« Will History Vindicate George Bush Or Not?
Spencer ‘Accuses’ Hillary Clinton of Having ‘Presidential Aspirations’ »
Democrats: America’s Enemy?
Read this post at Dr. Sanity.
It is a fascinating post for different reasons. One – to me the most important one – is that it shows a particular kind of reasoning that is – as far as I can tell – present on both sides of the political equation (in the US). It is not just thinking in terms of ‘opposing views’ on what’s best for the US. Instead, the way of thinking is one in which the ‘other side’ is simply ‘evil’ or at least the enemy of the (people of the) USA.
From the left one might notice the ‘fascist!’-attacks.
From the right the attacks that try to make the other(s) look ‘anti-American’ or as ‘traitors’.
The problem with this kind of reasoning is – obviously – that it ensures on thing: there is no need to listen to the arguments of the other. Why should one listen? The opponents are enemies -> not just political enemies, but even enemies of America.
No compromises will be made, while the very fundament of politics is to compromize.
UPDATE
Commenter ‘Ack’ pointed this book out in the comment section of this post. It is called The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track written by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein. Sounds like a very interesting book.
36 Responses to “Democrats: America’s Enemy?”
MvdG: just don’t question Ted Kennedy’s patriotism, OK?
Tommy: look this is not about individual cases. It is about acting as if individuals represent an entire party / part of the population. You see, the problem is not accusing one person of something, the problem is acting as if the opposing side is automatically wrong on all matters since all of them are traitors, fascists, anti-American, whatever.
I agree, Michael, that the current climate in American politics is not good.
I have lived through the presidencies of Eisenhower on up — so I am no spring chicken. And I have to say, I have never witnessed it as bad as this.
Never.
What I find puzzling is why now, what’s different?
I did catch part of a show on CSPAN that may help answer my question. Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann were talking about their just published book The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track . The part of the show that I caught was focusing on the complete lack of any negotiation, debate, compromise, etc.
I guess I’ll have to go out and buy a copy.
Ack: I have updated the post with a link to the book you mention in your post.
The internet and the rise of talk radio may be a big part of the problem since they have given a voice to extremists on both sides. Both mediums provide a visibility for extreme viewpoints that might have been ignored by more traditional media, and those groups then tend to ridicule or ignore anyone who offers a dissenting viewpoint. I’ve tried to discuss my own opinions on a right-wing site and was immediately called a “liberal traitor” who “supports Osama Bin Laden” by numerous posters. On a left-leaning site, posting similar opinions, I was told to “stop parroting Rush Limbaugh talking points” — I’ve only listened to Limbaugh a few times out of curiosity, and mostly disliked what I heard. The result of this kind of purging of dissent is that anyone with a moderate opinion is driven away, and you end up with an extreme group that reinforces its own beliefs, leading to statements like “Bush is the devil” or “Democrats support the terrorists”, both of which are ridiculous.
I’m not sure how to fix that situation though – until people are more willing to engage in discussion, rather than wage “political battles” that have winners and losers, the problem will persist. It would be great to see a community come together with a goal of discussing issues in America and coming up with proposals for addressing those solutions, but that approach doesn’t seem to have the appeal of a right-wing or left-wing site where you can call the other side evil without attempt to understand their position.
Michael, I don’t know if you’re familiar with it but The Paranoid Style in American Politics is an old but still applicable essay that speaks directly to what you’ve noticed.
Sorry, that should have read “coming up with proposals for addressing those issues”.
MvdG, what can I say? I see more and more evidence from the Dems that is really the case. The Dems are simply irresponsible, if not downright treacherous, when it comes to putting America and its national security first.
Dave: thanks! I am reading it now and no, I was not familiar with it.
Oh, great Michael. Does this mean I am now famous?
;}
Kidding aside, the book does sound good. I’m of the generation that remembers Reagan and Tip O’Neill fighting over policies during the day while enjoying a drink together at night. You could disagree on policies, yet still have mutual respect for one another.
