The Wall Street Journal gave the top half of its opinion page yesterday to a long essay by Peter Berkowitz titled “The Insanity of Bush Hatred.”If anything, it deserves a gold medal for political propaganda – make that political lies.What caught my attention immediately was the frequent use of the word “progressive” to describe the people Berkowitz was attacking.It was used ten times.In other words, progressives were attacked for hating Bush.
There is a major lie of omission.No mention was made of the vast number of Americans that certainly do not call themselves progressives that hate Bush.Surely there are many millions of sane independents, moderates, libertarians, conservatives and liberals that rightfully hate Bush.To ignore all these Americans betrays the intellectual legitimacy of the article and its arguments.
Here are the few core reasons given by Berkowitz for condemning Bush hatred:
It is not a rational force in politics.It clouds and impairs political judgment.It subverts sound thinking.It has addled minds.It damages the intellect.It reduces “complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil.”It “blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent.”
There is no detailed analysis of all the ways that the Bush administration has betrayed our Constitution.No mention, for example, of Bush signing statements that self-justifies not obeying the laws passed by Congress.No mention that the Bush claim of not using torture is so obviously a lie.No mention of using illegal surveillance of Americans and lying about it.No mention of countless lies used to get us into the absurd and costly Iraq war.No mention of the enormous amount of evidence showing that 9/11 was not solely an operation by foreign terrorists, but involved the federal government.And on and on.
The only rational and sane conclusion is that hating Bush is justified and completely sane.
There is some truth to the opening statement: Hating the president is almost as old as the republic itself.But the growing consensus that George W. Bush will go down in history as the nation’s worst president is a much larger truth.It is perfectly reasonable for ALL Americans to hate Bush for squandering the lives of the many people in our armed forces, for squandering the nation’s wealth, and for squandering our nation’s good name and reputation.Bush is a national embarrassment and disgrace, and for that he deserves to be hated.
All those with a clear and sound intellect, rational objectivity, sensible judgment, and the ability to know evil when they see it should hate Bush.Hating Bush is nothing to be ashamed of.The real challenge is moving beyond Bush hatred to seeing the need for deep political reforms that restores American democracy.We must convert the national Bush-hatred-energy into rebellious action.We must re-establish our constitutional checks and balances and removing the unlawful and excessive powers of the presidency.How do we achieve reforms?That is the right question.
As to insanity: I say we must stop doing the same thing and expecting different results.That same thing is voting for Democrats or Republicans.We must remember that virtually all the evil and corrupt things Bush has done could not have been accomplished without the tacit or explicit support of Democrats in Congress.The two-party partnership also deserves our hatred.It has removed political competition and the ability of third party candidates from winning national office.To let Bush hatred result in knee-jerk support for Democrats is a mistake.
The only way to restore American democracy is to remove the legitimacy and credibility of the two-party-controlled political system.The way to do that is through a voter boycott in the 2008 elections for the president and members of Congress.Neither Democrats nor Republicans faithfully represent the interests of the public and that makes our representative democracy a sham.To keep playing the game and voting for any candidates that are members of the vast two-party criminal conspiracy is plain stupid.If Americans keep sustaining this corrupt and dishonest two-party system, then they will continue to witness the decay of our society.
www.delusionaldemocracy.com
Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government (www.delusionaldemocracy.com). His current political writings have been greatly influenced by working as a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress and for the National Governors Association. He advocates a Second American Revolution, beginning with an Article V Convention to propose constitutional amendments. He is Chair of the Independent Party of Maryland.
Good analysis. It's particularly rich for the WSJ to advance
arguments against Bush-hating, which themselves are perfect examples of what Bush himself does all the time. For instance, Berkowitz's claim that Bush-hating reduces “complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil” -- no one is more guilty of reducing complicated issues to "simple matters of good and evil" than Bush. // It speaks volumes, that Berkowitz apparently made this argument with no sense of irony.
You write that "The two-party partnership also deserves our hatred." It's an amazing propaganda achievement, that the 2-party system is as docilely accepted by the population as it is. The American propaganda system teaches us to place a positive valuation on the word "democracy," yet the patently undemocratic nature of a system that allows only 2 parties (both of them very similar; & both constantly collaborating with one another) seems to escape almost everyone.
(It's very similar to "Christian conservatives" who are raised to place a positive valuation on the word "Jesus" without it ever occuring to them that Jesus's teachings are not compatible with conquering the world by military force, starting wars based on lies, or mass murder of innocents.)
