You’re seizing on a specific example, from a pretty long time ago.
But in general, even the craziest conspiracy theories tend to have some evidence in favor of them. There’s evidence in favor of almost anything. It’s all in how you interpret and weigh it.
Which is even besides for the fact that a lot of people who believe these things are relying on other sources of information. It might be that their trust in those sources falls short of ideal reasoning, but that’s not the same thing as “crazed hatred”.
Then let’s not seize on a specific example, if specifics are a problem. Was there, according to your memory, crazed hatred of Clinton during his presidency?
Not relevant. I’m not sure what your point is with this.
In my original post on the subject, my point was to agree with Bricker’s general point (which I believe is also your opinion) that it’s difficult to ascribe racist motivation to “crazed hatred”. Except that Bricker was saying this because there could be other reasons for the crazed hatred, and while I don’t disagree with that, I also maintain that the whole notion that this or that is crazed hatred is generally too subjective and frequently biased.
IOW, much of what people are calling evidence of bias is really “no one could really believe such terrible things about my guy unless they were motivated by some sinister motive”.
That there’s plenty of crazed hatred for presidents going back a long time. Folks are correct to view Clinton, Bush, and Obama as targets of crazed hatred.
Absolutley–I go back through Clinton because I don’t remember it being as vitriolic with Bush I as it was with him, but then I was in high school and I sure damn hated him myself, so I may not be remembering well.
I do, however, think that American politics is in a less-nice phase than it’s been in other periods of our history; do you disagree? Not the worst by a long shot (specifically a shot heard round the world), but a far cry from the most civil periods, either.
It’s hard to base things on personal recollections. Partly because - as above - people’s perceptions of how civil others are being is highly colored by their own biases and perceptions. People tend to think the other side is visciously attacking their guys while their side is simply telling it like it is about the other guys. But partly because passions die down after a while and this colors people’s recollections. I go back as far as Reagan, and I remember attacks on him at the time as being a lot nastier than the “good old Ronnie, sincere if misguided” assessment that seems to be more current among his ideological opponents today.
That said, my guess is that we are in fact on the lower end of the scale in terms of civility, as you suggest. The basis for my thinking so is more about the fact that it logically makes sense for it to be so than my own observations. I would offer two reasons.
There’s a lot more discussion of politics and political personalities taking place on less civil media these days. Meaning talk radio, internet, comedy shows etc. The New York Times might be as civil as they ever were, but they and their like are not as big a portion of the public discussion as they once were.
My theory is that how civil political discourse will be is largely determined by how much is at stake at the time. In times when there are not big issues at stake, the conversation can be more civil, but when the issues of the day are perceived as big burning issues, people are enflamed and the conversation gets more heated. So Lincoln, for example, got a lot of heat for presiding over a war in which hundreds of thousands of Americans died, that he might not have gotten had he presided over a sleepier time.
And in that light, the increasing Socialism and all-purpose government intrusiveness in people’s lives has kind of pushed the needle over to the hotter side of the dial. People just see what the government does or doesn’t do as being a bigger deal to them personally than they might have seen it 50 years ago, and this leads to hotter emotions and less civility.
But that’s all theory. I am not aware of any actual evidence either way.
I have to admit, I don’t recall the really carrrrrrrrazy stuff being directed at presidents prior to Clinton, i.e. accusations of murder plots and such, being disseminated and being taken seriously, but I figure the internet is the major factor and not anything specific to Clinton, Bush43 or Obama.
“What I refer to are otherwise-inexplicable irrational attacks, and venom directed against Obama specifically.”
Deputy White House Counsel and key Clinton confidante kills himself with a gun. Rightly or wrongly, this is fodder for conspiracy theorists.
President and Vice President with strong financial ties to munitions manufacturers start a trillion-dollar war with no discernable rational purpose. Rightly or wrongly, this is fodder for conspiracy theorists.
But what has Obama done to attract such attacks? Mention that he was Editor of Harvard Law Review? Must be a lie. Display a birth certificate? Must be fake! Ask a Marine to hold an umbrella? What a pretentious sense of entitlement! Demonstrate that he’s the most eloquent speaker on today’s political scene? He’s the “Teleprompter President.” (I can’t prove such obnoxious reactions are racist, but I can’t prove the Weierstrass-Lindemann Transcendence Theorem either. I’m rather confident that both are factual.)