Exactly. That is it: oppose each other’s views passionately, while not losing respect for the other.
Good point. I would add bombastic cable tv commentors to that as well.
There also seems to have been a shift from policy discussions/arguments to just attacks on a person’s character.
Disturbing times we live in.
Well I’m a big ol’ liberal, and although I dislike Bush, I don’t think I’ve ever come up with paranoid schemes involving him and national intrigue, and what I like to call immoderate fantastical nutjobbery, like the guy who posted that article. Seriously, I know a lot of my liberal friends, and none of us believe any thing as wacky as that was on any level. I mean with the exception of the real fundamentalist christians on the right too, I don’t think most conservatives are that crazy either. I think there is a small proportion of people who are online and have these extreme ‘hate the other side and call them nasty names’ kind of ideologies. But I don’t like Bush, because he does not support anything I do, with the exception of the death penalty (and even there, I’m willing to bet he’ll go farther then I will in allowing it) and when he came into office and after September 11th, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. But over the last 5 years, as a liberal, I’ve been the one who’s listened to all of the Bush administration members, conservative pundits, and conservative bloggers, who’ve called me (as a liberal): Terrorist-sympathizer, Coward, Idiot, Nutjob, Moonbat, Fag, Communist, Evil, and other such things. I’ve been told, to shut up, trust them, don’t worry, go shopping. And I’m supposed to not be angry at the other side? I think most of the leaders of the punditocracy are fools. I think most of the conservative bloggers are fools. I think there are some good Republicans in Washington who I respect(John Warner, John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, Ron Paul, Arlen Specter, Colin Powell, Sandra Day O’Conner, etc..) But they aren’t conservatives, they’re moderate. So I don’t hate conservatives, that’s stupid, I don’t even know them. I just dislike conservatism as its inherently incarnated. It used to seem like conservatism was a counterweight to big government. And that I could get behind and support. They would both work to keep the other from going too far. Now conservatism seems to be about countering secular p.c.-ness with religious holier than thou-ness. I don’t like this fight. What happened to small government conservatism? This is definitely not my grandma’s Republican party (as she keeps telling me).
I look at Spains poisoned political atmosphere just before the civil war, and don’t think for a moment it can’t happen here. Tommy’s comments illustrate this perfectly, since the ‘treacherous� Democrats are doing it that justifies the Republicans responding in kind. The Democrats are saying exactly the same thing as both sides justify their ratcheting up the rhetoric based on what the other side has done. We in the middle have to step up to the plate and be the responsible adults, if we don’t and the middle is forced out of the political discussion we could see Spain reenacted. Also note that one of the things that started the problems in Spain was political fallout from the Rif war in Morocco that went badly at first.
Ryan H- Maybe its intellectual laziness. It takes a lot of reading and thinking about the issues to come up with a position that is not just a knee-jerk reaction. Most cable-news shows are slanted to a certain point of view, and as you mentioned, talk radio has a huge influence. Its hard to find a neutral source nowadays.
Other factors include the fact that most party activists are more radicalized in their viewpoints, and are better organized politically. They are the ones more likely to vote in primaries, support the party without questioning it, and contribute money to its candidates. So the parties capitalize on it, playing to their respective bases to stay in power. The people in the middle, who do tend to be more independent-minded get lost in the shuffle.
I wonder if more voters registered as Independents if it would force the candidates to moderate their views and their tactics.
