Blinded By The Hate
Peter Berkowitz, writing in the Opinion Journal, points out that blind hatred of George Bush is not a good plan for going through life. Berkowitz, a fellow at the Hoover Institute and a professor at George Mason University School of Law, is not trying to be snarky here. He is pointing out that a blind unreasoning hatred of someone tends to blind one to other things as well.
To get the conversation rolling at that D.C. dinner–and perhaps mischievously–I wondered aloud whether Bush hatred had not made rational discussion of politics in Washington all but impossible. One guest responded in a loud, seething, in-your-face voice, "What's irrational about hating George W. Bush?" His vehemence caused his fellow progressives to gather around and lean in, like kids on a playground who see a fight brewing.
Reluctant to see the dinner fall apart before drinks had been served, I sought to ease the tension. I said, gently, that I rarely found hatred a rational force in politics, but, who knows, perhaps this was a special case. And then I tried to change the subject.
But my dinner companion wouldn't allow it. "No," he said, angrily. "You started it. You make the case that it's not rational to hate Bush." I looked around the table for help. Instead, I found faces keen for my response. So, for several minutes, I held forth, suggesting that however wrongheaded or harmful to the national interest the president's policies may have seemed to my progressive colleagues, hatred tended to cloud judgment, and therefore was a passion that a citizen should not be proud of being in the grips of and should avoid bringing to public debate. Propositions, one might have thought, that would not be controversial among intellectuals devoted to thinking and writing about politics.
But controversial they were. Finally, another guest, a man I had long admired, an incisive thinker and a political moderate, cleared his throat, and asked if he could interject. I welcomed his intervention, confident that he would ease the tension by lending his authority in support of the sole claim that I was defending, namely, that Bush hatred subverted sound thinking. He cleared his throat for a second time. Then, with all eyes on him, and measuring every word, he proclaimed, "I . . . hate . . . the . . . way . . . Bush . . . talks."
And so, I told my Princeton audience, in the context of a Bush hatred and a corollary contempt for conservatism so virulent that it had addled the minds of many of our leading progressive intellectuals, Prof. Starr deserved special recognition for keeping his head in his analysis of liberalism and progressivism. Then I got on with my prepared remarks…….
…….In short, Bush hatred is not a rational response to actual Bush perfidy. Rather, Bush hatred compels its progressive victims–who pride themselves on their sophistication and sensitivity to nuance–to reduce complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil. Like all hatred in politics, Bush hatred blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent.
When someone who is a highly educated, incisive thinker can only come up with, "I hate the way Bush talks," as a debating point, something has shorted out. That is the danger of a blind hatred. It is not a good quality, regardless of who the object of hatred is. Berkowitz says that American Prospect Editor Paul Starr's book points to a way to start defusing some of this irrational thinking.
The recipe consists above all in recognizing that constitutional liberalism in America "is the common heritage of both modern conservatives and modern liberals, as those terms are understood in the Anglo-American world," writes Prof. Starr. We are divided not by our commitment to the Constitution but by disagreements–often, to be sure, with a great deal of blood and treasure at stake–over how to defend that Constitution and secure its promise of liberty under law.
I suspect that at some point in the future many people who today suffer from that blind, irrational hatred of George Bush will look back and wonder why they let themselves fall into that trap. Because it is a trap and it does lead one into some terribly simplistic thinking. Not that pointing that out will help in the short term.
Civilization, Politics | Gaius Wednesday, 14 November , 2007
By Lars Walker, Wednesday, 14 November , 2007 @ 8:20 am
In my darker moments (that is, most of the time), I often wonder whether the American Left is in fact devoted to the Constitution. Isn’t the final goal of many Progressives a world-wide, international government, empowered to protect the environment and end war by enforcing its rules on all countries equally? And doesn’t that imply the end of government by our Constitution? Maybe I’m blinded by hate too.
By syn, Wednesday, 14 November , 2007 @ 9:38 am
It makes me very happy to see that the progressives cannot destroy President Bush.
