The Left, the Right, and the War of Hatred

I'm a Democrat, I'm registered as a Democrat, and with the obvious exception of the most recent mayoral race, I've always voted Democrat. It should therefore be obvious that I lean left. I actually like to consider myself a centrist, but there's a problem with this attitude, because the right-wingers, in their insistent attitude that anyone who disagrees with them even a little must be the Enemy, don't allow room for centrists. I'm not saying that the left wing is blameless, far from it; we certainly have our share of antagonists, extremists, nuts, and people who, out of dishonesty, hatred, stupidity, or some combination of the three, gleefully re-write history, ignore the facts of our present, and color the truth during political debate. My observation, though, is that these types of people are generally considered an exception and an embarrassment by most left-wingers, while the right wing -- or maybe just the most vocal representation of the right wing -- seems content to indulge, and even participate in, such extremism as a matter of routine.

I'd like to reference the online message board Topix (http://www.topix.net/forum/source/stamford-advocate/TLL138008AO2O963G) for one case in point: Sarah Darer Littman wrote a letter to the Stamford Advocate -- a letter which many Republicans would find incendiary. Littman is expressing an opinion and backing it up by facts, which is fine. On Topix, Republican user "Jeff" expresses his difference of opinion, which is also fine, but then starts putting words in Littman's mouth: "In Ms. Littman's view we should shun everything having to do with the founding fathers."

Jeff's key point of contention (other than the fact that Littman is one of them damn liberals) seems to be over Littman's response to a Newt Gingrich quote. Democrat user Annoyingly Practical replies with an angry but well-reasonsed clarification of his interpretation of Littman's use of the quote: "Littman's (fairly obvious) point is not to attack the religious, but to question what she sees as Gingrich's attack on the secular; she sees Gingrich's quote as an example of an exclusionary attitude on behalf of the Republican Party." Read Annoyingly Practical's post for yourself to judge its merit. Then look at Republican user Paul's response: "It's funny how liberals have no shame for expressing anti religious bigotry. The religious right is far closer to the beliefs than than liberals to the founding fathers. People, like Littman are pro abortion and pro gay agenda. If she wants that as national policy, the degenerate Democrat party awaits." A few pages later, Annoyingly Practical says that he doesn't understand Paul's response because, as Annoyingly Practical points out, "There is not a single thing in my comments that can, by any stretch of reason, be interpreted as 'anti religious bigotry.'" Republican user Time to Go replies, "you do not understand because you are stupid."

There is undeniably an escalation of hostilities here. Is there any ambiguity at all over which side is the antagonistic one?

In the national forum, there's no denying that both sides have their hypocrites. But I again note a key difference here, how hypocrisy seems to exist on the fringe of the left wing, but at the heart of the right. Take a look at how our nation views the two most recent presidents, Bush and Obama. Democrats and Republicans alike rallied around Bush during our moment of crisis after 9/11, and it was only after several military, moral, and political missteps that Bush found himself under attack by the Democrats -- and rightfully so.

Can you honestly imagine so many Republicans rallying around a Democratic president in time of crisis? We don't need a hypothetical situation to test this scenario; when Obama took the oath of office amidst a terrible economic downturn, Republican anti-Obama rhetoric flooded the Internet (and this is no exaggeration) before Inauguration Day was even over. It's one thing to, because of your political beliefs, point out or even predict failure for a U.S. President. But to actually, openly root for such failure is another thing entirely. This is no small distinction -- all the Republicans openly praying for Obama's failure as President are essentially hoping for hard times for the nation -- just so that one of their own will come to power come the next election. This prioritization of the Good of the Party over the Good of the Nation is astounding to me in its brazen backwardness, especially in light of the Republican insistence that they are the more patriotic party.

Even those who are not so openly selfish still tend to exhibit an hypocrisy of astonishing proportions. The same people making countless excuses for Bush's many failures exhibit a petulantly unforgiving impatience with his successor; as one SNL sketch accurately summarized (and I'm paraphrasing here, I don't have the sketch memorized), "you've been President for nearly thirty days, isn't it time you turned this national depression around?" Political agendas are one thing, but let's be at least a little realistic. When the Dixie Chicks insult Bush, they become outcasts -- not because of their political views, their Republican haters claim, but because they insulted the President. Yet these very same people have no problem attacking a Democratic president from Day One.

All of this reflects the aspect of right-wing politics that alienates me more than any one political view: a free indulgence, and even dependency, on pure, unadulterated, even proud, hatred from the Right Wing of America. (http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20041006.html) As I observed earlier, the left is not without its share of hate mongering, but it seems to be the right who's really basing its very existence on hatred these days -- hatred of gays, hatred of immigrants, hatred of liberals, and most of all, an overwhelming, unashamed hatred of anyone who dares voice an opposing opinion. This hatred blinds Republicans to what should be considered inrguable fact and objectivity. Look again at the dialogue between Littman, Jeff, Practical, Paul, and Time to Go. Jeff looks at an attack on extremist Gingrich as proof that Littman wants to "shun everything having to do with the founding fathers," while Paul even more clearly cries "fire" where there isn't even any smoke, somehow interpreting Practical's completely benign post as "anti religious bigotry." And finally, Time to Go takes it a step even further by leaving behind the political statements and jumping right to the blatant insults. The saddest thing isn't the behavior of these Republicans, it's that it's so damn unsurprising.