Posted on 12/15/2014 9:31:26 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I hate Republicans. I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal “personhood.”
This loathing is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back in the 1970s, I worked for a Republican, Fred Lippitt, the senate minority leader in Rhode Island, and I loved him. He was a brand of Republican now extinct—a “moderate” who was fiscally conservative but progressive about women’s rights, racial justice and environmental preservation. Had he been closer to my age, I could have contemplated marrying someone like Fred. Today, marrying a Republican is unimaginable to me. And I’m not alone. Back in 1960, only 5 percent of Republicans and 4 percent of Democrats said they’d be “displeased” if their child married someone from the opposite party. Today? Forty-nine percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Democrats would be pissed.
According to a recent study by Stanford professor Shanto Iyengar and Princeton researcher Sean Westwood, such polarization has increased dramatically in recent years.
What’s noteworthy is how entrenched this mutual animus is. It’s fine for me to use the word “hate” when referring to Republicans and for them to use the same word about me, but you would never use the word “hate” when referring to people of color, or women, or gays and lesbians.
And now party identification and hatred shape a whole host of non-political decisions. Iyengar and Westwood asked participants in their study to review the resumés of graduating high school seniors to decide which ones should receive scholarships. Some resumés had cues about party affiliation (say, member of the Young Republicans Club) and some about racial identity (also through extracurricular activities, or via a stereotypical name). Race mattered, but not nearly as much as partisanship. An overwhelming 80 percent of partisans chose the student of their own party. And this held true even if the candidate from the opposite party had better credentials.
How did we come to this pass? Obviously, my tendency is to blame the Republicans more than the Democrats, which may seem biased. But history and psychological research bear me out.
Let’s start with the history. This isn’t like a fight between siblings, where the parent says, “It doesn’t matter who started it.” Yes, it does.
A brief review of Republican rhetoric and strategies since the 1980s shows an escalation of determined vilification (which has been amplified relentlessly on Fox News since 1996). From Spiro Agnew’s attack on intellectuals as an “effete corps of impudent snobs”; to Rush Limbaugh’s hate speech; to the GOP’s endless campaign to smear the Clintons over Whitewater, then bludgeon Bill over Monica Lewinsky; to the ceaseless denigration of President Obama (“socialist,” “Muslim”), the Republicans have crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all.
Why does this work? A series of studies has found that political conservatives tend toward certain psychological characteristics. What are they? Dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity; a need to avoid uncertainty; support for authoritarianism; a heightened sense of threat from others; and a personal need for structure. How do these qualities influence political thinking?
According to researchers, the two core dimensions of conservative thought are resistance to change and support for inequality. These, in turn, are core elements of social intolerance. The need for certainty, the need to manage fear of social change, lead to black-and-white thinking and an embrace of stereotypes. Which could certainly lead to a desire to deride those not like you—whether people of color, LGBT people or Democrats. And, especially since the early 1990s, Republican politicians and pundits have been feeding these needs with a single-minded, uncomplicated, good-vs.-evil worldview that vilifies Democrats.
So now we hate them back. And for good reason. Which is too bad. I miss the Fred Lippitts of yore and the civilized discourse and political accomplishments they made possible. And so do millions of totally fed-up Americans.
Possibly the most clear and concise example of Liberal projection that Ive seen. Certainly within the top five.
Funny thing is, I don’t hate her. If anything I pity her. She’s clearly self-segregated herself from anyone or anything that could expose her to an opposing viewpoint. Such a sad, cloistered, existance she must lead.
It (politics of personal destruction) started long before Goldwater.
For instance, the attacks launched by the Roosevelt Administration (including through the Leftist press - see some of Dr. Seuss’ political cartoons from Punch Magazine) at Charles Linbergh over his involvement (proven wrong by hindsight) with “America First” were rooted in a big grudge FDR and Harold Ickes had over Lindbergh’s opposition years earlier to their first term scheme to nationalize the nascent air transport industry.
Here’s the cold, hard truth:
A plurality of men, if cleaned up, dressed up, groomed, etc. are at least passable.
Many modern “Westerized” women, OTOH, not so much. Especially when they look like Shrek to begin with and further f**k themselves up by becoming land whales, dressing like sloppy men and “inking & piercing” themselves up like prison fodder.
Then throw in personalities that can border on Nazi death camp guard levels of pleasantness.
And they bitch and moan about “freedom” and “their bodies, their choices”.
My answer to that is: “it’s my body and my choice. You’re a fugly sub-swine that I don’t want to listen to, look at or touch.”
Who?
"Everybody wants to get into the act."
LOL!
It’s true.
I know it is.
An example of what Hillary calls “empathizing with the enemy.”
Sadly so.
When I was in college (early-mid 70”s),they still had pretty,
gals who liked guys.
Now most have defaced their bodies in one way or another.
From “Shrek” to “Land whales”...
I’m dyin’ over here!!! Ha!
America's socialist monthly?
: )
Thanks!
Perhaps the sandworms in “Dune” are comparable, but at least THOSE can be rode and tamed.
“You so ugly, even the Kwisatz Haderach wouldn’t climb on you !”
Dunno... I’m still not able to move past the “Land Whale” comment...
That was a coffee spitter this morning...
Not bad if I say so myself. What’s unfortunate is that it’s so accurate and damning.
RE Land Whale:
It also sorta reminds me of a 1975 Cadillac Eldorado, too... but with boobs...
At least you’d want to be seen in a ‘75 Caddy.
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.