Your readers may be interested in knowing that Hofsteder’s essay (The Paranoid Style in American Politics) came out in the early 50′s and detailed the paranoia of the political right at the time. Back then, the Republicans were the party of denial, delusion (does anyone remember fluoridated water?), projection (McCarthy) and paranoia. It is my point, and one of the fundamental points of my blog that this paranoid style has been adopted by the Democrats and has reached a near-fever pitch sinc the 2000 election. I am neither a Democrat or a Republican and I happen to loathe many aspects of both parties. But it is clear to me as a psychiatrist that this paranoid style has infected primarily the left side of the political spectrum. It may well be that whatever political party happens to be out of power is vulnerable to such psychological dysfunction. But I suspect that a particular confluence of events–specifically, the end of the Cold War and the beginning of what some have termed WWIV after the 9/11 attacks–makes the current iteration of the paranoia much more pathological and serious for American life. If the Democrats continue to exclude any moderates who don’t toe the line (e.g., Lieberman) and alienate any groups who dare to think outside their ideological box, then the Democrats will become increasingly irrelevant and dangerous to America. I hope this will not happen, but first they have to develop a little psychological insight into the real motivations and the consequences of their behavior.
With all due respect, Dr. Sanity, I would be more inclined to listen to your argument if you hadn’t professed that you have no allegiance to either party. The links you use to augment your argument are all from right wing ideologues. Not moderates, not nonpartisans. Just right wing ideologues. The links on your web sight are all to right wing ideologues. No moderates, no democrats, no nonpartisans. Again, just right wing ideologues.
And looking through your past posts they don’t strike me as, um, shall I say, non-ideological. In fact, they seem rather strident.
So excuse me if that takes away just a bit from your non-allegiance disclaimer.
Do you have any empirical evidence for your assertions of the “paranoid� left? Any studies you can site?
The last study that I can recall addressing any type of traits or characteristics of a political party was “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.” As you may or may not recall, this study concluded that conservatives often exhibit fear, aggression, uncertainty avoidance, intolerance of ambiguity, dogmatic dislike of equality, irrational nostalgia and need for “cognitive closure.” Of course, as you well know, these are all aspects of the authoritarian personality. And, as a psychiatrist, I am sure you are also aware of the paranoid/schizoid dynamics not uncommon with authoritarians .
With all due respect, I’m sensing a little projection here. Mental health speak and all.
Dr.- Do you not see that the Republicans are driving moderates out as well? Ever hear of Club for Growth? Their organization exists to promote conservative candidates over moderates in the party, and they have had some success in the primaries. So, I think this is occurring on both sides.
Michael van der Galien writes: “It is about acting as if individuals represent an entire party / part of the population.”
I would have been more impressed if these words were issued even as Nancy Pelosi, et al, were condemning the entire Republican party for the rather despicable behavior of one Mark Foley.
As the Dem leadership were demnading the resignation of the Republican leadership, referring to them as corrupt and citing Foley’s behaviour as ‘Republican family values,’ I cannot recall a ‘moderate voice’ castigating the Democrats.
If you wanna play, you gotta pay.
Michael van der Galien writes: “It is about acting as if individuals represent an entire party / part of the population.”
I would have been more impressed if these words were issued even as Nancy Pelosi, et al, were condemning the entire Republican party for the rather despicable behavior of one Mark Foley.
As the Dem leadership were demnading the resignation of the Republican leadership, referring to them as corrupt and citing Foley’s behaviour as ‘Republican family values,’ I cannot recall a ‘moderate voice’ castigating the Democrats.
If you wanna play, you gotta pay.
heh. am i the only one that found humor in this?
Not only is Tommy’s adherence to the RNC and talk radio line humorous but so is Dr. Sanity’s claim about the left displaying paranoia. Who is claiming that there is a war on Christmas? Who is trembling in deathly fear that the majority religion in this country is “under attack”? Paranoia, indeed.
Am I the only one around here who thinks that even considering letting a guy who was previously impeached for bribery onto the intelligence committee is sheer insanity and not in the best interests of our country?
Apparently so. Thus proving my point that the Dems don’t really give a shit after all.
Yes if the Dems get elected the gates of hell will open and we will all sprout horns on our heads and be wearing bat wings. I find that really cool, the wings will let you fly around and the horns are a good place to put sticky notes.
grognard–
Sticky notes? Hilarious! You rock!
