it's crossed, an entirely different landscape of vituperation makes itself known. That's where we live now. A call for civility in a world where each party now feels the deep wound of having had its successful candidates delegitimized is likely to be as successful as ordering a Manischewitz spritzer in a Beirut bar.
Follow Harry Shearer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/theharryshearer
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Tucson: Time for Another Examination of Conscience
John Feffer: Gun Crazy: NRA and Pentagon
Sandip Roy: A Tale of Two Gunmen
Rev. Jesse Jackson: Hate Speech in Arizona
Facts don't matter to them.
History can be changed to suit their purpose.
And to them, only My opinion is valid.
You got 10 kids. 6 want hamburgers, the other 4 want pizza. You're in a no win situation there if you pick one or the other.
Only recently have I tried to abide by the advice, but my momma always said in social settings and amongst family, never discuss politics or religion. My mom's advice was genius, if you want to get along with your friends, family and neighbors.
came back to get the laundry, she was there again. started talking about illegal aliens, which i agree to a point, then she started to go off on obama and started in with all the birther stuff and calling him a communist and the most marxist president we ever had. she was REALLY working herself up, going off on me, calling me ill informed and ignorant and naive. honestly, i was still speaking to her calmly and trying to calm her down by saying that we actually do agree on a couple of things. i was shocked, to say the least. we both left by saying god bless you to one another.
Each person gets to designate one person as their delegate. Anyone so designated by ten people is a member of the second tier of delegation (the first being the whole population). Anyone so designated by ten members of the second tier is a member of the third tier, and so on for as many tiers as there turn out to be. Any tier can enact legislation by unanimous agreement. Legislation enacted by a lower tier overrides that enacted by a higher tier.
Election by points of policy has never been tried.
A legislative chamber elected by points of policy would have two auxiliary bodies: one to formulate points of policy, and one to adjudicate their effect. Before each election, the formulators would come up with a list of points. Candidates would register their positions for or against. If candidates were too similar on points of policy, according to a pre-established formula, there would be a primary. The general-election ballot would list the points of policy and the candidates supporting and opposing each. Voters would vote for or against each point, or leave it blank. The candidate or candidates most closely representing the ballot results, according to a pre-established formula, would thereby be elected to the legislative chamber. At the request of any legislator or formulator, the judicial body would evaluate whether legislation embodied particular points from the ballot, and legislators who had run on those points would have to vote accordingly.
"secret plan" to end the war on viet nam and then re-elected him on the same platform.
The people that question Obama are doing so based on debunked conspiracy theories.
You don't always need to make a false equivalence of right and left on every topic.
Exactly.... the scales of hypothetical balance aren't even close to level.
His main point that we have crossed a point where civility has been lost is well taken. Can you imagine the bile if we ever had instant-runoff voting in a Presidential election, and an apparent third place candidate won because of being everybodys second or third choice? I'm in favor of this system, but like everything else, it would have unexpected consequences.
The important thing to take out of the concerns are that the country needs to have methods to identify and prevent voter fraud, and the country needs to have an actual method to verify that a person running for office is legally qualified to run for office. Both of these need to be transparent so it will be clear that not only was the person legally eligible to run for office, but that they did truly win in a fair election.
Whereas in 2000, the facts aren't really in dispute. The recount was stopped and SCOTUS basically chose the president. The question some on the left have is whether this was done in a legal and appropriate manner.
One other distinction...after 2000, there was some griping, but mostly people accepted that he was the president. I may have forgotten, but I don't recall any servicemen refusing to deploy because they didn't consider him legitimate. I also didn't see people pursuing lawsuits (like the birthers do) 2 years after the election.
On the surface there are some similarities between the two, but when you get the heart of the matters, there are very different situations
IMHO