One of the classic Cold War arguments against the USSR was that it was a "one-party system." Americans were taught to understand the danger of such a system. Given that, you'd think more would be aware that a 2-party system is not much better -- particularly when the 2 parties have only very limited differences.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1121 comments)
on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 11:35:19 AM
The word "hatred" itself is an issue we should address. It is fine to say one hates the policies of Bush and Cheney, it is fine to note that one is incensed by the incompetence and the lies and to direct ones anger at policy and intent. But to agree that all on the left "hate" George Bush is, in my opinion, a losing tactic.
Middle America sees that someone hates our President, regardless of the reasons or the overwhelming evidence supporting that emotion, and one is immediately dismissed, along with all those truths. I , myself, find Bush a figure of almost pitiable posture. He is the very definition of the under achieving son of a powerful man. I believe him so consumed with outdoing Daddy Bush that he allows others to set policies and actions that he may very well understand to be wrong but his all encompassing need to best GHW forces him onward.
At the very least we should understand that when Bush returns to Crawford our nation will not be saved. Hell our next President has already noted that she will not remove our forces from Iraq and she is already known to be in bed with the same folks who now have George's ear. Direct your hatred where it belongs, at the forces that have subverted a damn fine system of governance, and not at an almost mythic and cartoonishly silly image of Georgie and Dick.....
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 12:38:04 PM
I take issue with Mr. Berkowitz' claim that this hatred is insane. I consider the abject low regard I hold for George W. Bush to be quite reasonable and well earned on his part. Nor is this a monomaniacal devotion. I entertain a healthy odium for Rupert Murdoch, as well, as do most of the sanest people I know.
I recall the the late great Mike Royko pointing out that no self respecting fish would want to be wrapped in one of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers, and now we see fish fleeing the Wall Street Journal. If, however, you want to see the Journal smelling worse than the fish possibly could, just wait a short time for them to start their love fest for Rudy.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1059 comments)
on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 1:36:25 PM
Of course, I'm sure that nothing in this Wall Street Journal article mentioned the venemous hatred that the other side continues to harbor towards Clinton.
by
Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 271 comments)
on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 1:42:59 PM
It is the labeling/provocation campaign and as such must be treated. It is such an old clishee that one caricature on the 'hated' Bush would do the trick. Hopefully we will have such caricature with Bush, dressed as Moses hiding from the mob of 'haters- progressives' all dressed like ancient Jews or something. Let them shout something like,'He does not even knows Hebrew and dares to say he talks to God.'
by
Mark Sashine (47 articles, 19 quicklinks, 236 diaries, 3362 comments)
on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 2:27:17 PM
to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest -from Dictionary.com
If you don't dislike Bush intensely or passionately; don't feel extreme aversion for or hostility toward him; indeed, if you don't detest him, you have to be an imbecile.
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 58 quicklinks, 121 diaries, 681 comments)
on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 4:04:52 PM
If Americans cannot recognize "wolves in sheep's clothing", the feeding frenzy on our freedoms (and other innocent's) will continue unabated. It is up to the "ruled" to change the "rules" and make New Rules that better serve the majority and humanity at large. I hope Americans are getting smarter and seeing through the semantics, neuro-linguistics and other "tricks" used to conflate and confuse their minds and sense of right and wrong.
Because a "christian conservative" despot says he is definitely "not" employing torture; he is "not" spying on Americans while abusing federal law...does "not" mean he is "not" actually "doing" IT. He "is" lying. It should "not" be hard to believe. He "is not" one of YOU -- a working American slogging along. Get it? It is beginning to sink in to more and more folks. By spreading democracy and freedom, the U.S. is exporting murder and plague (Who is gaining? It is not the Iraqis and it is not the American people, that's for sure).
George W. Bush, this administration -- The Truth is NOT in them. Neither will it ever be.
Joel you posted the following comment earlier on another thread -- Homeland Security Links 9/11 Truthers to Taliban, by Barbara Peterson on 11/14.
As a Ph.D. in materials engineering I spent months critically reviewing remarkable amounts of information and concluded that in good conscience I had to join the truth movement.
There is an important 9/11 truth conference coming up on Dec. 15, 16 in Boston; go to Boston911Truth.org to learn more; I am on the program and have a very bold talk prepared!!!
by Hirschhorn (80 articles, 277 comments) on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 10:24:20 AM
May the American people gain the eyesight they sorely need. It "is" a matter of life and death to many.
by
boomerang (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 239 comments)
on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 5:26:57 PM
Boomerang maaaate, (I assume you're an Aussie if not what I say still applies)
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some Americans are shall we say conspiracy sensitive. They seem to see them where they aren't.