Kim Ritter–
I’m starting to get the feeling that “Dr.’Sanity’” won’t be coming back to answer your questions about the Republican purge of moderates.
ack–
You nailed the Doc’s schtick. Charles Krauthammer, another right-wing psychiatrist, coined the expression “Bush Derangement Syndrome” to apply to Bush opponants. But I think history may have a different judgement as to which side was deranged.
I wonder why so many rightwing hacks like Dr. Sanity feel the need to claim independence. And then there’s the whole business of “as a psychiatrist.” It is to laugh.
BYG, thanks, just trying to find a silver lining to the end of the world.
That is right, grognard. No big deal. Let Alcee Hastings on to the House Intelligence Committeee. Nothing wrong with a guy who takes bribes accepting viewing important national security information. No risk in that. Who cares? What is wrong with that.
You prove my point, Dems simply cannot be trusted.
BYG- I’m getting the exact same feeling about the good Doctor, LOL! The great thing about blogging is you can think for hours (and research) your reply to an argument.
Tommy- But Republicans can be trusted, right Tommy?
Republicans like Rep Fooley, Rep Weldon, Rep Cunningham,Sen Burns, Rep Delay, Rep Jerry Lewis, Rep Sherwood, Rep Ney, Sen Frist, Rep Kolbe, Rep Reynolds and Rep Hastert. Kind of a long list, ain’t it? And getting longer as we speak.
Kim Ritter,
Which one of those Republicans was caught engaging in some sort of graft and later was seriously considered for a spot on an intelligence committee?
Maybe none of them, but that doesn’t mean that I trust them any more than I do the Dems, LOL. Many on this list are under investigation, are indicted and awaiting trial or have been sentenced. Ney has been sentenced for his role in the Abramoff scandal, but he refuses to resign. And I guess the speaker’s not in much of a position to question his decision, either.
Tommy, be afraid, be very afraid, I also found out that my suits are going to require alterations for bat wings. So there could be a downside to this after all, but on the other hand I don’t wear hats so the horn issue is a non starter.
Kim, I’m sorry but I have to disagree, Republicans might have made a few mistakes but they are not in league with the Devil. That’s the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Kim Ritter,
How does something like the Foley scandal endanger our national security? Scandals are one thing, willingly gambling our national security on someone who is provably corruptible is another.
Tommy —The Republicans have had those who have received bribes in positions jeopardizing national security as well- remember Foggo and Cunningham? Cunningham sat on the intelligence and appropriations committees, and was considered the Republican expert on national security. Still don’t see any distinction.
Kim Ritter,
Are you claiming those individuals were offered promotions by Republicans after being involved in scandals or simply caught in scandals while in sensitive positions? Foggo is no longer with the CIA and Cunningham has resigned. Neither is being offered a promotion by Republican leaders to a sensitive position. If Republicans were to consider promoting either individual, that would be truly outrageous. Nothing like that has occurred. In fact, neither is any sensitive position any longer. If you can’t see the distinction between the two, then you aren’t trying very hard.
Tommy- I find it difficult to believe that you would be outraged about anything a Republican has done. The past 6 years have been the most scandal-ridden in recent memory in the Congress- yet you blow that off. Lest you be too proud of their policing their own party, Cunningham was outed by investigative reporting- not by his own party. Foley resigned after ABC notified him they were about to publicize his e-mails. WaPo broke the Abramoff scandal which led to the resignations of Delay and Ney. You come off as though the Reps are ridding themselves of these crooks as soon as they know what is going on.
If you look at the words “enemy” and “opponent” and look into what the differences between the two words really mean, you can’t help but conclude that the language we use in our present political discourse is a large part of the problem. The same it true of DINO and RINO (and MINO, as I’ve seen used here from time to time) – the terms themselves are intended to polarize and destroy the person instead of the argument.
I’ve gone into both of these issues in far greater detail than I can here at my blog: DINO and RINO and Enemies or Opponents.