Politics on the Couch: Hating the Haters

What follows is the sixth post for the interactive book, Politics on the Couch. Readers' comments are welcome and an integral part of this experiment.

POLITICS ON THE COUCH: Hating the Haters

"No snowflake in an avalanche ever felt responsible."
- Voltaire

Large groups are more effective at expressing hate than mere individuals. They can remain anonymous as they feed each other's shared passion. But you don't have to be anonymous to hate in public. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News personalities Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity -- to name a few -- find shamelessness in numbers, and are egged on by an administration that openly condones torture and a Supreme Court that comfortably lifts a 30-year ban on owning handguns in Washington, DC.

In 2008, Democratic voters formed paranoid groups around senators Clinton and Obama, spewing inter-group hatred within their own party. Even in late June, many Clinton supporters still refuse to support Obama, threatening to voice their hatred of him by voting for McCain, or by not voting at all.

In 2000, Ralph Nader mobilized enough bi-partisan haters, by labeling Bush and Gore as indistinguishable, to put the election in the hands of the Supreme Court. Our nation has paid dearly for the Nader group's paranoid attack ever since.

The hatred described above was planned and proactive. But paranoid groups are also opportunistic scavengers. Passionate outbursts by Reverend Wright and an off-hand remark made by Michelle Obama were seized upon as evidence that mistrust of Obama and his inner circle was justified. It even allowed hatred to expand exponentially, giving permission for racists to unleash fears they might otherwise have kept to themselves.

On Meet the Press, McCain surrogate Sen. Lindsay Graham anticipated that Obama would cite racism as the motivation for Republicans to raise legitimate comparisons between the candidates (including, presumably, the facts that Obama is black and has an Arabic middle name). Graham said, "Every word will be twisted to make it about race." The good senator then took the opportunity to earnestly remind voters that when Obama debates issues of the economy or terrorism, it will have "nothing to do with him being an African-American". As Jerry Seinfeld might have added, "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

Obama's opponents are also using religion to drive wedges between the candidate and voters. Psychologist James Dobson, chairman of the board of Focus on the Family, claimed that Obama "is deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology. He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

The lead sentence in a mid-June AP story pushes all the buttons, raises all the questions: "A presidential candidate who's named Hussein and wears a turban? A building that's called the White House but run by a black guy?"

So here we are. And the fine line between hating the haters and fearing the haters -- especially fearing their influence on the uninformed and undecided voters -- was crossed on June 24 by Obama supporters who muscled two Muslim women out of camera range so they wouldn't be seen standing behind Obama at a televised rally. Where does Obama stand on this episode? Is he ducking, as we used to say in the schoolyard? It remains unclear.

There are two fundamental reasons to fear hatred: first that it may lead to violence; second that it may cause voters to vote their prejudices instead of the issues. Bullying intimidation by Bush thugs during the 2000 Florida recount frightened the workers hired to ensure a fair election. The same tactics could well emerge in 2008 -- this time to alienate already nervous voters from a black candidate whose middle name is Hussein.

So far we are not talking about unconscious hate, though people often hide their deeper prejudices from themselves. One central source of tyranny lies in racial hatred. So for Sen. Graham to be glib or dismissive about the importance of hatred is to invite more. Human irrationality -- whatever its causes -- has always played a role in determining events. And it continues to do so this year.

But where does hate come from? I wrote that Bush's sadism -- whether it was his pleasure blowing up frogs or branding college fraternity pledges with red-hot wire coat hangers, originated in his childhood fear of humiliation. He expressed that fear, and continues to do so, by relentlessly trying to humiliate others. Emotional splitting between self and other facilitates hate; the hater feels that the hated are wholly different alien beings. Hatred sharpens our vision of the enemy, even when that enemy is a fellow Democrat who supports a different candidate.

Hate arises from envy as well, from the need to spoil goodness in others. When Obama says he believes in negotiating with our enemies he was viciously attacked by Bush for being weak. Even Obama's patriotism was questioned. But when Bush negotiates a treaty with North Korea he does so out of his self-described skillful diplomacy, not out of weakness or naiveté.

Voters need to overcome their fear in order not simply to hate the haters -- they need to recognize who in fact the haters are. There is no question that powerful emotions are made more powerful when expressed in a group. And deviating from group hatred is extremely difficult. Individuals tend to remains faithful to their group, even when the group changes direction. If people doubt what the group stands for -- what they stand for -- they are plagued by inner doubt and emotional pain even if they don't eventually separate. We see this self-doubt and pain in Clinton supporters faced with supporting Obama.

Questions: Do you feel hate is part of human nature or reactive to something else? How much does being part of a group affect your feelings about candidates? What role does the media play in fanning hatred?

