Ending the Cycle of Presidential Love and Hate

Eyal's post juxtaposes the irrational views an alarming number of Republicans have about Barack Obama (a Kenyan-Muslim-Socialist-Hitler!) with the conspiracy theory--apparently held by 25 percent of Democrats--that Bush let 9/11 happen to justify a march to war. Fair enough, but I'm not sure you need to graze that far afield to find a left-right correspondence.

The first time I encountered a fantastic, fact-proof theory about Obama was during primary season. It was at a debate-watching party where an acquaintance of mine, an Obama-volunteer, hissed at Hillary Clinton's response to a question about same-sex marriage. "She's such a homophobe!" the woman exclaimed. I felt the need to correct the record.

"She's not really any more anti-gay or pro-gay than Obama. Neither of them back gay marriage, for example," I pointed out.

"Obama totally wants gay marriage!" the woman responded.

"That's nowhere in his platform," I said.

"In his heart he does. In his heart he supports gay marriage!" was her fierce retort.

I knew then that there was no point in arguing. She was already committed to feeling a certain way about Obama, and she wasn't going to let reality or the written word diminish her exquisite emotion.

My point: progressives who lionized Obama (and it wasn't just campaign volunteers) as the perfect politician and person--as someone who would single-handedly end war, injustice, racism, militarism and restore American greatness--didn't launch the anti-Obama smears. But they played a role in creating an emotional feedback loop in which every out-sized, irrational, faith-based feeling about Obama is returned and amplified as its mirror--by the nihilistic assertion that he is the devil incarnate set on ending America, for example.

This cult of personality was not something Obama himself, who has tread quite lightly in drawing the analogies to, say, MLK or JFK, cultivated. It was cultivated by progressives and the formerly alienated who wanted a hero to deliver us from Bush, the evil one, a caricature I never liked because it also subscribes to the great-man theory of politics, if only by negation, while it also lets vast sectors of Congress and the media (to begin with) off the hook. It's no surprise then that for every deification of Obama made on inauguration day, a conservative vilification lay in wait. As one lovely piece of mail I received then put it: "Now it is our time to hate."

I'm all for emotions in politics, but maybe it is time to demonstrate some emotional intelligence, and to retire the belief that the presidency represents the source and apogee of politics itself. Maybe it is time to find new objects to love--not leaders, but movements and causes. I'm not suggesting that Republicans will gracefully end their character assassination just because progressives stop hero-worshipping Barack. But some emotional de-escalation and diversification couldn't hurt.

Maybe we can try hating on insurance companies, remember them? Or maybe we can try loving socialized medicine instead? Remember when that was the right-wing boogeyman? Socialized medicine! An emotional tug-of-war over that sounds pretty civil and rational now, doesn't it?

Comments (22)

1. Bush let 9/11 happen to justify a march to war

   Richard Kim on 09/28/2009 @ 8:18pm

   Your article turns on what may be an artifact of very poor polling. A good social scientist would not let an item such as "Did Bush let 9/11 happen to justify a march to war?" be used in a poll. Maybe this wasn't the case, you just don't clarify, neither does Eyal. Potentially 1- the item(s) subtly double barreled, no doubt catching many false positives because of the second part. 2- And the fact that many Americans believe he used 9/11 inappropriately adds more false positives. 3- Same goes for the general concern that not enough was done about the undisputed specific warnings about terrorists flying planes into buildings. It would be easy to tease these things out. Nonetheless, a great take on the same ol' song that plays unendingly around here.

   Posted by winyahn at 09/28/2009 @ 10:12pm

2. Maybe we can try hating on insurance companies, remember them?

   Nothing like advocating HATE to get the leftist juices flowing is there?

   Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 10:25pm

3. Sounds like the 'magic' is gone. It's only been nine months. I really do feel sorry for Barack Obama in a way. He played Chicago hardball politics to get where he is but I'm afraid way too much is expected from him and he is only one man. Check out Drudge and watch an honor student beaten to death on the streets of Chicago. and we want to send the Olympics there? REALLY?

   FDR had it tough but he was a white man. He didn't have to deal with the ugliness that is so pervasive in present politics. I know some would argue that point but it's true. FDR governed from a wheel chair, faced down the depression, WWII, and put this country back on it's feet. Obama's challenges are just as daunting. If I were him, I'd drop the rhetoric and fancy speak and roll up his sleeves. The problems this country are facing will not be solved by hitting the talk show circuit or by spending every waking hour on the tube acting like a celebrity.

   I'd say that conservatively, Barack Obama has about six months to change the course of his Presidency. After that the the election cycle will be in full swing and it will be curtains for the democrats.

