Control Your Emotions, Or They Will Control You!

New at Reason: Is irrational hatred of Bush the flipside of irrational hatred of Clinton? Is this kind of wrath dangerous for the hater? Will we have to wait for somebody to get hurt before it starts being funny? Cathy Young has the answers.

Comments

[Jon H]

I think it's a good sign that people tend to be pretty neutral about politicians in general from the other side. The venom seems to decrease as you go down from the leadership to the plebes.

I think we'd be in real trouble if J. Random Congressman whipped up that kind of hate from the other side.

[Brian Hawkins]

thoreau--

Well said.

[kevrob]

Re: Reagan

Of course he contradicted himself. Shall we start with the Chrysler bailout, the tariff on heavy motorcycles designed to protect a reorganizing Harley-Davidson, or his broken campaign promise to end draft registration?[F1] He also proposed NAFTA and negotiated the FTA with Canada as its first step. That a politician who got relected by winning 49 states and over 58% of the popular vote would be claimed by competing heirs to his legacy shouldn't surprise. The Dems have been doing the same w/FDR for decades, and candidates apeing JFK's "look and feel" has become such a cliche that it has become a source of ridicule. (see John "F." Kerry.)

Kevin

[1] http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa086es.html

[bennett]

And notice that even here, in this thread, some can not resist cheap shots. In my opinion, the decline of discourse is a function of the mass media and pop culture. The ratings driven, 24-7 news culture has come to define the interaction between politicians and news media. News organizations now aim to increase market share, not report the news. Important decisions that affect our lives are made everday (enourmous Pentagon budgets are approved, small business regulations enacted, ect, ect.....). Covering them is just not that interesting. Politics is becoming more and more like theatre designed for mass consumption, appealing to the lowest common denominator, and following the same formula as "Reality" TV(strong personalities put into situations where conflicts arise thus creating drama).

[LB]

"In my opinion, the decline of discourse is a function of the mass media and pop culture."

I blame Clinton...or Dick Cheney. Whatever.

[Larry]

Wouldn't you expect hate from a political culture where the most popular response to a problem was to declare war on it? (Drugs, poverty, SUVs, pornography, ad nauseum.)

[thoreau]

I often hear that the media and politicians were so much better in "the good old days." And then I hear about muck-raking reporters in "the good old days". And I read about the Charlie Chaplin trial, a circus to match OJ. And I wonder if the media was ever so great in "the good old days."

Some say that the "good old days" were prior to Clinton. Some say they were prior to Reagan. Some harken back to Watergate and say "the reporting then was so responsible" while others say "That marked the beginning of irresponsible coverage." Some go even further back. But everybody has some cut-off when "the good old days" of media and politics ended and the circus began.

I look back at Burr vs. Hamilton and think there must have been some hatred there. I look at political disputes bitter enough to cause a civil war and think that there must have been some pretty acrimonious politics in the 1800's (please, let's not refight the Civil War on this forum as we so often do. Let's just admit that when people start killing each other that's a sign of a bitter dispute once upon a time.).

I look at the Florida recount, where both sides claimed that the other side cheated, and I think "Wow, things must have been pretty tense in that Hayes vs. Tilden contest." (Yes, there was a nasty Florida recount in 1876.)

So I don't know that poisonous politics is some new thing brought about by a newly irresponsible media. I acknowledge that the acrimony has probably waxed and waned over the years, so there may have been "better times." But I refuse to believe that this current acrimony is some new thing.

[thoreau]

I almost forgot to mention that once upon a time people in both houses of Congress would occasionally bring weapons with them and threaten each other during debates. One VP (back when the VP still spent most of his time presiding in the Senate) actually carried pistols to keep order.

[Brady]

I would say that any emotion towards the president should be a good sign. At least that means Americans give a rats ass. I'm much more worried about apathy than "irrational hatred".

Further, it should be expected that US presidents take more heat than the newest member in the cast of Days of Our Lives. We are talking about the signle most important job in the US. So, if someone is going to say the Pres is doing a bad job, they very well may be emotionally involved with that opinion.

The funny part of bennett's argument is it shows an interesting factor in democracy. Don't blame the media for the ratings, blame the people. And if you are complaining that the people are causing the politicians to be focused on meaningless crap (DNC list) then you are complaining about the mob rule of democracy. Of course it is rediculous that the latest DNC bill went through Congress like a hot potato!

But, I think specifically the problem is that those in the WH and Congress are supposed to be leaders of the people, not the sheep of the people. Most politicians are only worried about getting re-elected, not improving America. That doesn't mean politicians should ignore the people, but they should definitely guide their focus in the right direction.

