Gee...I wonder why...
Posted on 05/16/2014 7:42:15 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Think fast: Which politicians from the other side do you merely dislike, and which do you absolutely despise? Can you say why?
I was thinking about this because of Harry Reid, who really, really gets on conservatives' nerves, and seems to be constantly trying to figure out new ways to make them mad. Unlike Nancy Pelosi, who generates contempt from the right mostly for who she is (a San Francisco liberal, a woman with power), with Reid it's about what he does, specifically his propensity for saying things about conservatives that are over the top. Most liberals look at Reid and see him as an extremely skilled legislative leader, even if they cringe a bit when his statements go too far. For instance, it's possible to criticize the Koch brothers without saying they "are about as un-American as anyone I can imagine"; things like that seem designed to just drive Republicans nuts. As Simon Malloy says, "Harry Reid is a troll. He's an effective majority leader and he knows how to work within the sticky labyrinth of official DC to get things done, but he's also a troll. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a trait that lends itself to excess."
After hearing him make a few of those extreme statements and unsubstantiated charges, it has gotten to the point where conservatives see Reid and just boil with rage. Which is exactly what a troll is trying to accomplish. At this point, it's safe to say folks on the right hate Reid more than Pelosi, which wasn't the case a few years ago.
And what about liberals? I don't know any who despise John Boehner, because he's mostly a pathetic figure, constantly besieged by people in his own party whom he doesn't have the courage to stand up to. Mitch McConnell doesn't generate much hate either. He may be bad for America, but you have to acknowledge that he's probably the most politically shrewd Republican in Washington, and there isn't anything about his manner or habits that are particularly grating.
So there has to be something unusual about a figure on the other side to produce the real emotional reaction. Take Sarah Palin. Democrats find her exasperating not just because she's a blithering fool who nearly came a heartbeat away from the presidency, but because she luxuriates in her nincompoopery. And importantly, she expresses her own limitless contempt at liberals—not only them as people, but the places they live and the things they do. It's hard not to hate somebody who so clearly hates you. And she's important enough (or at least was) to care about; no liberal can muster up hatred for an inconsequential buffoon like Louie Gohmert, no matter what crazy things he says.
And then there's Hillary Clinton. For some reason, back in 1992 conservatives decided that she and her husband were the living embodiment of their antagonists in the 1960s culture war, even though at the time she was about as far from being a hippie as you could get. Here's something I wrote during the 2008 campaign, when conservatives were warning about her socialist agenda:
Hillary Clinton wasn't at Woodstock. Clinton arrived at Wellesley in 1965 as a "Goldwater girl," and though her politics grew more progressive during her time there, then as now she was a creature of the establishment, seeking change within the system and warning against advocating radical ideas. Not one for experimenting with drugs or sex, she charted a sensible and serious course through the Sixties.
This personal history could barely be less relevant, of course. As far as many on the right are concerned, Clinton might as well be campaigning in a tie-dye peasant blouse and leading the crowd in a rousing rendition of "The Internationale" before every speech.
If Clinton is a proxy for that decades-old conflict and you were one of the ones looking with a combination of anger and jealousy at those kids who were taking drugs and having sex—in other words, having all the fun—then the reaction you have against her is so deep-seated and beyond rationality that nothing she does or doesn't do will ever change it. We haven't heard too much of those echoes of the 1960s lately, though I suspect it would be too optimistic to say we've left that endless conflict between the squares and the cool kids behind. But for conservatives and Clinton, the dislike is still about who she is and not what she does.
That's a much more powerful feeling than the kind of hate conservatives now feel for Reid, because just like with liberals and Palin, it's not only about her, it's also about them. It reaches down to where identity lies.
So take a look at the potential GOP candidates for 2016. Which ones have the potential to really make you crazy with loathing? The only one who comes across as really sinister is Scott Walker, and that's because of things he did. Rick Perry hits the anti-intellectualism that raises liberal hackles. Ted Cruz is acknowledged by pretty much everyone he's ever encountered to be a smarmy jerk. Something tells me Bobby Jindal has some appalling behavior in him, but that's just a guess. The idea of Rand Paul as president may be alarming, but he doesn't push the emotional buttons. Rick Santorum? He's got the extremism, but he's kind of a joke. Jeb Bush? Please. Chris Christie? Now hold on—there's a guy you could grow to hate.