Comments

[nobama08]

I could not agree more PPatt. I problem is that many of the Left and most of the radical Liberals in this country can not take a differing opinion without labeling it hate. The trouble comes in how obstinately they believe in the information that has been taught to them. They are so invested in their beliefs that it is insulting to them (perception) for me to bring viable, yet differing information to a conversation.

[jayburd]

What role does the media play in fanning hatred? Just turn on the TV or talk radio and you'll find your answer. The media may not be the cause of it but it is an unfortunate effect. And the internet age has fanned the flames even further. Now people can hate safely and anonymously. And yet, despite all of that, the Democratic Party has nominated Barack Obama its candidate for President of the United States. Interesting times we live in.

[richardgordon]

Great article. And yes, mob mentality has taken over this election. It would be wise for Obama and Clinton to cool things down since a backlash could have unintended consequences.

As to your questions:

1) Yes, violent emotions are part of human nature but it is created by external circumstances that can be unrelated. People are now beginning to feel the effects of the Bush Presidency. For example, one of the major reasons for high oil prices are because of a low US dollar. Which in turn is because of the Iraq war and the mortgage mess. People do not fully comprehend the reasoning behind their emotions but they feel fear. And when people feel afraid they coalesce into groups and any outsider that threatens their group will engender fierce and explosive emotions.

2) I think being part of a group is the major part of what is happening in regards to the vitriol and extreme emotions. For myself, I try to consciously "think for myself". Of course, only an objective outside observer examining my behavior in the context to the greater mass of opinions would be able to judge if I was being affected by crowd psychology.

3) The media is a big part in fanning hatreds and emotions. Some of them try to be unbiased, others are clearly partisan in their coverage, but I think it is inevitable that the media is going to fall into "group think." Its part of the natural order of the universe.

[musselmanm]

If our mission of change does not work out we can always go back to attacking Nations of brown people with a lack of weapons to match up with our MOABs'
Remember Shock and Awe? We still have it if we need to go back to hatred.
The Karl Rove method of getting elected will not work this time.
We no longer will fear you just as we did not fear you in the 60s'. We did effectively end the Viet Nam Police Action. Another fine example of forcing our ideas and way of life down the throats of people around the world.
American citizens gave up their lives at Kent State University due to hatred. Our unfortunate soldiers that were sent there with the best intentions to protect our country from the domino effect of Communism were scrificed for hatred by our government.
Shame on us for continuing to hate, all of the things we hate.
I like to say that the only people I cannot tolerate are the intolerant!

[Eduardodelazul411]

Say what you will about Nader, but if you're going to hold him responsible for Bush getting elected, you should first consider the following factors:

1) The presence of the even smaller candidate Monica Moorehead in that state (only other states she was on the ballot were Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and DC), who took about 1,800 votes, more than triple the gap that separated Bush and Gore.
2) Joe Lieberman as VP pick. In addition to a "hater" and politically wishy-washy, he's proved to be quite possibly the ultimate turncoat. By the time the Democrats get a bigger majority of the Senate, expect him to be history.
3) Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, which alone could have handed him the election.
4) Katherine Harris.

[hglassberg]

We wonder whether you're a hater while you're not hating. For example, when Anne Coulter's playing golf, is she a hater? Every right thinking person hates Anne Coulter, but is that person a hater simply because he or she hates one person? What about when you're with your own "kind?" Are you a lover because you love Arabs? If a person sometimes hates him or herself and sometimes loves him or herself, what does that make him or her? Hater? Lover? Father? Mother? We look forward to answers to these vexing questions.

Sincerely yours,

The Playdo Institute
Handel Glassberg, President

[research]

Just another technique in political mind control. The rich will dominates us till we average voters learn so see through these Machiavellian manipulations.

[MyThought]

Children do not hate - until they are taught to hate.

[catzoned]

Ugh! I find this article to be yet another media expression of hatred.

No, Ido not believe group-think mentality is such an issue anymore. We are all hiding behind screen names instead of our names and character. Therefore, it is much easier to express hatred without consequence.

[Gma11]

Group-think mentality a clear and present danger. Read some of the current research on the topic. The classic summary, IMO, remains Daniel Goldman's "Vital Lies, Simple Truths."

[TomR]

----
Do you feel hate is part of human nature or reactive to something else?
----

If I had to prioritize where hate comes from:
1) Hate comes from hurt (reactive).
2) Hate comes from fear (human nature).

----
How much does being part of a group affect your feelings about candidates?
----

Peer pressure can play somewhat of a role. I suppose it depends how secure and comfortable a person is going their own way and deciding for themselves. I'd say that my default position is to feel positively about my candidate. However, this feeling can collide with my principles and sense of integrity, particularly when my candidate takes a position on an issue that contradicts them. At that point, I need to weigh the pros and cons of the candidate, put it in the context of where we are as a country, and make a decision about whether or not to continue to support the candidate. This is where havig the capacity for nuance comes in handy. For example, I may still vote for my candidate, however, I may be less inclined to donate to his campaign.