[Warren]

"Clinton ran as a centrist, pro-business, law-and-order Democrat; Bush, as a "compassionate conservative."

That statement exemplifies the fallacy of Cathy's piece. True, Clinton ran as a centrist. He also governed as a centrist. Bush has governed in direct opposition to every issue he campaigned on (save tax cuts).

[Mark Borok]

Let's see... Clinton was an experienced and savvy politician widely reputed to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Bush was a figurehead governor of Texas whose lack of curiousity and shallow intellect is pretty much his defining trait. Assuming you knew nothing about the political ideology of either, which one would you pick for the role of "illegitimate" president? Which one makes you think, "Geez, I can't believe this guy is the leader of the free world"?

[Jason]

Shit, when Clinton was first elected, his persona was that of a drifter still trying to yank his pants up while he skkedaddled out of town after boinking the sheriff's daughter. That man of the world garbage got sewn back on later. Sure, he had studied in England and danced about Red Square, but that had rubbed way off after a just a little time back in the mud of ArKansas, where he had the state troopers propositioning "that purty one from the back table. And get me some fries with that."

[Jough]

"To say, yes, the CIA/FBI - whoever - dropped the ball"

I think we know who dropped the ball...

[thoreau]

I think Mark Borok and Jason perfectly illustrate the polarizing lenses through which Presidents are viewed.

Clinton was a cosmopolitan and well-educated man.
vs.
Clinton was a lowbrow hick who sent his state troopers to get him women.

Clinton was a brilliant policy wonk with great ideas for reforming American policy.
vs.
Clinton was the governor of a backwards state and he did nothing to turn it around.

Clinton was impeached for a trifling personal offense that doesn't rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
vs.
Clinton was impeached for flouting the sacred rule of law.

It was the best of times.
vs.
It was the worst of times.

A similar Rorschach test could be done for Bush.

Bush was a businessman before entering politics.
vs.
Bush was a failed crony capitalist.

Bush implemented great educational reforms in Texas.
vs.
Bush was a figurehead who let other officials run the state.

Bush is a good Christian man who has used his faith to overcome the demon of addiction.
vs.
Bush is a hypocrite who squandered his youth on booze and now feigns being a role model.

Which is true? Does it matter? Most political commentary seems geared to rallying the faithful rather than winning converts, so there's no point teasing out the truth in those conflicting statements. That's the polarized nature of 2-party politics. There's no third way 🙁

[Don]

"That statement exemplifies the fallacy of Cathy's piece. True, Clinton ran as a centrist. He also governed as a centrist. Bush has governed in direct opposition to every issue he campaigned on (save tax cuts)."

He sure wasn't governing as a centrist when he was pushing his wife's health care "reforms". And, when he signed the Crime Bill, he wasn't much of a centrist, either (it barely passed a Democratic House). Bill became a "centrist" late on, when he co-opted Republican ideas like welfare reform, and he did this for tactical reasons.

[Anonymous]

Many Democrats, including some who cannot in any way be classified as right-wing extremists, sincerely believe that the election was "stolen" by Bush and his cronies.

I'll bet! Err, she meant "left-wing extemists", right?

[Mark Borok]

"Bush was a figurehead who let other officials run the state."

This one I don't think is a matter of opinion. I believe the texas.gov web site clearly states that the position of governor is largely ceremonial according to Texas law. At least that's what I'm going by.

[Franklin Harris]

On the other hand, maybe it's rational to hate both of them. One is a gladhanding sleaze and the other is a smirking frat boy. I wouldn't go out drinking with either of them.

[Jeff Clothier]

The "I hate so-and-so" effect is the single most egregious force in politics. True, one's ideology is a large part of his personality, but it is the artful politician - and the intelligent voter - who can be cordial even with someone with whom they strongly disagree. This does not mean one must be soft on issues or compromise his principles. It does mean that "I hate that guy..." does not constitute an intelligent political point of view, and is unlikely to sway anyone but those who already go along with your prejudice.

[PLC]

I tend to agree with most of what you wrote, excluding this: "Why the hatred? Partly, it's the change in the political climate, which has become nastier and more polarized over the past decade."

I don't believe that the political climate has really changed much - the majority of Americans are still fairly moderate, and they didn't hate Clinton and they don't hate Bush.

The change, I think, is the attention paid to the extreme wings of each party. I don't know why, but nutjobs are getting major press nowadays. Would Michael Savage or Eric Alterman have had to a network such as MSNBC twenty years ago?

