|
samboct -> RE: The Insanity of Bush Hatred (11/15/2007 9:35:49 AM)
|
Firm
I don't hate George W. Bush- I've never met the man. And hatred implies love- the two are flip sides of the same coin. However, I despise him for his actions to whit:
1) The pervasive rise of secrecy in this administration- especially around science. The Patriot act which, while passed by Congress- certainly had strong executive support, is a pernicious attack on our constituional freedoms and legal protections.
2) Condoning torture as evidenced by Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk- the buck stops here. The buck doesn't seem to stop anywhere with this administration. With a democracy, we are all ultimately responsible for the actions of this administration, and I am furious that my tax dollars support torturers and murderers.
3) The cowboy diplomacy which has lead the US to invade a sovereign nation which posed no imminent threat to our security. Rather than taking responsibility for this action, there has been further demonizing of a large group of people in order to justify this hasty and ill conceived action. rather than focusing on the individuals responsible for criminal acts of wanton destruction.
I could go on, but I'm sure that there are plenty of well known reasons. However, to the point of your post- that hatred- not disagreement with the policies, but hatred of George W. Bush is becoming pervasive amongst liberals can be summarized in a few points as to the cause-
1) Condoning torture.
2) An anti-intellectual stance.
3) Enlisting the aid of religious conservatives.
4) Casting liberals or people with an anti-war viewpoint as unpatriotic.
Most policy decisions can be debated dispassionately. For example, the tax policies of this administration which have heavily favored the wealthy, do not really lead to a visceral response. Pro and con points can be enumerated without the sense that some moral boundary has been violated. The viewpoints of either side can be respected. However, condoning torture does lead to an inflamed and passionate response- as well it should. Condoning torture is not an attack on our wallets- it's an attack on our moral principles and the sacrifices of men and women throughout history to build a republic which would serve as a shining example to other nations.
Enlisting the aid of Christian demagogues is also an anathema to liberals, since it seems to violate the principle of the separation of church and state. While certainly individual religious beliefs can shape our political convictions, if this is done on an individual basis, it poses no threat to our constitution. However, when religious organizations began throwing organized political muscle around, this has the stink of crossing an ethical boundary- and thus is met with anger and derision from liberals. Coupled with George W. Bush's apparent anti-intellectual viewpoint- "I don't believe in evolution." this again seems like dirty pool from the neocon camp.
But perhaps the most hateful neocon tactic of all is the ad hominem aspersion that casts liberals as traitors. If a liberal tried to debate the validity of the Iraq war with a neocon, he or she is often branded as unpatriotic- or effectively calling someone a traitor. Having a democracy means that there are freedoms to express viewpoints, but castigating someone as a traitor implies that this freedom should be taken away from the person offering this viewpoint. Hence it stifles debate, and enrages people that are effectively being muzzled. What kind of democracy are we living in if by offering an opposing viewpoint, we are branded as traitors? Hence, there is real anger at the abuse of democratic principle to demonize liberals- this isn't an honest debate where there is mutual respect on both sides- this is a barroom brawl and emotions are running hot.
Does this help show the liberal viewpoint and why neocons are being met with anger by liberals?
Sam
|
|
|
|