Some have strange beliefs. Now that's an import we could do without.
But most are like people everywhere falible...human. Now if they could learn strine they'd be aussies.
Australia should hold its head in shame over 10 years of Howard and his GWB but kissing ways. I won't go into his governments lies and flirting with human right.
Keep in mind B their system its has been corrupted and it is this corrupted system that is throwing up the problems. I fear the same is happening to the Aussie system too.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 532 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 11:54:04 PM
The proposition that opposition to George W. Bush's policies and actions proves hatred of the man says more about those making the claim that it does about opposition to Bush.
Students of the behavior sciences know the phenomenon as "transference", that is, transferring to others what you find disgusting in yourself. The political right has been using this "hatred" of Bush from the very day he entered into the presidential race to attack people who knew from the beginning that Bush is a buffoon. And it says more about the character of conservatives as haters than it does about the character of those who oppose Bush. The concept was discussed in full in "Understanding Neocon Prattle ..." at:
Isn't this Berkowitz "person" perhaps just a tad late to the party?!
"Hate" Bush? Wow! Hating Bush was so 2003. It has moved way way waaay beyond simple hatred now.
It has moved past hate. It has moved past disgust. Past wanting engage in projectile vomiting each time that Bush face appears on TV. It has moved past flipping Bush's on-screen image "The Bird" with both hands. It's even past making the hands into the shape of an automatic weapon and spraying the TV with several clips of imaginary weapons fire everytime the Anti-Christ appears. Though that is rather cathartic.
No. This Berkowitz loon is really quite late to the party. We've moved past hate and into the zone where the only thing left to do is build a 30 foot wall around the White House (the Israelis are good at this task) and put up signs that say: "Danger: Lunatic Asylum Give Way 500 meters"
by
mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 296 comments)
on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 7:28:32 PM
"Perfectly reasonable for ALL Americans to hate Bush..."
This is a disgusting, vile, evil, wicked lie. I will not let this bowel movement stand unanswered. Any loud, well-reasoned objection to President Bush's policies should certainly be open to consideration. But when you hate, you have destroyed yourself. Too many conservatives destroyed themselves with Clinton-hating. It is happening once again, in spades.
This line of thinking sprung from the bowels of hell and should be sent back down there. As for me: No. I am not an imbecile. I am simply amazed at the foaming-at-the-mouth gang in this country. You don't like that I am calling this evil? Boo. Freaking. Hoo.
by
Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 418 comments)
on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 8:55:22 PM
You didn't understand the column, & thus are in no position
to denounce it.
You write that "Any loud, well-reasoned objection to President Bush's policies should certainly be open to consideration." Hirschhorn satisfied that requirement. He wrote, in the 4th paragraph,
There is no detailed analysis of all the ways that the Bush administration has betrayed our Constitution.No mention, for example, of Bush signing statements that self-justifies not obeying the laws passed by Congress.No mention that the Bush claim of not using torture is so obviously a lie.No mention of using illegal surveillance of Americans and lying about it.No mention of countless lies used to get us into the absurd and costly Iraq war.No mention of the enormous amount of evidence showing that 9/11 was not solely an operation by foreign terrorists, but involved the federal government....
Did you see that part? Those statements allude to well-known portions of the last 7 years' history, which in their totality provide a well-reasoned case for "hating" Bush.
Furthermore, Hirschhorn does not mean "hatred" in the literal, personal sense. He means it as a shorthand for "finding immoral, disgraceful, & abhorrent" -- more or less as Americans are taught to "hate" Nazism. Therefore, your preaching about how "hatred destroys oneself" entirely misses the point.
Another good pointer for you would be to try to find ways of discussing politics that aren't completely dependent on scatological references. When you talk about bowels or "turds" 3 times in one little posting, you only demonstrate the limits of your own brainpower.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1121 comments)
on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 10:38:53 PM
My long standing concern is that some writers tend to get lost in hyperpole and personal attack to the point that their articles are no more than mindless emotional venting. I don't hate Bush but I do abhor the consequences of the decisions of his Administration. (short hand he's arguably the worst President in my living memory).
Having said all that as a a true humanist I must treat the views of others with equanimity even though I may disagree. If I don't I'm guilty of the same bigotary, unfairness which I poport to condemn.