----
What role does the media play in fanning hatred?
----

That's pretty obvious. Go to FOX Attacks to see how it's done.
http://foxattacks.com/

- Tom

[Gma11]

You've touched a MAJOR nerve here - a lot of splitting and projection occurring here as a respose!

[PPatt]

As to the question of media it is clear that the media fuels these fears inasmuch as it is infotainment and seeks to massage egos and affirm pre-existing belief. The strange thing is that for ratings, the media must do this across the boards for viewers that might even have opposing viewpoints. They are getting amazingly good at this.

A line was definitely crossed with the advent of the dangling innuendo, honed to perfection by Fox and most recently by Hilary Clinton when she tacked on "at least as far as I know" to her answer to whether Obama might have undisclosed Muslim loyalties.

Media has certainly abdicated serious attempts to discern truth when they carry on as they have. There is no doubt that this can fuel hatred, especially when care is not taken.

[PPatt]

Being a member in good standing of a group may have at times provided safety on an almost daily basis, today groupthink helps to avoid the stress of cognitive dissonance -- it is easier and less confrontative to abdicate reason in unison than alone. Still, turning one's individual conscience, ethics and threat assessment over to the group for the sake of unanimity or loyalty can lead to war when it is done en masse.

Canetti goes into detail on necessary precursors to "the angry mob". There must be a central authority figure (one fueling fears rather than demonstrating their lack of substance) and a precipitating event -- WMD, Pueblo incident or 9-11 which, with regard to the facts I've seen is proof positive that lynch mobs are alive and well. However, they often appear less angry and more scared, like the fearful villagers marching up to Frankensteins castle with pikes and pitchforks. I don't know about you but it doesn't seem to be just coincidence that most of our biggest hawks and war cheerleaders this time around are CHICKENhawks. They seem to wet themselves almost daily.

Human nature? Humans have so many capacities which compete and often contradict. When the intellect has been trained or at some point subjected to some rigor then there is a chance of better understanding the patterns to which we sometimes seem enslaved and powerless to resist. This may well be only a matter of inherited temperament, environment, and the roll of the dice.

[PPatt]

sorry, previous post was clipped....

This may well be only a matter of inherited temperament, environment, and the roll of the dice.

[PPatt]

Excellent questions. I always return to the thumbnail analysis from Elias Canetti:

War is an astoninshing business. People decide that they are threatened with physical destruction and proclaim the fact to the whole world. They say "I can be killed" and secretly add "because I myself want to kill this or that man." The stress properly belongs on the second half of this sentence. It should run: "I want to kill this or that man, therefore I can be killed myself." But when it is a question of war starting, or its eruption and the awakening of a bellicose spirit within the nation, the first version will be the only one openly admitted. Even if in fact the aggressor, each side will always attempt to prove that it is threatened.

The capacity for concealent, self-delusion, fear and reactions to them are hardwired and prevail when people are unable to take a step back and examine the course of their own loyalty to tribe or group...when they deny the hysteria that is the run-up to affirmation of the evil intent of others.

This was part I of an unabashed attempt to circumvent the 250 word limit that presumes posters think in tiny chunks and bloggers in big ones.

[PPatt]

...in tiny chunks and bloggers in more substantial ones...

[TomR]

----
Obama supporters who muscled two Muslim women out of camera range so they wouldn't be seen standing behind Obama at a televised rally. Where does Obama stand on this episode? Is he ducking, as we used to say in the schoolyard? It remains unclear.
----

Perhaps you haven't heard yet, but Rep. Keith Ellison called out Obama on this. Obama apologized to those two supporters over the phone.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/view/ellison-confronted

- Tom

[theplaintrutho1]

Well maybe so TomR, but how many Muslim men or women you see behind any other candidate in all of the primaries or general?

So either He joined the club, which makes Him no less guilty than any of the others, or He understands the REAL MINDSET of BIGOTS that would look to exploit the situation.

GROWUP, cause your redirect aint fooling anybody. Even the people that repeat your hyperbole, knew / know what's going on.

[TomR]

My two statements are facts, not hyperbole. I actually believe it's a sign of maturity and strength that Obama apologized. George W. Bush, who rarely admits mistakes, is a very weak person.

- Tom

[TXOBAMAGIRL73]

Maybe you didn't hear he apologized way before Keith Ellison chimed in ,Beside a person of princple doesn't need to be chastized into doing the right thing ...The most silliest thing about this is Barack didn't usher or muscle anybody out of the camara shot,,,,But his supporter did because maybe they knew what the GOP's hit squad aka the MSM would have twisted this into