The change brought to Washington
Liberal groups have taken to referring to those who publicly disagree with Pres. Obama's health care proposal as "mobs," but a recent news story tells a different story:
After the meeting, everyone from grandmothers and students to veterans
and mothers pushing strollers marched along Lake Merritt to Oakland
City Hall for an afternoon rally at which Lee again spoke.
Oh, wait that is how the media was portraying anti-war and anti-Bush protests. Grandmothers and children protesting can now be called mobs, Nazis, brown shirts, political terrorists, thugs, etc. Somehow things have changed.
I will now agree that Obama brought change to Washington. Here are some of the changes that have taken place since his inauguration.
- Posters that mock the President as a sadistic killer are no longer socially acceptable.
- Any rhetoric that even hints at getting close to violent at the party in power is offensive. (Clarification: This does not apply to the "Kill Bush" t-shirts in the closet or the assassination chic art that was popular circa 2008)
- Fringe conspiracy theorists of the opposing party are now to be promoted by the media as prominent and characteristic of the opposition. (Clarification: This was not true of Truthers. They should not be connected in any way to the Democratic party.)
- Deficit spending is no longer a big deal. (Clarification: The former President's spending was, and still is, a burden to future generations. The current President's exponentially greater deficit spending is necessary to keep our economy afloat.)
- Bailouts from Washington to big businesses are now acceptable.
- Those who disagree with the President are no longer grassroot activists. They are now angry mobs or political terrorists. As an aside, any organizing done by the President is de facto "grassroots."
- Quotes made by a candidate can no longer be used as proof of what they believe on an issue. "He said it," cannot be applied especially when prior to be elected President, he said he supported universal, single-payer ("everybody in, nobody out"), government-run health care. That is "disinformation" because he changed his mind and never told anyone. (Exception: Quotes made by McCain or Palin are still usable, especially the one by McCain saying that he didn't understand the economy. That is still OK to use, no context needed.)
- TV and Radio commentators that criticize the President are now exorbitantly paid shills. (Exception: This does not apply to those brave individuals who criticized the former President and still criticize him while exercising their Constitutional right to free speech).
- Reporters Joining the Admin: While the sparse few journalists that left their job to work for the previous administration or Republican politicians are still hacks, the ever increasing list who have done so with the current administration were perfectly unbiased in their reporting beforehand and bring an air of impartiality to the current White House.
- Calling the President a Nazi is now very wrong. (Exception: This rule applies only to the current President and his political party. Those in the opposing party or even citizens who oppose a policy of the President can still be compared to Nazis by liberal politicians and liberal "journalists.")
- Big Brother and ratting on your neighbors: Having a White House office that is unaccountable to Congress which asks for citizens to turn in contact information of other citizens who disagreed with the President is fine, but it is still wrong for the Dept. of Homeland Security of the former administration to have access to what books certain people were checking out from local libraries.
- Gitmo: It was wrong for the former President to keep the terrorists at Gitmo, however the current President is working hard to clean up the mess left by the former President and may have to make tough decisions such as continuing the exact same policy which he criticized before he became President. (Extension: It was wrong for the former President to not bring our troops home now. The same is not true for our current President. He must make a responsible choice.)
- Belittling free speech: Tell the opposition to shut up: perfectly fine for the current President to do.
- Being Post-partisan: Telling the opposition to shut up in the same speech you call for reaching across the aisle and uniting opposing sides: even better - now.
- Church and state is ok again: Holding campaign rallies/prayer vigils in favor of political policies are in no way violations of the separation of church and state – as long as they are in favor of the President's policies.
- Thugs: Organized groups brought in by politicians can attack citizens protesting the politician, shout racial slurs and get arrested without it indicating anything negative about the politician, the policy or their supporters. Remember, its those opposing the policy that is the mob and are automatically racist.
- Patroitism and criticism: Dissent is no longer the highest form of patriotism. It is now officially unpatriotic.
- Oceania: We are now at war with Oceania and we have always been at war with Oceania.
Some of this is admittedly hyperbole on my part, for a reason. Consistency is a difficult principle to maintain in politics. Everyone struggles with it. It is easy to criticize the party in power when you did not vote for them.