[dhex]

there's always been really mean shit going on in politics. mr. hamilton and mr. burr come to mind.

i think the nutjobs and whackos have a bigger outlet and there's just greater access to fringe ideas (like libertarianism) and a certain love of political theatre. of course, the group of people who genuinely give enough of a shit to vote is remarkably small, but i don't think that has much to do with nastiness.

[PLC]

Hamilton was just kidding around. Burr took it all too seriously.

[david f]

"politics has always been nasty" doesn't seem to describe the huge change in the 90s with clinton. people didn't like reagan, but he was so popular, the few who really despised the man were ignored.

however, when dick armey uses the term "barney-fag" as a "freudian slip" on the floor, yes we are getting back into the 1830s and 40s.

many on both sides did hang out before the 90s. that seems to be gone.

so, the explosion of different news outlets might have something to do with it, but it is amazing to see how both mr. bush and mr. clinton get the wrath of many. see bushbodycount.com for example.

(and why aren't we calling out the dems on their stories about WMDs in iraq. didn't they forget it was their story originally?)

thanks,
drf

[tspur]

Is it alright if I hate both of them? Isn't that the healthy alternative?

[Brady]

The reason that Bush has sparked emotion from a great number of Americans is that he has underestimated them. Bush asked the American public to put faith in the WH and their policies after 9/11, in a very similar fashion to how Christians tell the masses to have faith in God. Trust us, there are WMD in Iraq. Trust us, the war in Iraq is part of the War on Terror that started on 9/11. Trust me as I'm in my flight suit, the war is over. Instead of threatening hell, this administration uses fearmongering and misuse of the word "patriot" to influence the American people. Terr-o-meters, Patriot Act, CAPPS II; the list goes on. To question the president, some would like you to believe is a traitorous act. Questioning the President is somehow an act of agression against our troops.

They have taken advantage of 9/11 to allow the neo-cons to begin to go through with the plans groups like the PNAC have been dreaming up for the past decade.

This WH has underestimated the American people because they did not expect us to use critical thought or demand accountability. Instead of the usual apathy Americans have towards politics, many are coming out from the woodwork and are demanding change. Who was ever held accountable for letting the 9/11 attacks slip through the intelligence cracks? Who was held accountable for telling us WMD were in Iraq, while now there are still none to be found? Who has been found accountable for the Iraq/Niger yellowcake connection in the State of the Union address? The problem is Bush's, as Gene Healy put it recently, "indifference with fatuous certitude".

The reason our fealings toward Bush are progressing towards what some may call "irrational hatred" is that poor leadership and decision-making is something Americans cannot tolerate. How the world sees our country now is very different from how we were seen when the Berlin Wall came down.

Bush represents all of us to the face of the rest of the world - which is the majority of the population of the world. He has misled us and tarnished our good name. It is time for change.

[Not to Name Names or Anything]

Tom Fucking De Lay, the extreme fringe nutjob with the mainstream voice. The man who prefers a stiff DDT cocktail right before bed. He sleeps with one eye open you know? Its pretty creepy!

Is there a democrat version of him? Anyone?

[fyodor]

Exaggerated partisan animosity is hardly a new or exceptional thing. Of course, neither is war, so that hardly makes it a good thing, either.

[david f]

"Is there a democrat version of him? Anyone?"

you can bet the dems wish there were. just as they wish they had a version of rush or someone as powerful as gingrich was...

just like a lot of the republicans wished they could get a hummer from a thong wearing intern...

to quote Hawk from the Spenser (books): "jealousy is an ugly thing" (from teammates)...

oh, Mr "Not to Name Names or Anything" you must have to write really tiny to get your name on your checks.....

🙂
drf

[chthus]

Brady,

You must not have a very long experience of interacting with Europeans. I've been working and socializing with a number of folks from Europe, the Mid-East, South America and Asia for well over a decade. The attitudes I have seen have changed little over the past decade and a half. Western Europe, doesn't like us, for a variety of ever changing reasons. Eastern Europe, likes us. Mid-East dislikes us either because we won't leave or because we won't take a stronger presence there. South America, generally ambivalent, but all keep coming here. And Asia is curious as to why we are so hesitant to use the full bore of our might to make the world exactly how we want it, they would if they could.

[vini vidi vici]

What drivel!

Bill Clinton gets smeared on everything from Hardball to the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal as a murderer and rapist and that is somehow equivalent to some nutjob popping up in a google search? Please.