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 12:20am

4. If we are talking getting facts, remember that facts can and were manufactured to lead us into Iraq. Lots of nonfactual discussion pro and con based on mythical mushroom cloud fuzzy lines drawn in the moving sand. And again now with ACORN entrapped by a few reckless employees performing a part in a mythical play with again no definite line in the sand, no mid point drawn for their cause to be argued for or against across what ACORN represents and works for. It was like ACORN was caught getting a blow job, so throw the baby out with the bath water. 'We the people' got caught getting a blow job by the hsuB/cHeney admin; several times actually. And we mostly had a smile on our faces until the Mission Accomplished STD oozed reality and rotted our ignorance for these last few years. Hate can be what truth happens when the lies are exposed.

   Only in the new con repub case, they want and use lies-- lies work for them. Hating the truth with their lies is a new con repub strategy, creating an altered reality, suspending disbelief, a temporary catalyst to achieve their adjacent goal. Lies to new con repubs is the date rape drug of choice, or should I say their drug of life.

   Sometimes, civility is the last thing required to resolve disingenuous behavior. And may even be enabling it.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 12:56am

5. er, 'We the people' got caught getting a blow job 'from' the hsuB/cHeney admin; several times actually.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 01:19am

6. Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 10:25pm

   Rio, you REALLY believe that hate ISN'T your whole raison d'etre, don't you???

   Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 07:27am

7. little P i know chage you to DuNcE. I will say you get me to think of how someone wastes the time you do to put these thoughts on paper.GS1 the Republicans are in worse shape than the Dems,they do not have enough thinkers. The presentation just is not there.It will be like the 2008 election it is the economy stupid. That is where political calculation of the stimulus and the Big Bank bailout will have a chance to play out. We will see in the next few months.

   Posted by whatozz at 09/29/2009 @ 08:14am

8. What are the consequences to new con repub lies? 'We the people' pay, but do the perpetrators? A few lost elections because their lies did not yield big time results but their opposite? Yet there they are still, still lying away and the MSM going along, again. One lie exposed after another, yet where are the consequences that will make the lies pay with the necessary deterrence? When the opposition has no morals, rather than moving the playing field closer to their moral lala-land, shouldn't there be a penalty pushing the line further away for their lala-land? I'm talking public moral humiliation and possible jail time. Anybody using lies for public consumption, if not fact checked sufficiently and argued with proper disclaimers and deference to the other side, should suffer inordinate public humiliation to dissuade lying as a method of persuasion.

   It's the lying after-- all that brings on the hate.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 08:55am

9. raison d'etre, don't you???

   Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 07:27am

   Ain't no raison d'etre in Texas!

   Posted by winyahn at 09/29/2009 @ 08:59am

10. My response to Richard Kim is the same as my response to Eyal Press.

    The tendency to see every battle between Democrats and Republicans as one of Good versus Evil would be greatly reduced if we had more than two viable political parties to choose from.

    Proportional electoral systems, such as Instant Runoff Voting, would likely give us three or more parties to choose from. Then the loonies would have a much harder time identifying an Anti-Christ. Which of the two or more opposing party leaders would he be?

    The two-party system, which is nothing more than a primitive electoral system that represents us poorly and inaccurately rather than accurately and well, encourages Manichaean thinking that is all-or-nothing, black-or-white, night-or-day, and good-versus-evil, with no nuance, no middle ground, and no complexity. A better electoral system, which more accurately reflected the true political diversity that exists in our country, would help us to see ourselves as something more complex and diverse than "us versus them."

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/29/2009 @ 11:20am

11. I just read Rush Limbaugh's comments about how Obama is a pantywaist because he won't expand Afghanistan, attack Tehran, persecute China, etc, etc. (Who's gonna pay? Didn't talk about that.)

    Then he goes on to say that he doesn't advocate hate. It's the liberals who are doing all the hating. Look how they treated George Bush.

    I won't defend liberals per se; but conservatives are behaving like angry cockroaches and making Hitler comparisons to Obama when the exact opposite is true. A civil war is already here. What would happen if a liberal took an assault weapon to a tea bag rally? Of course it's OK to take one to an Obama speech, but he's a socialist! Grrrr.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/29/2009 @ 11:42am

12. Posted by winyahn at 09/29/2009 @ 08:59am

    True...plus it is a French term...or as RIO would call it a "Freedom term"!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 2:34pm

13. Posted by ficheye at 09/29/2009 @ 11:42am

    Read up on Hitler's rise to power. The German people actually he was offering 'HOPE.'

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 2:46pm

14. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 2:46pm

    But of course, gunny isn't saying "Obama is Hitler!"....no...no,no,no....of course not. You dang liberals are putting words in his mouth to make him sound crazy so you can dismiss him!!!!

    Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 2:50pm

15. We all need to remember and practice the prayer of St. Francis, "let there be peace in the world, and let it begin with me". Hatred is destroying America, and we can't let that happen. Demagogues throughout history have used "divide and conquer" to control people and nations. Don't let them get away with it again. United we stand, divided we fall.

