Tea Party of Not Coolness
I met David Corn back in the day when I he debated Rich Lowry at St. Olaf College. It was a fun debate (and honestly, I think Lowry bested him). Corn is a loud liberal journalist, Lowry a staunch conservative. They both appear on NPR and PBS and the like, in addition to writing for their respective magazines.
Corn’s most recent post “Is the Tea Party Gang Turning the GOP Into a Party of Hate?” at Politics Daily brings up some really interesting points. No matter your political persuasion, you can’t really argue, can you, that the Tea Party race baiting and name-calling is helpful?
Corn’s piece mentions signs at the most recent Tea Party Rally that included:
“Get the Red Out of the White House,” “Waterboard Congress,” “Ken-ya Trust Obama?” One called the president a “Traitor to the U.S. Constitution.” Another sign showed pictures of dead bodies at the Dachau concentration camp and compared health care reform to the Holocaust. A different placard depicted Obama as Sambo. Yes, Sambo. Another read, “Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds” — a reference to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory holding that one evil Jewish family has manipulated events around the globe for decades.
Maybe I’m just a knee jerk anti-name-calling guy, but come on. As I would often say to kids I counseled at summer camp, “Dude, that’s just not cool.”
Maybe such signs and opinions are just the loud extreme. Maybe, if I dialoged with a sign-holder, I would come to understand their perspective and appreciate their opinions. But depicting the President as Sambo? That’s just not cool.
Connect Online
I agree – SO not cool. I wish we could return to actual intelligent dialogue…
Adam, if you’re going to be fair then you have to include liberal descriptions or depictions of President Bush over the last eight years. Hate mongering is not just exclusive to conservatives.
Of course, Stushie, hate mongering is never cool. Period.
Sorry, Adam… but the ‘hate-mongering is never cool’ response rings a little hollow and perfunctory.
During the Bush years, liberals didn’t object to the hatred of him, even though it was ugly, frequent and often mainstream. There were no calls for civility… those calls have only come now that President Obama is the target.
If you yourself objected vigorously to hatred of President Bush, then my apologies. But in my observation, the left in general didn’t object at all back then… for them now to say ‘hate isn’t cool’ doesn’t work.
I’m on the road and need to keep things snappy, chris. The post concerned this particular event at this time and I really rather not be bunched in with all liberals in years past. Of course you’re right–hypocracy is always not cool as well. Peace.
Fair enough, Adam. Didn’t mean to paint you in broad strokes. You seem a thoughtful person, willing to hear both sides.
I’ve read accounts of Tea Party events from sympathetic observers, and they paint a different picture than the one I see in the media — in general the participants are normal and ordinary. (There are kooks and fringers in every group.)
I still see a double standard. While it’s uncool to hate President Obama, it was always cool to hate President Bush… indeed back then it was the very essence of cool. I doubt this has changed much.
Peace to you and safe travels.
I have to say that it was not *always* cool to hate President Bush. After 9/11, President Bush had the country and the world on his side. When he decided pursue the war in Iraq, the feelings of patriotism and trust made it decidedly uncool to question the validity of the President’s claims concerning the necessity of the war. Later, of course, there were many questions, plenty of anger, and many unfair and hateful portrayals of President Bush. It is fair to say that hating President Bush became cool, but it was not always cool. He did win re-election, after all.
Good point, Rebekah… I’d forgotten that. GWB did have a lot of support after 9/11.
And yet… the Bushes couldn’t walk in their Inauguration Parade in ’01 b/c people were throwing eggs at the motorcade. It was a conflicted relationship from the start.