Reasoned Objective Discussion is the only hope of come to an accomodation which someone who opposes your argument.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 532 comments)
on Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 8:39:14 PM
I've read a few of your comments, and quite frankly your mindset seems
to be enclosed in a box. Why do you think people hate Bush? All that money spent on war, and practically nothing on anything else. Is this how Jesus would use resources?Approximately 4000 people killed on 9/11. Approx. 1 million Iraqi's killed in
the Iraq war. How much of a payback do we need?Did Jesus preach this kind of retribution? Are all Iraqi citizens terrorists. I fear you are a product
of todays "churchianity" instead of the teachings of Jesus. If you compare
Jesus' teachings with Bush's fruits, it is easily seen that Bush is anti-Christian.
by
Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 915 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 9:28:19 AM
As I was reading the first half of the article, I thought to myself, "It is beneath me to hate Bush, and thereby raise his status as a human..."
Then I was pleased to see another paragraph:
The real challenge is moving beyond Bush hatred to seeing the need for deep political reforms that restores American democracy.
So, the thinking is rational, and goes in the right direction.
On the other hand, "boycotting" the election would very likely get us nothing better than we have now... Who would end up getting elected if all progressives and progressive-think-alike didn't vote? It would be a powerful statement. But that's all; a powerful statement telling the status-quo folks, "Go ahead, ruin our nation for another 8 years; see if we care."
Too many progressives are actively participating in changing things; and probably this year more than I've seen in the 60's, although the media is not publishing the stuff as it was done then.
But the current revolution has already started, and for lack of all the necessary resources to make sweeping changes, we need to take advantage of all existing avenues to advance our cause; not withdraw from the system. Withdrawing is like a toppling the chessboard because we don't like to be losing... the game isn't over...we're trying to bring in some real leadership...
by
Nick Polimeni (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 8:57:10 PM
Americans, particularly guys like that Wall St. Journal stooge do not know what hatred is. To them hatred is something like Malcom X calling all white people devils. ' They hate us'- they shout all the time like little kids in someone's sandlot. They want to be liked by everyone so much that ' Everyone likes Raymond' pales. That is why they want ' rational opposition' to the insanity of Bush; is it Sancta Simplicitas- the way some people put more wood into the fires on which heretics were burned.
Sacred Hatred is the privilege of the powerful personalities from Cyrano de Bergerac to Einstein. When after the war they came to Albert from Germany and asked him to return he said only,' Give my regards to Max. Laue'. He did not want to mention anyone else. Hey, someone here might say that Albert was consumed by irrational hate?
The game of Sancta Simplicitas, I heard that before. In the torture chaambers of Gulag and Gestapo the most sophisticated executioners liked to ' debate' isssues with the detainees, to ' talk rationally', to' hear the arguments on both sides'. Oh, my God. And we here, now must succumb to this deliberate idiocy and just let our children to be killed just for the 'sh- ssh, it is not good to hate'?
It is good to hate. It is a manly feeling to hate people who as Heminway put it, ' have a dignity of the hard chancre'. It is a duty of a man to see those people through and hate them bitterly. It is good to hate malice. Bush is a malicious person. Cheney is too. They both killed a lot of innocent people here and in other countries. They use our country's resources for the private use. It is good to hate them for that and it is good to state that.
Now, that damail guy above says something about ' bowels of Hell'. Everyone has his own Hell and the worst one is the one created by humans for themselves. We here witness the transformation of our beloved country into the damaged goods by the coven of malicious perverts. I do not know about you, people but I was brought up under the perception that ' all comes from love, even hate'. As such as much as I love this country I hate those who do harm to it, especially those who are designated to do good by power and betray that designation. That's where my hate comes from. And whatever it is I remember what Huck Finn said to himself after he decided not to betray Jim:
- Oh, well , then I 'll have to burn in Hell.
by
Mark Sashine (47 articles, 19 quicklinks, 236 diaries, 3362 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 7:37:50 AM
Everyone understands the insanity in living with an alcoholic. The alcoholic causes the insanity in the family. How can 24% of American voters still cling to the coattails of a president whose actions or non-actions have killed 5 thousand in his own country plus probably a million in Iraq, drove 5 millions from the country, did away with whole family trees in Iraq, continue to continue when continueing brought more of the same failure, disregard the constitution, make rational people become irrational, ... without recognizing their own insanity. 24% itself, defines out-of-the-mainstream attitude.
I received the article as an email from an insane, right-wing friend. To be expected.
by
Dale Hill (58 articles, 0 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 347 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 2:34:10 PM