    Posted by beth128 at 09/29/2009 @ 3:19pm

16. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 2:46pm

    Sorry, but the Hitler-Obama comparison breaks down on every level.

    The Nazis got, what, less than 40% of the vote in the last free election in Weimar Germany? If the leaders of the Communist and Social Democratic Parties had put aside their differences (hard to do when Stalin was ordering Communists to characterize Social Dems as being worse than Nazis), they could have united the working class, smashed the SA and SS, driven the Nazis off the streets and never allowed them to take their seats in parliament, let alone take over the government. And this would have been a good thing, given the way history actually worked out.

    Most Germans were not buying what Hitler was selling until he was already in power.

    Posted by cka2nd at 09/29/2009 @ 3:59pm

17. Read up on Hitler's rise to power. The German people actually he was offering 'HOPE.' Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 2:46pm

    I have. There's no comparison. Is Obama going to burn the White House and say his opponents did it? Is he going to start concentration camps to incarcerate all who oppose him? Very, very doubtful. Is he going to exterminate Jews by the thousand? Send brown shirted boys into urban areas to break the windows of all the shops? Inspire a campaign of eugenics and ethnic cleansing?

    What you are talking about, I believe, is the fact that he said he'd do things when he got to be president that he hasn't done yet. There's truth in that. The big lie campaign that Hitler was fond of? The comparison is pale. 'Hope' and 'Change' can be perverted into a comparison, but in your mind I know you don't really think that. You just don't like him. I can accept that.

    I'll never buy into ANY politician saying that they're going to right all the wrongs, but Hitler? No, I can't go there. Set me up with your comparisons and not just because you generally dislike him and then we'll see. But I feel that this is so far off the mark that it's not really something worthy of a good natured debate.

    Dear George Bush... now he and Cheney and his other underlings did things that could be compared to that regime, but Bush was a lot dumber than Hitler. Cheney, on the other hand, seemed fine with torture and privacy invasion. They attacked a country that had nothing to do with 911(which, to this day, gets short shrift). Etc etc. These comparisons can gain some traction. Obama is overly idealistic AND a corporatist, sadly enough. But he's not Hitler. And the only socialistic comparison is his vague attempt at the 'public option'.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/29/2009 @ 5:10pm

18. I can't believe people are even taking seriously the nazi comparisons. It's all funny to hear it coming from the right. The people who less than a year ago were calling Liberals America haters for comparing George Bush to Hitler. Hypocrites abound I guess.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 6:32pm

19. I can't believe people are even taking seriously the nazi comparisons. It's all funny to hear it coming from the right. The people who less than a year ago were calling Liberals America haters for comparing George Bush to Hitler. Hypocrites abound I guess.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 6:32pm

    In general conservatives are not calling or comparing Obama to Hitler. Yes, gunslinger certainly appears to have suddenly made a comment that is out of line. But the vast majority of conservatives do not hold that view of Obama and you know that. Why make that generalization now?

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 6:43pm

20. Hypocrites abound I guess.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 6:32pm

    There is a struggle to vilify Obama in any way possible. Even though Bush and company has a more verifiable history of criminal activities. Even though many Democrats are becoming critical of the president as well. That's not good enough. The effort continues to make him the NEW boogieman so we can try to forget about the failures of the old one. Which were great.

    The current trend in thinking about the 911 disaster is that they were inept and ignored myriad warnings by other intelligence agencies, including our own, choosing hubris and a know-it-all attitude instead of vigilance, which was supposed to be the great talent of the conservatives. They let it happen through neglect of their duties. At the very least.

    And now if we don't let them save face somehow they will ruin the party and whatever hope is out there. Making fun of Obamas 'Hope' platform is OK by me. But making light of hope, in general, means that they wish everyone ill will for no other reason except... they didn't win the election.

    It's sad... but predictable.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/29/2009 @ 6:52pm

21. In general conservatives are not calling or comparing Obama to Hitler. Yes, gunslinger certainly appears to have suddenly made a comment that is out of line. But the vast majority of conservatives do not hold that view of Obama and you know that. Why make that generalization now?

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 6:43pm

    Oh I don't mean all conservatives or even most. Sorry I am moving quickly through these. Just some. But then there are some others who are saying Obama is anti-American and is attempting to destroy this country. Which liberals also said about GW.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/29/2009 @ 7:23pm

22. "In general conservatives are not calling or comparing Obama to Hitler."----Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 6:43pm

    Let me guess...we supply a dozen or so examples and you say "Okay, there is SOME, but IN GENERAL that's not happening"....because YOUR definition of "in general" would mean we'd have to supply thousands of examples which is impossible in this format?

    Posted by Mask at 09/30/2009 @ 07:55am