Hypocrisy and America Hating
Remember how if you didn't support Bush, you were America-hating, how we should all respect the Presidency and how whether we voted for him or not, we had to pull for him?
I recall being asked why I hated America several times, because my disagreement with Bush policies made that clear, apparently.
Apparently, though, that only applies if the President is Republican, at least according to Bobby Jindal. It's been all of a couple of months since Bush left office, and suddenly wanting the President to fail is just peachy keen, and it's just a Democratic "gotcha game" against Republicans to suggest otherwise.
I don't particularly mind people disagreeing with the President, but I'm a little bit miffed that some of the same people who considered me to be the ultimate in traitorous scum for disagreeing with President Bush now think it's perfectly fair and reasonable (perhaps even laudable) to disagree with President Obama.
This is what is wrong with our political system today, and it isn't limited to one party, as you'll note from my other recent posting: hypocrisy.
If we really were just concentrating on the issues, maybe we could get something done. Compromise occasionally. Listen to each other and be open minded enough to be persuaded by a strong argument we hadn't considered before.
But we get so far off into the weeds with moral outrage at behavior that we ourselves perpetrate when the tables are turned. It's so very difficult to get past the hypocrisy and insults when it's time to sit down and work with someone. I have several strongly right-wing people within my friend/family sphere, one in particularly recently who epitomizes this dichotomy.
And the truth is, while I'd like to believe I could learn things from him and listen to his argument for nuggets I hadn't gleaned before, the truth is that his bombast and closed mindedness and the sheer hypocrisy of some of his arguments (and his reactions to my responses when those responses are the mirror image of ones he himself has given on the other side) make it very difficult for me to take him seriously any more.
And that's sad.
posted by Liam at 3/25/2009 01:21:00 PM
20 Comments:
That is sad.
Cindy-in-law
Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:33:00 PM
Cindy,
For what it's worth, the person that we know in common is not the "one in particular", although he was in my head in the "several strongly right-wing people".
But the "one in particular" is a co-worker, who didn't QUITE accuse me of hating America, but loved to quote people who espoused the same position I do and then accuse THEM of hating America, which I consider similar. And that person is now directly defending "wanting Obama to fail" and lambasting the "dirty Democratic trick" of demonizing that statement.
Liam.
Thursday, March 26, 2009 1:38:00 PM
I have to agree that some of the media enjoy bashing Rush and anything he says. It is news. But, at the same time, I understand his statement (Jindal's) of wanting the changes he sees as unfit for our country - to fail. Just like Dems wanted us to pull out of Iraq too early. The bashing of the president (the office and the man) are childish behaviors that really should have no place in our homes or in our language. I've always said that publicly bashing your president is so horrible, and passing along this horrid behavior to your children as acceptable is downright disgusting. Dems did it, the media did it, now it's reversed. It's still wrong. Hannity is guilty and I told him so myself. It was wrong when you did it too. (yes you did) The huge popularity of Bush-bashing in the past few years has caused this problem, and making it go away won't be easy. Especially with the whopping changes. I'm disgusted and worried as hell, but I will do my part to control my language. But I may need reminders. I don't wish for Obama to fail, I wish for a public rejection and quick reversal of many of his new policies and plans though. I can wish for whatever I want, because I am not Rush.
Cindy-In-Law
Thursday, March 26, 2009 2:00:00 PM
Just to be clear, I have no problem with Rush saying he hopes Obama fails. I understand what he was saying, and while it seemed a bit too close to saying he hopes the country continues to spiral out of control (because the first time he said it, it was in relation to the stimulus package, and whether you agree with what they're doing or not, you have to admit we're in bad shape and so whether you like the steps being taken or not, you should be hoping that they are successful in stemming the tide), nevertheless, I understand that a conservative isn't going to like more middle-left solutions, and I have no problem with people publically speaking those objections.
But Rush was at the forefront of calling those of us who disagreed with Bush "America haters". I just think about what he (and Hannity and O'Reilly and Coulter and others) would have said if anyone had so succinctly and directly said "I hope President Bush fails".
I disagree that it's wrong to disagree with a President. I don't believe the President is in any way super-human, and when a President misbehaves, he should be called on it. Rush has every right to say what he says, and in fact I wasn't even overly moved by the hypocrisy inherent in his criticisms after the "America hating" comments when people criticized a President he supported. It really crossed the line of hypocrisy I couldn't easily swallow when he and others started defending the position by claiming that to say it was wrong was a Democratic trick to make him look bad.