It becomes much harder to recognize the faults of those in power when they agree with you, especially when they are being attacked, at least from your perspective, by those with whom you disagree.
Supporters of Obama should at least recognize and be able to acknowledge some inconsistency on the handling of those who protested Bush's polcies and those who protested Obama's. If it is wrong to make assassination jokes or art, it is always wrong. If it is wrong to compare politicians to Nazis, it is always wrong. If protesting those in power is appropriate, it is always appropriate.
Share your thoughts, post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I am as thoroughly disgusted as you. Now I know how libs felt when they wanted to move to Canada. Except, rather than having the selfish and cowardly desire to flee, my reaction is to fight. Ideas have consequences, and we can not surrender to such awful ideology.
Long live the Contract w/ America!
Here's more info regarding Republican involvement.
So I think the American people will see through all of this and know, like the teabagger, the birthers, these lynch mobs types are just the same, people who have to resort to these tactics because they have no leadership to articulate what they real want.
Of course every one who disagrees with universal health care are perverts ("teabagger"), conspiracy loons ("birthers") and racists ("lynch mobs"). Shame on them for resorts to such low tactics, such as name calling! ;)
I'm glad you linked that NY Times story about the "memo." Bob MacGuffie is the founder of RightPrinciples, a conservative group in CT, which brought in about $5,000 in donations and gave out about $2,000. Think Progress, which can't say anything about connections to big political donors or high up elected officials, as I explained to Cin, made up and embellished most of the connections and tactics. There is a YouTube video out of what Bob and his "mob" did a health care meeting. If you want to see it first hand and not second hand through liberal filtering, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X97sPeQcZAk
However, these people are organizing to pack town-hall meetings using loud, rude, even violent tactics to disrupt the proceedings and prevent the Democratic speakers from engaging with their constituents.
Were you just as outraged by the anti-war protests that did the same thing? Were you just as outraged by protesters breaking windows here at NC to protest Tom Tancredo speaking on illegal immigration?
Also, you do know that the only acts of violence began and were escalated when union "protection" was brought in for the meetings? A black conservative guy was beaten and had racial slurs directed at him by pro-universal health care union thugs at a recent rally.
I'm not saying any of it is right. I will and have condemn people on the right for going over the line. Anyone, regardless of their position, that does not behave in a civil fashion should be condemned, by everyone on both sides.
It reminds me of Germany, when the establishment thought they could control the Nazi element for their own uses.
Ah, yes the inevitable Nazi reference. You can't talk about need for civil discussion and then drop the Nazi bomb. It was like Obama opening his talk on health care stressing the need to be bipartisan and then saying that he wanted those who disagreed with him to "stop talking." It can't be both ways.
… but they have no problem with “private sector” “faceless bureaucrats”
Right now, if I don’t like my health care, I have several options including changing insurance companies and or doctors.
If the government controls it, how can I change it if I don’t like it?
If anyone dropped the "Nazi bomb" it's the people I am decrying: see here. I was merely reporting how this far right, populist movement and its tactics reminded me of something similar which occurred in 1930's Germany and how the establishment thought they could control it, and how it ended up controlling them instead. There is definitely something very disturbing about the rage, intolerance, and refusal to allow civilized discussion about these people which does remind me of what happened in pre-war Germany. Where is it written that one cannot even discuss this period in history? Why the censorship? I don't think Nazism is on the way again, but some parallels are there, like it or not.
So it is now unacceptable and frowned upon to use Hitler/Nazi imagery in reference to our President? Once again, a <a href="http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=qRJ&q=Bush+Hitler&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=C25_SrmXGOL7tge7jqz5AQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1" rel="nofollow">change that Obama has brought.
But you must remember that in the health care debate, the first one to bring up Nazi imagery was elected Democrat officials. The speaker of the house compared protesters to brown shirts, which you repeated here.
It's also so shocking to her liberals suddenly concerned about the use of Nazi, facist, Hitler imagery in connection to the President after the last 8 years.
