Leading liberals like Tom Friedman in the New York Times, Nancy Pelosi in Congress and Jimmy Carter, wherever he is, and uncountable (and unaccountable) academics seem to have become virtually unhinged by the vociferous criticism of President Obama.
Since most of these hand-wringers are not on record being bothered by the even harsher personal invective routinely heaped on President Bush, however, they seem to view civility as a one way street: everything is fine so long as everyone is walking and talking in the direction they want to go.
For example, Politico sponsored a “conversation” the other day on “Deligitimizing [sic] Presidents,” and only the moderator, Fred Barbash, noticed the harsh “delegitimizing” (correctly spelled here) of the opposition coming directly from the White House, a “Reality Check” devoted to denouncing Glenn Beck and “even more Fox lies.”
This double-standard, however, is typical. Thus in the press conference at which Nancy Pelosi “got choked up” by all the horrible political rhetoric coming from Obama’s critics, what she then said was,
And so I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, understanding that — that some of the people — the ears it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume.
We should all be careful what we say in front of Obama’s critics, in short, because so many of them are unbalanced. Civility, San Francisco style.
Or take Prof. Mary Frances Berry, who had to be pried from her chair on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, one of those taking part in Politico’s “conversation,” where she said that
[t]he slurs and attacks on [Obama] lack a factual basis and, until the next election, there is no way to reconcile the perpetrators in the Constitutional process. The attackers’ very irrationality heightens the danger of an assault.
I have no idea what she means by “reconcile the perpetrators in the Constitutional process,” but her overall meaning is quite clear: criticism of Obama is irrational and has no “factual basis.” Critics are thus both irrational and dumb; if they were smart, they would agree with other smart people such as herself.
But this view, as well, merely reflects the rhetoric coming out of the White House, as when President Obama recently told critics to shut up and get out of the way. “I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking,” he said. “I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.”
Civility, White House style.
RE;Prof. Berry’s “statement”.
If the “slurs” (show me this)
and “attacks” (show me the distinction from valid contra position)lack a factual basis, then why are they not simply dismissed, much as MSNBC “critics” between 6:00-10:00 pm?
Even the most egregiously disingenuous propaganda must have a glimmer of truth to get traction amongst the right hand side of the apex of the bell curve.
As usual, I note the attempted projection of
“irrational” and “danger of assault” set upon a love seat, segrigated by (it’s over your head, just go along)gobbledygook.
Tell me again who’s the loud minority that’s fanning the flames of racism and “threat”, where none exist, solely to promote yet another extortion of wealth (assets), and autonomy, to “Da OTHER man that wants keep you down”?
How ironic that in the children’s story of Henny Penny, it was a falling acorn that initiated all the disingenuous “threat”.
It’s entirely possible that Pelosi, Berry, and the other elftists simply do not remember as far back as 2008. Remember the scene in “Nineteen Eighty-Four” where in the middle of Hate Week everyone finds out that Oceania is actually at war with Eastasia, not Eurasia?
Otherwise, this is hypocrisy on a monumental scale. “Buh = Hitler,” “Bush Lied–People Died,” and so forth. Favorable reviews of books and films imagining the assasination of the president…for that matter, John Kerry suggesting half-jokingly that killing the president would be a desirable thing.
The invective against Obama hasn’t come anywhere near that hurled at Bush. The difference, I note as someone who did not vote for Bush, is that to my recollection Bush did not lash back, did not denounce his opponents, and carried himself as if criticism of the president, no matter how rabid, was part of what one accepts in a free society. Obama has another view on that.