I disagree that the Bush-bashing caused the problem, actually. The Clinton-bashing of the previous 8 years fed into the Bush-bashing. My recollection is that people were relatively civil under Carter, Reagan and even Bush Sr., and things really started to get partisan and out of control under Clinton, and they continued under "W".
But to be clear, I don't think it's wrong for you (or Rush or anyone else) to disagree with President Obama. I don't think it's wrong for you to publically speak that. But if you (and by "you" I mean them) have a history of demonizing people for speaking out against a President when he's "your guy", I don't have much sympathy for you when you start complaining that people are violating your right to speak out against the President.
(In other words, you and I disagree on whether it's OK to "bash" the President, or probably more so on where the line is between "disagreeing with" and "bashing", but as long as we try to be consistant, it's OK. I'd bet you don't feel like the things said about Clinton were "bashing", because you felt strongly that they were correct. I feel the same way about much of what was said about Bush.)
Liam.
Thursday, March 26, 2009 2:23:00 PM
Yes, It's perfectly ok to disagree, it's wrong to bash, ridicule, name call, etc.. publicly, while they are in office especially. If you'd hate to hear an Iraqi terrorist say it on TV, you shouldn't be saying it either.
Clinton bashing was extensive, I must agree, I had forgotten how popular that was and still is. But he still has his followers too. As does Hillary - Which I really dislike. But I see chomping at them is like criticizing Kennedy's..fair game for all. :-) That's wrong, I know. I'll shut up.
But middle-left? That's downright funny.
I'll be offline til Monday,
Cindy
Thursday, March 26, 2009 2:52:00 PM
People don't realize how far to the right this country has shifted. Obama's policies are not nearly as extremist liberal as they're portrayed.
Yes, we're doing a lot of extraneous spending right now, but that's what's called for in a deepening recession to prevent a depression.
But the Obama policies aren't nearly as extreme as they're made out to be.
So yes, center-left. You aren't ever going to agree with me, but I stand by that.
Liam.
Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:35:00 PM
You are correct, I won't ever agree on that. He's the farthest left I've ever known. Name someone who is farther left than him. It has to an American.
You honestly believe all that bahooey people said about Bush? Like calling him an alcoholic. or Bush lied kids died, and he caused 9/11, and all that michael moore bafoonery? seriously? oh wait - Michael moore is pretty far left like the President.
You won't change my mind any more than I'll change yours, especially about the clintons (didn't everyone criticize them, not just rightwingers?), but I for one will watch my mouth. For the sake of manners and for the kids. I hope you do too. Or else all of the youth will never learn to respect authority until someone forces it upon them. And then it will be faked, not sincere respect.
Anywho.. gotta pack now.
CIL.
Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:16:00 PM
I do believe Bush is an alcoholic, at least in the sense that it's on record that he was, as I recall he has as much as said he doesn't drink because of it. And alcoholism is not something you're ever cured of, simply something you overcome. Do I think he'd gone back to drinking? I don't know. But it's pretty clear he was a recovered alcoholic.
Do I believe he lied? Yes, if not intentionally, then negligently by ignoring any intelligence that didn't fit his and Cheney's plans and cherry picking to support what he wanted to do.
Do I believe he caused 9/11? No. But he certainly didn't do anything to prevent it, when it's pretty well documented he had several good warnings that something was in the works and sort of ignored them.
Do I believe Bush committed war crimes? Yes. Torture, which has been as much as admitted, is a war crime. And more importantly, the official arbiter of what counts as torture, assigned by the U.N. (and thus, accepted by us) is the International Red Cross, and they say we tortured people. Which are war crimes.
Do I believe Bush broke American law? Yes. By holding at least two American citizens without habeas corpus or any of their other constitutional rights, among other things. By systematically trying to usurp power from the other two supposedly co-equal branches of our government. By coming up with legal justifications for illegal wiretapping of American citizens.
Do I believe he's damaged our country and made us less safe? Yes, because he squandered the good will of the world with his foreign policy, made it less likely anyone is going to rush to our defense again any time soon, and by the way created a focus for an entire new generation of Muslim children who will grow up to hate us for the things done to them and their families and their nations in our name.
I think Bush was the worst President in my lifetime, I'm embarrassed to have had him represent me and my great nation. I think his misdeeds relate DIRECTLY to the execution of his job, while Clinton's were tangential to it.