For the author, the difference seems driven by the letter after the pol's name. If it's an "R", then the pol is a hateful sack of shiite, apparently.
Really, not so deep.
I’ve got an idea. Lets make marionettes out of straw and let them fight each other.
I noticed that back in 2007, I had posted something that could have been interpreted as not liking Mitt Romney.
I guess that would count as a negative opinion on a politician.
Gee...I wonder why...
The word “hate” is now an accusatory term that best describes the people that use it to repress speech and behavior of others. The word was somewhat benign just a few decades ago.
Well, the author is obviously a leftist. I have never heard a single complaint from people who have personally met Ted Cruz. Great guy all round.
However there is something to the idea of just disliking certain politicians and hating them.
Harry Reid: He is worthy of hate. What a slimy, hypocritical jerk. Dementia-ridden, I cannot think of a more corrupt leader of the senate in the last 100 years.
Nancy Pelosi: I’d agree, not worthy of hate. Just an incredibly stupid, botox-filled parrot who struggles to sound barely competent.
James Clyburn: Worthy of hate. Anyone who opposes this man, or looks at him in the wrong way, is a racist. Totally contemptible piece of crap.
Angus King: A lowlife attention whore, but probably not worthy of hate. Just another dirtbag who looks for the nearest camera.
Barbara Boxer: Worthy of hate. The gargoyle toto of the senate, she is beyond the usual level of annoyance, comparing abortion to viagra. What a gross and twisted witch.
Chris Van Hollen: Can’t hate him. He’s a hack, a liar, a fraud, a party loyalist... but he just sounds like half the libtards on Fox on a daily basis. No hate required.
So, you see, across both chambers, there are Democrats and then there are ArchDemocrats. The former are just stooges. The latter are pawns of satan.
I predict that the overall winners (losers?) will be Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Schumer, Durbin, Biden in no particular order.
I get it! Folks on the right just cannot bear a woman with power. For example, consider that former female governor of Alaska. Or that Rice woman; scholar of renown and former Sec’y of State.
I despise anyone who is psychopathic and wicked enough to be pro-abortion (and a few other evils).
Thus, there are no Democrats I don’t despise, and lots of Libertarians and Republicans I do despise.
The word “hate” gets thrown around way too easily imho. However, there’s a form of mass homicidal insanity that has happened before & certainly appears to be growing again. It has nothing to do with rationality or reason. I’m not sure that’s “hate”. It’s obsession & insanity.
Real hate (again, imho) happens when a person cannot escape from oppression by someone no matter what they do (like being stalked, daily, for years). If/ when it stops, you still would go through a wall to escape encountering that person, but the hatred dissipates & you are free.
Real hate or despising someone takes a LOT of energy. (which is how it becomes hate, I think)
Everybody hates Bill de Blasio. They asked the Dali Lama what he thought of Bill de Blasio.
“I hate him. You achieve true enlightenment when you start hating Bill de Blasio. What kind of jackass makes up his own name and puts a ‘de’ in it?”
NOH8...
if they are a DemLibProg , I hate um . They are the enemy , the enemy of America , a stain upon the memories of my forefathers . I do not wish them well .
Hate is only something that conservatives are capable of. Apparently it is their default attitude. Leftists are inclined to rational criticism resulting from their love for humanity and all that is good and decent.
That was funny...
lol
I hate anyone who seeks to make me less free.
Great!
To steal from an old humor list, you know you’ve gone too far when Barbara Bush and Mr Rogers refer to you as “That mother******.”
In reality, aren’t both sides bad? We have to continue to vote for the best of the worst and it is really getting to be just another groundhog day?
Sorry, but it does seem a bit useless these days as little is gained regardless of which party is in control. Just when does reality set in - a question that is best left to young people it seems and the answer will not please many.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.