Tom Friedman actually thinks right wing vitriol against Obama is preparing the ground for another presidential assassination. He has to go to Israel (a right-wing fanatic killed Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995) for his example, however, since neither of the Kennedy brothers' assassins were right-wing, and no right-winger shot at Gerald Ford or Ronald Reagan. Friedman though is correct about the intemperate hounding of every president since Bush 41—Clinton, Bush 43, and now Obama. Friedman blames the excess of money in politics; the gerrymandering of political districts, making them permanently Republican or Democratic and erasing the political middle; a 24/7 cable news cycle that means daily politics is about tactics, not strategy; a blogosphere that coarsens our debates to a whole new level, empowering anonymous slanderers and liars, and; most of all, a permanent presidential campaign giving us “all partisanship, all the time.”
Not surprisingly, New York Timesman Friedman completely ignores the media’s central role in going after Bush 43, as well as the degree to which media partisanship in favor of Clinton during the impeachment process and now with Obama triggers right-wing hostility. Conservatives were happier when the national media made some effort to be even-handed, even if after Watergate, that meant going after both parties. Since Clinton’s impeachment, the media's enemies are “all Republicans, all the time.”
Clinton and the media viewed the GOP’s use of the Monica Lewinsky scandal as an extra-constitutional, illegitimate effort to oust Clinton before his term was up. Clinton needed the united support of his party and the media’s strong backing to hang on. He moved his policy program leftward to keep every Democratic vote, and with the media’s cooperation, demonized Newt Gingrich and Kenneth Starr to provide Democrats the enemy to unite against. In 1996, Clinton worked with Gingrich and Republicans. From 1998 onward with the media’s help, Washington turned deeply partisan.
Bush 43 promised a different atmosphere, but since Gore received more popular votes that Bush in 2000, it was easy for Democrats and the media to view Bush as illegitimate. Then came Iraq, a war that cast aside the “lesson of Vietnam” so important in the lives of leading Democrats and media figures. The unchecked hostility Bush faced from Democrats and the media drove him into the arms of his extremists, the same way impeachment had pushed Clinton and the Democratic left together. Bush attempted, ever less successfully, to govern with a small Republican majority, tightly united against those trying to undermine his foreign policy.
Obama really had a chance for a fresh start. He could have been the bi-partisan, post-partisan president we need. But his “Chicago mafia” believe they are right, Republicans are wrong, they have the power, and if they don’t use their power to change America, they are fools. So Obama governs Bush’s way, working to hold his Democrats together, which means keeping his left wing happy, and uniting Democrats against media-demonized (hate filled) Republicans.
As Friedman says, “Our leaders, even the president, can no longer utter the word ‘we’ with a straight face. There is no more ‘we’ in American politics.” How unfortunate.
3 comments:
Tom Friedman makes the same serious mistake made by most of the other ‘insider’ journalists. They believe that what goes on inside the Washington Beltway is representative of our Country. They mostly share the same Liberal mindset and sit around drinking each other’s bathwater. So when the Obama Administration says those crazy, angry Republicans are responsible for this dangerous polarity, the Insider Journalists all nod in unison like water birds. It fits the Liberal framework.
I suggest that Mr. Friedman venture outside the Beltway. Go talk to Middle America. You know – those in Flyover Country. Attend a few of the Tea Party rallies and interview some of those attending. I think you’ll find that those crowds consist not just of Republicans but also of Independents and – yes – even moderate Democrats. Many of whom have never before been activists.
And they are angry. They first turned out because they’re fed up with the huge debt being imposed on our children and grandchildren, and Government’s disregard for our Constitution, AND the alarming Obama lurch toward Socialism. But what really fed the flames was Fringe Leftwing Democrats like Nancy Pelosi calling them Nazis, terrorists, Astroturf hired guns. And siccing the Acorn and union thugs to disrupt their vocal but non-violent demonstrations. Anger further fed by a Democrat Congressman’s recent statement on the House floor that the Republican health care plan says “Die Quickly.”
So yes, Mr. Friedman, there are angry citizens out there. They are tired of Big Government, Big Taxes, and Democrat name calling. They are American citizens exercising their rights of free expression directed at a Government that clearly doesn’t want to hear them. They have not rallied around any one Party – they have rallied around their principles, their common sense and their Constitution. It’s definitely not a Republican phenomenon; the Republican Party can only watch from the sidelines and wish they could organize this well.
Bob Kessler
Honolulu
Hi Dad,
Always interesting to see how the other side perceives these things. Are you really serious about Clinton's impeachment? That for a few blow jobs he deserved to be thrown out of office?
When I compare those "crimes" of Clinton's - including the lying under oath - to the shredding of the Constitution and the laws of war (warrentless wiretapping, abuse of material witness, US citizen/enemy combatant, and of course, programs of torture directed from the WH situation room) and the politicization of Justice under Bush (US attorneys canned for not indicting Democrats) I feel the relative degree of severity is no more, and no less, than the difference between sexual indiscretions and war crimes.
And by the way, no Democrat of national stature ever questioned Bush's legitimacy as President the way multiple Republicans have Obama's by indulging in the "birther" conspiracy.
Aloha,
Derek
Thank you for your comments, Derek.
You do help make my point that a good part of the country hates Republicans for what they did to Clinton, and another good chunk can’t stand Democrats/the media for what they did to Bush.
I’m with whatever group is sick of the kind of back and forth represented in your piece. Didn’t my post make this clear?
Still, I find I can’t let your last point pass. What “Republican of national stature” has questioned Obama’s birth (I most certainly don’t count “shock jocks” who boost their radio/TV ratings by shoving the latest controversies in our faces)? Many Republicans have denounced the “birther” controversy. This issue springs from the same fringe that includes, on the other side, people like Obama’s just-resigned “Green Jobs” czar Van Jones, who signed a petition in 2004 accusing Bush of allowing 9.11 to take place with his foreknowledge, in order to win an election.
I’m disturbed I responded to your “birther” stuff. I think I understand that from your viewpoint, if we’re all in the mud, it just comes down to who’s mud smells best, and maybe you’ll win that one.
I hope for something better. As I said, quoting Friedman, in my post,
“There is no more ‘we’ in American politics.” How unfortunate.
Post a Comment