And you really can't think of any American more to the left than Obama? How about Dennis Kucinich? How about Jimmy Carter? How about Bernie Sanders? You already mentioned Michael Moore. How about the members of the American Socialist Party, or the American Communist Party, or the American Workers Party?
Regardless of what you've been told by Fox News, the truth is that Obama hasn't tried to raise taxes to anything like record levels. Most of his spending has not been on new welfare programs but on bank bailouts (which Bush also did) and on infrastructure (which both creates jobs AND is years overdue for some refreshing). Obama is to the left of Bush, but that's not a surprise, given that he's a Democrat and Bush is a Republican. Most of the country believes we've pulled too far to the right, that's why we elected someone to bring us back towards the left, not because the left is our goal, but because the center is our goal.
But really, it's pure Limbaugh / Coulter / Fox News claptrap that Obama is this extremist liberal. He's a religious man who has worked with the disadvantaged, and he recognizes that the difference between us and them isn't as much the hard work we've put in (regardless of what Chris wants to believe), but also our circumstances in life. If you had been born black and in a ghetto, you would almost certainly not be where you are today. I recognize my good fortune, even if you don't, and I'm willing to support programs to try to level the playing field. Not through handouts, those don't work, but through education assistance and training assistance? Sure.
I'm getting off topic.
The point is, from what I've seen, Obama is far more fiscally responsible than Bush was, all this spending he's doing now is because the economists are all saying it has to be done to turn us away from the precipice of complete financial ruin. We're where we are because of years of deficit spending and reckless fiscal policy, and one of the things I liked about Obama was that he seemed to understand that and wanted to address it.
So no, I don't think Obama is as far left as you and Fox News and the other right wing talking heads would have us believe, hell, many of my friends who are further to the left of where I am complain to me that he's not nearly left enough.
Liam.
Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:22:00 PM
Wow.
Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:33:00 PM
I didn't really think you'd agree with me, but you did ask. :-)
Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:19:00 PM
Wow, this family squabble was a fun read!
I have to admit that the question of who is more liberal than Obama was an intriguing one. As Presidents go, he may be right up there, I don't know.
He could be a far left liberal in a moderate disquise. But I agree with Liam in that it's hard to judge that given just how far right the pendulum had swung for quite a long time. (And remember, if a pendulum swings too far in one direction, it ends up in the other direction!)
I feel the Republican Party is now seen by most Americans as even more the party of the rich, and I mean the filthy rich. It's more evident now, with everyone losing their jobs, their homes and their futures. It's not the full picture, of course, but it's the perception. In my view, the outspoken part of the Republic Party ought to be happy Obama, or someone equally moderate/liberl/whatever is in office. Had the course continued as Bush had set it, during this crisis I'd think you'd see the unemployed masses out in the streets wielding blunt instruments at anyone walking by in a suit.
Friday, March 27, 2009 10:35:00 PM
Heh. Fun for you, perhaps. For Cindy I think, not so much.
Your point is well taken that he could turn out to be further left than he's presented himself so far.
But so far, he's been pretty restrained, only time will tell if he's the flaming left wing nutbag Cindy thinks he is.
I'm not sure you're right about the perception of the Republican party, though. There are an awful lot of lower class and lower middle class people who still stick with the Republican party, because they've bought into the notion that only Republicans are on the side of God and country.
Liam.
Friday, March 27, 2009 10:45:00 PM
It's not just a notion when you consider the evidence. The abortion law changes, the pro-abortion appointments, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, etc.. so much evidence that he is not a Christian. When removing the God given right to Life, you rule out Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness 100%. How is any of this on the "side of God and country?"
Weren't those inalienable rights endowed by our Creator? Christians are pro-life and anti-abortion.
So why do you think that I don't "recognize my good fortune?"
Why did you call me a talking head? And if I misread that, why would you think me incapable of forming my own opinion?
Dennis K is not a democrat is he?
You have friends that are farther left thinking than yourself and President Obama? I know of no such personality. Can you prove that statement?
I certainly don't see Obama trying to appear to be governing from the middle - what has he done that you think would be something that I would personally agree with, even slightly? Maybe I haven't noticed something.
Fiscally responsible? typo? A few posts ago 4.3 trillion was ludicrous to you. Why the change of heart vs. wallet?
You are correct that I cannot get past the hypocrisy and not see through the moral outrage I am feeling right now. I don't need to and apparently don't want to. If I were a lawmaker, I would try to.