And, even happier knowing that the progressives will live the rest of their lives acknowledging that they could not destroy President Bush.
I am proud that I voted for President Bush.
By martian, Wednesday, 14 November , 2007 @ 10:24 am
The liberals do, indeed, hate President Bush. It seems to stem from their conviction that Bush “stole” the election from their candidate (Gore) in the 2000 election. Ever since they lost that one, the liberals have been like a bunch of spoiled children who didn’t get their own way. They’ve been pouting and fuming about it for 7 years now.
Unfortunately, this irrational, blind hatred leads them to simply oppose ANY and ALL intiatives, actions, policies, etc. of the Bush administration - even if doing so causes them to directly and actively oppose the security and safety of the American People. And they have done so on a remarably consistent basis. They’re like the little kid on the playground yelling “IS NOT!” in the face of obvious contradictory evidence because not doing so would mean they’d have to admit they were wrong. And the liberals, of course, are NEVER wrong (at least not in their own minds).
By Mockinbird, Wednesday, 14 November , 2007 @ 11:33 am
The Electoral College voted as they voted in 2000.
As for the gentleman who hates the way Bush talks:Bush talks as a thinking man with a Texas dialect. Sir, you are a bigot of the first order!
By IanY77, Wednesday, 14 November , 2007 @ 12:31 pm
So I take it you all were in a coma during the 90’s? And if Hillary (or is that Hitlery…or Hildebeast…or “the bitch”….?) wins, I’m sure you conservatives will be a model of restraint.
By Gaius, Wednesday, 14 November , 2007 @ 12:36 pm
So I take it you don’t read here often, just driving by? Don’t project what you think I would do or say when you haven’t a clue. This is your only warning for language, as well.
By Andy Vance, Wednesday, 14 November , 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Pleh. British neocons conjure up the Librul Dinner Party trope with much more panache.
By Gaius, Wednesday, 14 November , 2007 @ 12:45 pm
The corrected link is over the top for the comment policy, sorry.
By IanY77, Wednesday, 14 November , 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Caught the link through memeorandum.com (and while I apologize for the language, I was just quoting that John McCain supporter). Secondly, you misread my point:
“….I’m sure you conservatives….”
Notice the use of the plural. If I mean to say that I believe that you, Gaius, behave in a certain way, I’ll say that. I was talking about the behavior of conservatives (again, plural) toward Hillary. No projection needed.
By martian, Wednesday, 14 November , 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Ian, opposing someone’s political positions because you legitimately disagree with them is a world of difference from opposing them automatically and unthinkingly because you have a visceral hatred for them. I will be the first to admit that I never liked Slick Willie and don’t particularly like Hillary, but I don’t now and never did (even in the 90s) hate them the way the Liberals hate President Bush. I opposed many (not all, believe it or not) of Bill Clinton’s political positions because I though they were moving in the wrong direction for America - especially in the areas of Defense and Intelligence. I thought Hillary’s Health Care Plan was a disaster waiting for a place to happen. I wasn’t terribly happy about having a sexual predator leading the free world and I thought Hillary was, at best, shrill and vindictive. But hate? No. I never felt strongly enough about them to hate either one and still don’t. I’m sure there are people on the conservative side who did hate the Clintons and still do - but not nearly as many as the Liberals and Democrats who hate President Bush so much that if he said snow was white they would say it’s black just to oppose him.
By kevin kildow, Wednesday, 14 November , 2007 @ 1:59 pm
Labeling as “Bush Hatred” the liberal’s and principled conservative’s shock, horror and outrage at the arrogant shredding of core constitutional principles and the intrinsic values that once made my heart swell with pride to be an American is another example of the inflated rhetoric that is making a rational discussion of the issues facing our country more difficult.
I’m a liberal. I don’t think that President Bush is stupid or evil. But I (and I believe most other thinking liberals and constitutional conservatives) am saddened and depressed that in pursuing his administration’s goals that he and the people who work for him have felt the need to ignore laws, constitutional restrictions and some of the more abstract ideals that once made me so proud.
