More meandering thoughts.
Jamelle, the ferocity of the right-wing opposition to Obama mystifies and bewilders me, so as far as I’m concerned your explanation’s as good as any. Because when I try to imagine what I would do if I had the policy preferences of, say, a loyal Glenn Beck viewer, I still can’t figure out where the anger would come from. I can see how I’d want to put a lot of time and energy into opposing the Democrats, but I’d also be resigned to the idea that when the Democrats win both houses and the presidency, they’re going to try to implement some of the policies that their constituencies favor. I don’t see how increasing government involvement in health care is sneaky or surprising.
Someone might ask: but wasn’t the ferocity of the left’s opposition to Bush equally incomprehensible? Frankly, no. If the left’s view of Bush is correct, we’ve got a war criminal taking over two nations and killing lots of people in the process. If the right’s view of Obama is correct, we’ve got a politician implementing awful, inefficient, costly policies by accepted procedures. To me, it makes more sense for real anger to follow from the former than from the latter. Maybe this is why the Birther thing is so resilient: there’s got to be some way to show that Obama’s abusing the democratic process, because apparently he’s just working with his party’s majorities to get laws past.
When I was a kid, I got my hair cut by a barber who had covered nearly an entire wall with anti-Clinton paraphernalia. What stands out in my memory is how much of it focused on Hillary rather than Bill (“I DON’T SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT — OR HER HUSBAND!”). Admittedly, Hillary Clinton took a leading role in that administration’s health care proposals, and I was too young to pay much attention, but I wonder if gender and race are used to undermine legitimacy so that normal political processes can be cast as abnormal.
A totally different explanation would be that politics is very often a matter of what the Straussians, following Plato, call thumos or spiritedness, and that what we’re seeing is a thumotic response to a perceived threat to property — in this case, a threat to medical care. I’m open to the idea that I just don’t get thumos the way the Republican base does.
Oh, as for the idea of the President telling kids to work hard in school: not something I would have pressed for, but nothing I’m against…
“I wonder if gender and race are used to undermine legitimacy so that normal political processes can be cast as abnormal.”
Hmm, yeah, I wonder…
No, I’m sure it’s just perfectly legitimate opposition. I’m sure if Kerry had won in 2004, we’d have spent half of 2005 having an inane argument about his birth certificate. No racism here. And there was certainly no sexism about Hillary during the Clinton administration. Or Janet Reno for that matter.Report
It looks like that sentence turned stupid during revision… it should say something more like “. . . if gender and race functioned similarly in these cases. . .”; with the thing I’m wondering about being the media environment regarding Hillary Clinton in 1993. Writing fail on my part.Report
Very much agreed. The very thought that pops to mind when “But the Left did it first” is uttered.Report
Those are fair points, but I think if you except the period between 9/11 and the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, the left – especially fringe left – was incredibly hostile to President Bush before the allegations of war criminality surfaced. Though, I would add that the circumstances of his first election probably account for the disapproval echoed in the first months of the administration.
However, the thing that strikes me as both interesting and perhaps a little frustrating is that during the Bush years, practically every other person (admittedly I lived in California and attended university during those years) couldn’t talk about politics without casually insulting or ranting about the President and the bookstores were filled with outright nasty books. Today, the only place I see people angry with President Obama is on the news…or the news covering youtube. Moreover, with the exception of the always crazy Jim DeMint, there aren’t 15 different books on shelves calling the President a socialist, fascist, egotistical, racist…or whatever Glenn Beck is saying these days.
Which isn’t to say there isn’t much anger but I do think coverage of people who hate President Obama substantially outsizes people who actually do.Report
That was a weird election in 2000, wasn’t it?
Here’s where I wish I were a social scientist, because my Bush-years experience in North Carolina was rather different… and I don’t think trading anecdotes would do much to give us a fuller or more representative picture.
I should have mentioned that I was listening to a call-in show on local talk radio yesterday afternoon, and I heard some pretty epic rants about our President. But, again — is this in any way representative? I’ve no idea.Report
Couldn’t agree more. In fact my anecdotal experience – being so removed from what CNN tells me the American people are feeling – really makes me curious just what opinions are nationally and I always wish news outlets/pollsters would/could unpack their poll results a more than they do.Report
Just wait.Report
haha. I guess I really didn’t have to:
http://gawker.com/5352209/fox–friends-turns-to-michelle-malkin-for-advice-on-civil-debate
you know eating crow…not so unpleasant as one would expect.Report