Muslim children don't hate Americans. Only the children of terrorists and extremists that are taught that hate by their parents. That's a pretty unfair assessment.
We liberated Iraqi's, children and all. Their futures are 1000% better than they would have been prior to 2002. Where'd you get that - Couric or Matthews? It's not true.
Millions of people will not get raped, tortured and killed because of Saddam's removal. Billions if we count the next two generations that can skip to the voting booth instead of being thrown to the cold cement and ravaged sexually by Uday Hussein in front of their children, then left to bleed to death for his amuzement, at the order and happiness of his dad.
(See that moral outrage coming through? Maybe I should seek some counseling.)
Worst president in your lifetime? That's a big statement. Embarrassed like a dixie chick eh?
Why would you be concerned about wire-tapping? Overstepping by our government a little uncomfortable? Like limiting exec pay, or firing exec's, or taxing bonuses at 90%? Maybe placing the person in charge of oversight of AIG and Fanny/Freddie should be held accountable and fired too?
C
Monday, March 30, 2009 9:21:00 AM
Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow.
-- Isaiah 1:16-17
c
Monday, March 30, 2009 9:36:00 AM
hmmmm
cindy
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:16:00 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:41:00 PM
Cindy,
I'm going to stop approving your comments, because I'm really tired of idiocy.
Seriously. You either are intellectually incapable of seeing the difference between a centrist liberal and a raving communist or you're being intentionally thick to stir up trouble.
In either case, your comments are no longer welcome here.
You asked if I thought you incapable of thinking outside of the talking points spoon fed to you by the talking heads on the extreme rightward fringe of American political discourse, and while you may be CAPABLE of such, you certainly are not exercising that capability, and there's simply no benefit to me to continue debating with someone who will not listen, who does not challenge her basic beliefs to make sure they stand up to logic, and who cannot recognize the difference between the political equivalents of someone who occasionally enjoys watching science fiction on TV vs. someone who dresses up as a Klingon every weekend and drives hours to get to the nearest science fiction convention.
If you honestly can't see anyone further to the left of me (or for that matter, Obama), and if you can't even look up the simplest facts (Dennis Kucinich is one of the Democratic Representatives from OH), then you have taken on the same fanaticism in your conservatism that bin Laden has in Islam.
So, as I started this, you are no longer welcome to post comments here, and I will not approve any more from you. Of course, since you come in anonymously, if you don't sign them and you learn the ability to discuss reasonably, rationally and intelligently, then perhaps you'll still manage to slip a few through. But if you can manage to do those things, you'll be welcome back. It's this attempt to hijack the metaphorical plane of this conversation so as to fly it into the building that is this blog that is no longer acceptable.
I'm done with knee-jerk extremists setting up straw men and knocking them down and thinking they've done anything more than a 5 year old could do.
Liam.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:16:00 AM
P.S. I've done you the courtesy of removing my response to the specifics of your note above.
It is not that I'm unwilling to answer, it's that I don't think it's fair to have a last word on the subject after ensuring you will no longer be allowed to respond.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:40:00 AM
Liam,
You do believe in censorship.
This is your world, your blog, you created it. I guess you can keep anyone out which you don't agree with.
Do you feel powerful?
Chris.
Friday, April 03, 2009 8:29:00 PM
No, but I do believe that if you are hosting people in your space, and they continue being obnoxious, it's time to ask them to leave.
You and Cindy both like to assert things about me that are clearly not in evidence, and that anyone who knows me can tell are clear fabrications, which means you're either trying to stir up trouble (in which case, why should I bother with you) or you're too lacking in objectivity or intelligence to actually have a reasoned conversation / debate with (in which case, why should I bother with you).
Neither of you is particularly polite, neither of you, in my opinion, is particularly well informed, and neither of you is at all interested in BEING informed, just in building up your little straw men and then knocking them down because they make you feel powerful.
You can hardly say I haven't given you every chance, but you persist in acting the boor at the ball, and after a certain while it isn't censorship to decide that you simply can't be refined.
This is the last I'm going to discuss this topic, and the last comment I'm going to accept on it. You can call it censorship if you like. There's no "power" involved, there's just me sick and tired of listening to people with their fingers in their ears yelling "lalalala I am not listening", and so I'm inviting those people to go elsewhere and leave me in peace.
You are more than welcome to keep talking. You're welcome to form your own blog and build your straw men and knock them down to your hearts delight. Just don't do it at my house any more.
Liam.
Friday, April 03, 2009 11:03:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home