These days I am often puzzled by conservatives defense (and the media’s obliviousness to) of actions and policies that once would have roused deafening bi-partisan objection.
We are not a fearful people.
We are a nation that insisted in the face of strong opposition from its allies on formal legal trials for the war criminals of Nazi Germany. Providing lawyers for the accused with evidence documented and presented. These were not show trials. Some were acquitted. Some were sentenced to prison. Some were executed.
This was not a fearful country. This was a proud country unafraid of the light.
This same country has now rejected the right of habeus corpus for any non-citizen it deems an enemy combatant.
What constitutes an enemy combatant? We don’t know. This administration has told us that we don’t have a right to know.
Why is this defended by conservatives?
Men are being held year after year, never being accused, never being told why, never being able to stand up in the bright light of the rule of law and defend themselves.
Is this the country that you grew up in? It’s not the one I remember.
This country now kidnaps citizens of foreign countries and sends them on to other countries for interrogation. What kind of interrogation? We don’t know. We have been told that it is no longer our right to know what is being done in our name.
This does not make me hate Bush. This makes me sad. This brings me to tears when I remember the pride I once felt in my country.
These are the actions of a fearful people - afraid of the light that we have embraced throughout our history.
We now have complicated legal discussions about whether a technique called waterboarding is torture. A technique invented for use by Torquedo in the Spanish Inquisition, used by Pol Pot and declared illegal by our own government when it was discovered it had been used on our soldiers by the Japanese in the Phillipines - evidence of which was later used to convict the Japanese of war crimes.
This administration has said “we don’t torture.” But seems to think that changing the definition is enough to support that strong statement.
Is this the country you grew up in? I didn’t.
These are the actions of a fearful people. These are the actions of fearful country.
We are not a fearful people.
These are only the greatest hits of a long list of instances in which this administration has hid - from demanding telecom amnesty without ever detailing why the companies actions deserve protection even though a court has ruled that all the lawsuits have legal merit and deserve to be heard - to administration members refusing to respond to congressional supoenas and on and on and on.
What is everybody so afraid of? Why is everybody so afraid to vigorously defend and explain their actions?
When did we become a fearful people?
What are we afraid of?
A bearded lunatic hiding in a cave with a makeshift backdrop and a video camera?
This is the person who has the power to turn a mighty nation like ours into a quivering, shaking, secretive mess? This is the person who makes us turn our back on the rule of law and decency? On 300 or so years of a grand experiment that had the audacity to proclaim that every man has rights? A grand experiment that cobbled together people from hundreds of countries by telling them and believing that here we can create a society that rejects the the idea that power or class or religion or country of origin has anything to do with what a man truly is or what a man can become?
Is it him? The Shias? The Shiites? Hezbollah?
Is it possible that this beautiful country whose example has set the standard for human rights and decency - whose devotion to the rule of law and transparency has inspired so many could so quickly cower and reject the very principles that made it great?
Because of the pathetic, deluded Bin-Laden?
We are a better people than that.
The attack on the world trade center was horrific, cowardly and indefensible. But this administration’s actions have not honored the principles that were attacked that day. And that makes me depressed. It does not make me hate.
By sam, Wednesday, 14 November , 2007 @ 3:23 pm
This just makes me glad that I don’t live in Washington DC.
By quilly mammoth, Wednesday, 14 November , 2007 @ 4:50 pm
IanY77,
I don’t think Bill Clinton was hated the way many on the Left _hate_ Bush. In fact, I think a lot of people actually liked him while not caring for what he did or how he handled the office. I’ll grant that there is a significant amount of dislike for Hillary Clinton. But the questionis whether people will dislike her so much, should she be elected, that they will actually be self destructive. Which is the point of the article.
My friend Tom Kratman wrote a book on a future where a Hillaryesque woman becomes President.
It’s called a “State of Disobedience”. The opening is supposed to be from a textbook circa 2097.
Interesting times.