If these examples aren’t enough for you to grasp the distinction between “otherwise-inexplicable” irrational attacks and explicable irrational attacks, then I’ll give up and agree you’re uneducable.
Ok. How about the “Clinton Salute claim?” How about the Clintons charging rent to the Secret Service agents who protect them?
And forget the Foster death, if you seriously contend there is “fodder” there. Don’t you remember the “Clinton Death List?” Are ALL those deaths legitimate fodder for inquiry?
Of course not. They are half-truths, outright lies, coincidences, and a mish-mash of shit, completely inexplicable in any rational sense, and they are intended to accuse the then-President of being a murderer.
THAT is irrational hatred. At least Obama is only accused of being a Keyan Muslim with a dislike for rain.
On a a very fundamental philosophical level, he is at odds with a good portion of the country. His “spread the wealth around” and “you didn’t build that” notions, for many people runs against the grain of their feelings about the country. His inappropriate bowing to leaders and his Apology Tour had the same effect. His alignment with Jeremiah Wright and his insistence that the man is too close to him to throw under the bus, just before he threw him under the bus, spoke doubly ill of him. He’s a smart guy, but was unprepared for the job. If it weren’t for the backlash after George Bush there is no way he would have been elected. Maybe later. And then we have is blatant, flagrant lying about the ACA.
There are plenty of rational reasons to attack our Distributor in Chief.
Absolutely, because the folks who criticize his alignment with Wright have never themselves supported politicians aligned with insanely terrible preachers. Nah, kidding, you’re right that the double standard here is so transparent that it falls into the “irrational hatred” category.
Practice your reading skills. I never argued that the attacks against Clinton were rational. The question on the table is whether their irrationality is inexplicable except as racist.
But you put your foot in your mouth when you could only cite examples of irrational hatred from the pundits and bloggers siding with your fetid faction. It’s rather hard to argue that the hatred directed against Cheney, Rove and their puppet was “irrational,” isn’t it?
With defendant’s lawyer able to counter examples of irrationality directed against Obama only with more examples from his own fetid faction, I’m happy to rest my case!
Maybe we can find common ground after all, Bricker. You seem to agree that, while Democrats seek to advance the country’s interests by pursuing healthcare, or supporting an opposite-party President who lied about reasons for War, your Party prefers to devote its energy to fostering irrational hatreds among the stupidest Americans.
Had Obama been gay instead of Black, your team would be promoting homophobia; if female, promoting sexist hatred; if from Chicago (as he is), parroting half-truths about Chicago politics. In that sense, the hatred promoted against Democratic candidates isn’t “racist”, it’s all-inclusive.
Given your stance here, and in your “Let’s disenfranchise Black voters” threads, I think I’ve scraped off the veneer and exposed your true politics, no?
And BTW, you still haven’t told us how much you now admire Karl Rove.
Both quotes (especially the “you didn’t build that”) were egregiously taken out of context.
This is just nonsense and right-wing fantasy-land stuff.
Come on… has anyone cared about Jeremiah Wright since 2008?
As if someone can be prepared to be President… and I think he was as prepared as anyone. When he ran in 2012, he was more prepared to be President than anyone on earth (except for 4 people).
Unsupported nonsense. He won big in 2012 too, though not by as large a margin.
“blatant” and “flagrant” are a bit hyperbolic, but you got one here, though I might call it an error, rather than a lie.
Unfortunately, you failed to list more than about half of one.
Let’s deal with reality and ignore the sounds in your head, shall we? Here is the substance of your cite:
Here rate the points one by one:
dissolution of the family
poor supervision of kids in school
growing up without acquiring marketable skills
poor reading skills
poor speaking skills (outside of their particular sub-culture)
visible tattoos on the neck
So, let me ask you: do you think that any of these are NOT things that hold kids back? Do you think that any of these things that are things that should NOT be addressed? Do you think that any of these thinks are not, at the least, net negatives for Black youth?
Please, do explain. Please be specific so I can at least see what you see.
O’Reilly says black families are in dissolution, he says black parents don’t properly supervise children, he says black people grow up with no skills and cannot read or speak, he says black people have neck tattoos, he says black people can’t compete in the marketplace…
And you’re asking us to explain why it’s objectionable?
Practice your reading skills. I never argued that the attacks against Clinton were rational. The question on the table is whether their irrationality is inexplicable except as racist.