When Cathy finds a liberal as widespread as Rush Limbaugh (almost a joke in itself) using a picture of the Bush twins in a Jenna Jameson crack (remember Chelsea the dog?) then we can talk comparisons. Until then it's empty rhetoric. Vince Foster? Juanita Broadrick? Kathleen Willey? Troopergate? Travelgate? Haircutgate? Paula Jones? And you've got what - a fringe lunatic blathering about Paul Wellstone.

And then to cap it all off, she closes with some inane warning to Democrats not to "alienate some of their supporters" by behaving like the Republicans did. Last time I checked, the GOP controlled the executive, legislative and (arguably) judicial branches of our government. Boy, they really paid for that offensively dishonest behavior, didn't they.

Just you wait until Soros greenlights my "Crawford Project."

Guess I'm controlled by emotions...

[thoreau]

There's also a certain amount of "irrational worship" for Presidents. I notice it most frequently among conservatives, but that could very well be a reflection of my own biases (since I generally see liberals as "lesser evils" relative to conservatives, I may be blind to stupid practices among liberals).

The cult of Reagan is most obvious. Before anybody flames me, just hear me out: I've heard conservatives of every stripe invoke His name to defend their platform. A free trade libertarian style Republican will talk about how Reagan believed in the power of market economics. A Buchananite conservative (a minority in the GOP, admittedly) will talk about how Reagan believed ardently in protecting American jobs and prosperity. A libertarian Republican will talk about how Reagan believed in limited government, and a theocratic Republican will talk about how Reagan was a firm proponent of traditional values.

I could continue the list, but you get my point. However great Reagan was, surely he wasn't in favor of free trade and protectionism. Surely he wasn't in favor of government leaving us alone and government regulating every aspect of our personal lives. The contradictions in the cult of Reagan are obvious. When Pat Buchanan and Tom Campbell (a libertarian-style Republican and former US Congressman from California) both lavish praise on Reagan, something is wrong here.

The cult of Bush may be less apparent now, but I've noticed it here and there. I've noticed that among my more religious friends there's a tendency to simply trust Bush in whatever he does because he's a good God-fearing man. A friend said that his father (a minister) supported going to war simply because he trusts Bush in whatever Bush does. Now sure, next to Clinton anybody will seem like a saint. But is Bush really our savior? I think not.

The cult of Clinton is less obvious because there was a Naderite revolt on the far left. But many of my liberal friends circled the wagons around Clinton during the impeachment, and every flaw of Bush is compared to an alleged virtue of Clinton. Bush lied (allegedly) about WMD, Clinton lied about a BJ. Clinton created the greatest prosperity ever (they never explain how it was due to him rather than market forces) and Bush created a recession (they never explain how it was due to him rather than market forces).

Anyway, worship is as irrational as blind hatred when it comes to Presidents.

[Brady]

chthus:

i'd have to seriously question that Bush is simply maintaining the status quo in terms of the world's perception of the US. even if you claim that to be true, the troubling issue is that he is proving many of their claims to be true - one being that americans are self-interested pricks.

but truly, the perception that Americans hold towards Bush is much more relevant for this conversation.

[Whit]

Brady hit the nail on the head. But in addition to that, the only reason Eastern Europeans like us is b/c of suppression of western ideas and culture do to the cold war. Give it another ten or fifteen years and that will wear thin. Eastern Europe doesn't think to highly of us b/c the U.S. is slowly going towards this Imperialist ideology and we're starting to act like the world is ours for the taking. Asians could make the world like they wanted it if they so desired. China anyone?

[Clement Vallandigham]

Brady:

Getting beyond the ad hominem and smears of your post, there are three identifiable criticisms:

No Iraq WMD: Everyone and their mothers (including the French, Russians, Canadians, and the rest of the peaceful US community) were convinced he had them. If Hussein was able to fool the entire world that convincingly, has was dangerous enough to be taken out on that basis alone. Lastly, Iraq is a big country, last I checked about 170,000 square miles.

9/11 intelligence accountability? (guffaw, chortle) Before we get to Bush, we need to discuss Clinton, Berger, et. al. and the 1993 WTC attack, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole Bombing, etc. Assigning political blame for that is irrational, it's bipartisan concern.

"Iraq/Niger Yellowcake"? Oops, the Brits STILL affirm that Iraq was talking to other African countries, not just Niger. Let me reiterate: AFRICAN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN NIGER. You're creating a only-Niger source ruse, please give us a break.

I also have it on good authority that the plane really didn't hit the Pentagon, and that the Israeli enbassy warned the Jews (some of whom many have been Neo-cons, incidentally) to stay away from the towers on September 11. You may want to check these out as well.