Where is it written that one cannot even discuss this period in history? Why the censorship?
There's no censorship. How in the world could I even censor you? But to your point, there's just a common acknowledgment that referencing Nazism to compare your political opponents is in bad taste both in terms of respecting those with whom you disagree and those who actually lived through Nazi Germany.
Everyone can draw parallels to every politician or movement to some facet of the Nazi rise. Stupid conservatives like to compare the charisma and speaking ability of Obama to Hitler and speak of "parallels." They are idiots for doing so. Obama is not Hitler. Bush is not Hitler. Hitler was Hitler. That should be the end of it.
I knew it! I knew you couldn't resist your usual defensive strategy: "you did it too!" Or, as I formulated it before, "I know you are, but what am I?"
It's okay for the right to accuse Obama of being Hitler because elements of the left did it with Bush. That's your argument. It doesn't matter how crazy it is, it's okay because nutjob lefties did it to Bushieboy. Never mind that the Bush administration brought it on itself with its secret renditions, secret prisons, secret torture, secret wire-tapping, manufacturing evidence to go to war, outing CIA operatives to get back as critics, "signing statements" to get around the law, etc., etc. Of course, this isn't nazism, but it's still kind of scary, and invites the comparison. I don't think Bush was Hitler, but Cheney certainly has a tinge, a whiff, about him.
Oh, and I'm a bad guy for referencing 1930's Germany with the obvious parallels regarding extreme, populist tactics. As Cineaste has found, arguing with you is an exercise in pointlessness. From now on, every attempt you make to rebut some argument I make will be met with the Aaron Defense: "I know you are, but what am I?"
I completely agree with Louis on this one. Bush-hitler is not a good excuse to pull out Obama-nazi. No matter what echoes of facism or Nazi-ism you detect, or even clearly see, from political adversaries, I have never in my life seen those comparisons lead to pursuasive discussion. Only the drawing of battle lines and of shouting.
More useful I think if we talk in terms of violating basic civil liberties, than of Brown Shirts.
I knew it! I knew you couldn't resist your usual defensive strategy: "you did it too!" Or, as I formulated it before, "I know you are, but what am I?"
Did you even read what I wrote?
It is not OK for ANYONE conservative, liberal, in between to compare their political opponent to Nazis or Hitler. That was my point, to which you respond with Bush brought it on himself.
Now suddenly when the left is in power, you find it objectionable to refer to the President as a Nazi, but OK to call the out of power opposition Nazi-like.
That's my point, you only find it objectionable when it is referring to your political opponent – whether they have political power or not.
I have repeatedly said I find all Nazi comparisons pointless, at best, and more likely counter productive because Nazism was so extreme and so horrific that the comparisons stifle all communication and jack up the rhetoric.
I have and will reject all Nazi comparisons to Obama, with whom I disagree politically. Care to offer the same defense for those with whom you disagree?
I know you are, but what am I?
Well, I'm glad that we can have a substantive discussion of this important political issue.
I do think that many independents, and not a few libs, are seeing the difference between the 'hope' and the 'change' that has come. Some are still hoping, some accept that the reality of Washington is that substantive change is hard, and some are coming to believe (with us) that Obama's approaches to the deficit, economy, and healthcare, though perhaps well meaning, are really really bad.
Obama may not be perfect, but he's a million times better than what we went through the past eight years. Remember: perfection is the enemy of the possible.
Aaron: a "substantive discussion" is impossible on more than this issue between your side and mine. I've learned this the hard way the past few years.
… a "substantive discussion" is impossible on more than this issue between your side and mine.
Only when you don't try. Is it difficult? Obviously. But it's not impossible. There are numerous people who have friendships (even marriages) across the ideological divide. It takes work and sometimes we make it harder than it has to be. I'll claim my fair share of that, but it's not impossible.
In theory, it's possible; in practice, it's not. And you can't accuse me of not trying: years and years of trying, to no avail. I've given up.
btw: I'd love to get the chance to marry a man whose ideas differ significantly from mine. Too bad I don't have the chance (mainly because of people like you).
If you've given up then either desire is not possible.
You may well be right.