(In response to loyal reader Kevin’s request)
As a media critic, I’m astounded by the way both sides of the U.S. political landscape pick up and put down arguments they were passionate about when they are on the other side.
So for example, for eight years, liberals screamed about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and about the prison in Guantanamo, but now that they have their candidate in the White House and their leadership in Congress, we barely hear a whimper. The only voice I’ve heard raised about this was Bill Maher, who has been sharply critical of Obama for his lack of real change so far and raised each of these points as examples.
My question for both sides: when Gitmo opened, there were  as many as 1,000 prisoners held there. Now, there are 258. What happened to the other so-called “enemy combatants?” Why has no one investigated why the Chinese Uyghurs were held for five years, when they shared what used to be the U.S. goal of fighting communism? Five years in our version of Siberia? Why is neither side appalled at that?
Why hasn’t Obama, who has a mandate similar to that of Ronald Reagan’s in 1980, rammed through policies such as universal health care, as Reagan did with his tax initiatives? Why has he been so wimpy and spent so much time reaching out to the other side, when it wants nothing to do with him? Why hasn’t he done what LBJ did with Medicare in 1964: gotten the job done?  If the Dems had  any balls, they would have passed it, gotten rid of health insurance companies that spend as much as 40 percent of their dollars on internal bureaucracy, and put into effect a less wasteful government plan. If the people were unhappy with it, they could vote the Democrats out of office and go back to what we have, but at least they would have pleased the majority who voted for change.
I listened to Rush Limbaugh this morning, as I do many mornings, and he criticized Obama for not knowing what to do in Iraq or Afghanistan, and called the president names from ineffective to psychotic. My question: why, when anyone criticized the Republican administration of the previous eight years, were they said to be harming the troops and unpatriotic? What happened to that argument made daily by Limbaugh and his minions?
For liberals: these people who hate Obama are not racists. They would have been just as vitriolic against Hillary Clinton, just as they were against her husband. They would have painted all of them with Hitler mustaches. It’s not because of Obama’s race. It’s because they simply demonize anyone who doesn’t believe as they do. (See above.) And, frankly, claiming that race is an issue except in a small number of cases, is just as demonizing.
Why do conservatives denigrate the so-called mainstream media, until it says something with which they agree? When the London Times reported as many as 2 million people showed up for the 9/12 rally in Washington, they touted is as the definitive source, even though Washington police claimed it was closer to 70,000. Â A good helicopter view showed this wasn’t nearly as big as Obama’s inaugural, despite Limbaugh’s claim that it was bigger.
Why do people who lament the rise of Mexican illegal immigration say nothing about the tens of thousands of Iraqis who are being repatriated here, largely under the radar and definitely without jobs and no skills that differentiate them from the Mexicans? Why are people who were so glad to give up rights under the Patriot Act now so afraid of the government intervening in their health care? And why have I not heard that Obama has kept us safe from terrorists in his first nine months in office, a claim that was made monthly for Bush.
Where in the Constitution does it say that all men are created equal, except gays? Or does being a strict Constitutionalist mean you support that part that says blacks and women aren’t really equal either?
Limbaugh made this point, and he’s right: why don’t these liberals who want to ban fast foods seek the same for things such as Ben and Jerry’s ice cream? It makes you just as fat as a hamburger and fries. And the list of such things could go on ad infinitum.
Did I really hear someone say, when Obama was going to speak to school children, that government should be kept out of our schools? And in the health debate: keep government away from our Medicare?
Why was it a journalistic violation when reporters went undercover to bust Food Lion supermarkets that were selling bad meat, but not when they pretend to be a prostitute and pimp to bust Acorn? By the way, I support that journalistic tactic, much to the chagrin of many peers. Sometimes the best information comes out with undercover investigations and the ends do justify the means. An even hand would point out that not all Food Lions sold bad meat and not all ACORN employees were sleazy.
Why did liberals trash the people who grew unruly during town hall meetings, but extol those who rioted during economic summits? And visa versa?
I’m not sure the discussions will ever grow civil again. Both sides get along as well as Red Sox and Yankee. Will we ever have a time when we are all on the same side, like those ball teams are in the All Star game?
I think we could: but then, what would the media do to stir up controversy and build ratings?
Why? Because both political parties have done a good job at blinding their respective sides to looking for the truth. Politics in America has become a knee-jerk reaction, just like religion in America. You’re either for us or against us, don’t you know?
Two things are going on simultaneously in the US, and they’ve been coming for a couple decades.
First we have the ideological infantilization of the people. Everything is all about “core principles” of the ideology. It doesn’t matter which one is talking about … Left, Right, Up, Down, or Sideways … there is a strong compulsion to maintain ideological purity, at ANY cost. This of course means never acknowledging when the other side might have a good idea (which, objectively, DOES happen sometimes; even a broken clock is right, twice a day!) and broad-brush condemnation of everything about the “other” side, including vicious demonization of all persons involved. The facts don’t matter, only one’s ideology does, along with preventing any other ideology from doing anything. And whenever one feels that one’s ideology is getting “dissed,” these people react in juvenile fashion (e.g screaming at people at “town halls,” showing up at Obama events armed, staging violent rallies at G-20 meetings, etc.). They react this way because they do not really really understand anything beyond their basic immature, emotional connection with their chosen ideology; they don’t possess the knowledge to converse with anyone rationally or methodically deal with any problems.
Second we have a news media which is now more concerned with drama than with fact. This leads them to report things in ways they otherwise might not wish to, merely so they can exploit that drama. In the 90s, for example, the media on the whole (minus the occasional exception like Fox News) presented Clinton in a positive light. But when the Lewinsky scandal hit … Wham! They metaphorically body-slammed him, and were happy to do so, because the drama of an adultery story in the White House was just too good not to exploit. (This is not to say I approve of Clinton or dismiss what he did … I’m pointing out that the mass media turned on him, and did so in a huge, vicious way.)
So we have Obama marching into office earlier this year with high hopes and lots of plans. But when he hits snags … due to the drive for ideological purity and the emotional compulsion of the extremes of both Left and Right to yank at or intimidate him … this becomes a dramatic storyline for the mass media to report. Suddenly his presidency, which is less than a year old, is teetering on collapse … if you believe what’s being reported.
Most of it is all very overblown. New presidents having trouble setting an agenda and getting things done, is by no means new. It happens even to the best of them. In fact, the examples of Reagan or even FDR, who were able to push through their agendas quickly and with little rancor, are more the exception than the rule. But the mass media have fed into the idea that Obama is now completely paralyzed, befuddled, and impotent. That, however, is a conclusion which is not yet in evidence. We just don’t know yet how things will turn out for him. But the appearance of an impotent president is one the media cannot resist pushing — regardless of the facts — and it remains attractive to a large segment of the population … i.e. those who viciously hate him merely because he’s not a Rightist like them, as well as Leftists who are outraged that he’s being interfered with.
As I said, what this all means is that the country is ideologically infantilized, and the mass media are exploiting that infantilization for their own gain. None of it is good for the country, however.
that is a great analysis. Thanks.