[Mitch]

I suppose all this talk of how people "hate" the president is sort of interesting, but, I think, more interesting, is how opposition politicians (mainly the Congress) deal with the President. Sure, Clinton thrashed the GOP when it came to elections. But what about legislation? The Clinton domestic legislation record is pretty conservative (e.g.; NAFTA, Welfare Reform.) Did the Democrats ever use the presidency to outmaneuver the GOP legislatively? I think the Republicans in the legislature dealt quite ably with Clinton. Are the Democrats doing as good a job in opposition as the GOP did? I hear conservatives gripe about the education bill being written by Teddy Kennedy and then there is the steel tariff (was that the Demo's idea?), but in general the President seems to do what he wants, as with the tax cuts, Patriot Act, and the war.

[Brady]

Clement:

I think you miss the point, especially on the latter of the 2.

My point is not that blame needs to be on Bush for 9/11, but that there still must be accountability. To say, yes, the CIA/FBI - whoever - dropped the ball and this is what we can do to fix it is much more reasonable than creating a beaurocratic nightmare like the Dept of Homeland Security and the terr-o-meter (yes, i do like using that term).

Look, when you have a problem, such as people blowing up buildings in your country, usually you want to detail out what characteristics in your environment are allowing a problem to exist. Once those weaknesses are recognized action can be taken to correct those issues. If you do not first define a problem how are you supposed to solve it?

On the third - who gives a shit what the Brits are saying? The truth is if this crap is still in such debate, the president should have thrown it out there in the SOU with a hint of uncertainty, which he did not.

And, back to the WMD. True, others believed that the likelihood of WMD in Iraq was high. However, who else was so convinced that they were going in guns blazing? If you are going to ignore the world and do so, you better be damn sure - more sure than they are - that your assumption is true.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but to say that no mistakes have been made is just pure idiocy.

Lastly, let's throw a new one in there. Let's grow government - even more so than Clinton - and give a huge tax cut. And yes, Bush's plans for growth were in existence BEFORE 9/11. Look, you could argue Keynesian economics all you want, but truth be told even those who buy into that line of thought will tell you that tax cuts and deficit spending should only be a short-term solution to boost an economy. When is Bush going to start telling us what programs he plans on cutting to pay for his long-term tax cuts and long-term efforts on the War on Terror?

Another one - who is responsible for going into Iraq without a plan on how to rebuild the country? I could go on forever.

[Andrew Lynch]

Today, Bush-o-phobes on the Internet traffic in similar rumors about the plane crash that killed Senator Paul Wellstone, the Minnesota Democrat.

You know, I did not know that. I don't think my life is richer for knowing that. Was it productive to contrast forgettable contrivances only to resurrect them with only a cursory mention? Or is this, and other assertions in Cathy Young's article, just another meme?

[HH]

"Is there a democrat version of him? Anyone?"

The former KKK-er? the boozehound who left a woman to die to save his political career? Shall I go on?

[joe]

Looks like Young's going to ride this "two peas in a pod" faux objectivity for all it's worth. What is this, the third column in a row? She used to be my favorite Reason columnist. What happened?

Her very first parallel shows how absurd her thesis is: Republicans accused Clinton of murder, Democrats accused Bush of murder. Except that the Republican Congress actually held hearings on Capitol Hill, and the foremost conservative newspapers in America (WSJ, Washington Times) ran editorials and full page ads accusing Clinton of murder. And you put up against this, what? "Shrubsux on Democratic Underground says 'that nazi Bushitler kiled Paul Wellstone!'?" Spare me.

"Depending on how you calculate the savings, Bush's tax plan either..." I am getting so sick of journalist pretending that a refusal to think critically is a virtue.

[Brady]

equal opportunity hater

it has been too long since i last heard that term. L O L !!!!

[Kevin Carson]

HH,

I think the reference was to DeLay's aggressive and authoritarian personal style--you know, the persona that got him nicknamed "the Hammer"?

[Kevin Carson]

Mark Borok,

I believe you're right. Texas has even more of a Reconstruction constitution than Arkansas. In Arkansas, the lieutenant governor, secretary of state and attorney-general are elected separately, and may be of different parties. In Texas, I think, several other cabinet posts are elective and the governor has no veto or pardon power. Not that that's a bad thing.

And BTW, I'm an equal opportunity hater when it comes to Clinton and Bush. So I guess that makes me twice as irrational.

[joe]

HH,

The Democratic equivalent of Tom Delay, meaning the legislative leader who leads the PR war against the other party? That would "vicious, partisan" Tom Daschle. Or maybe Nancy Pelosi.

You've got a Hammer. We've got a Nancy. Yep, peas in a pod.