It's hard not to notice the phenomenon of the rage common in right-wing politics.
Indeed Fox News has been described as the 'make old white men angry channel'.
The content of their message/propaganda, is filled with 'infuriating' things - liberals hate America, liberals are at war with religion, liberals hate freedom and capitalism, on and on.
Sometimes, 'symbols' happen that are focal points for them to rage against.
Jane Fonda comes to mind. Nevermind that her intent was moral, about feeling the killing and war machine driving Vietnam were wrong, about reminding people both sides were human beings instead of the dehumanized 'enemy'. Muhammed Ali went to prison saying 'the North Vietnamese had never hurt him' rather than go kill them, and this was in the same vein. So nevermind the morality of war issues. Nevermind that having her sit on an anti-aircraft gun was some flack's PR stunt asking her to sit there which she did without much though, nevermind that she later regretted it and apologized for that particular action while not for the trip to North Vietnam otherwise.
The right did and does just have rage and hate for her as some sort of superhuman demon. Nevermind the question about the blood of 2 million people on their hands.
This isn't rational rage - the sort that might be directed at a Hitler or a Stalin who are behind such massive suffering and killing for those actions.
It's just rage they themselves don't understand - 'don't say her name'.
You see the same thing with Michael Moore, with Julian Assange and Wikileaks - figures they could discuss 'the issues' with, but instead have an irrational rage.
I mention this leading up to an example of Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick.
What if a loved one of yours drove drunk and hurt no one? Is there any room for saying that was horribly wrong, but you don't now curse their name daily afterwards, wanting nothing to do with them? Is there any room for balancing and saying 'people make mistakes'? What if your loved one crashed and killed someone? Could you be filled with sorrow and anger and yet not disown them? Decades later?
At the least, Ted Kennedy had a driving accident, driving in the dark, with no lights but his car's, when a sharp turn led him to miss the turn and crash into a small river, upside down, and in shock he struggled to escape and wasn't functioning well, barely managing to get back to the people he knew. I remember a story of a man who crashed on a bridge near me, and after the accident was walking around - then walked off the bridge, because the shock of the accident left him that confused.
At the most to a reasonable person, Ted Kennedy might have been drunk as a cause of the accident; he might have had poor judgement assuming the young woman had drowned, and left the scene in a panic - a common reaction which is why there are so many 'hit and run' crimes, and he might have not saved her life when he could have had he got help as fast as he could have rather than returning to his companions where they spent hours before contacting authorities.
There is a level of dislike for his actions that is rational - assuming it was more than 'just an accident and he was in shock' - it was a tragedy and killed a young woman.
But the level of rage is not rational. It's as if Kennedy had killed a million children and eaten them. These people would normally have only a certain level of concern for the young woman, but it's far, far more not for her but for hating Kennedy. Do they show the same level of concern for young women in other situation? Say, Rachel Corrie, the young woman who was protesting the Israeli policy of bulldozing the homes of families of terrorists and tragically killed in similarly ambiguous degrees of fault - and even worse possibilities?
(At best, the bulldozer seemed less than concerned with the people warning it off but it was an accident, at worst it intentionally ran her over when she sat in front of it.)
How does Chappaquiddick compare to the Bushes? George W. Bush was convicted of drunk driving. How is that less bad than Kennedy's act? What if Kennedy had driven drunk and not killed anyone, and George W. Bush had killed someone? In terms of how bad their actions were, assuming Kennedy was drunk, they're the same as far as the accident. It's just a matter of luck that one drunk driver has an accident and another doesn't. By the time they're driving drunk, they're already committed the crime of people people at risk.
Rationally, their actions - assuming Kennedy was drunk - are similar. Laura Bush DID kill someone breaking traffice laws. You don't see anything close to the levels of rage.
For that matter, Bush's attorney Alberto Gonzales helped him cover up his conviction in the election - and for that sort of 'ask no moral questions' help, was later rewarded by being appointed Attorney General - after the previous AG had refused to sign off on secret approval for things like illegal warantless wiretapping when Gonzalez went to Ashcroft's hospital bed with the documents, because Bush knew Gonzales would not put the constitution and the law ahead of Bush's desires. But you don't see the rage for that.
A rational person could even consider some sympathetic issues that do not excuse but help understand if Kennedy were making bad choices - he'd just had his third and last brother killed a year before, the evening was spent with a couple people close to Robert Kennedy, the young woman had been his aide. Ted had almost been killed - had his back broken - not long before in a fatal small plane crash, just as he'd lost a sister in a plane crash. These might make people say 'he was wrong but I sympathize with some things.'
You don't see that. Just this enormous irrational rage like Ted Kennedy was the only drunk driver in history.
These same people would do far more to balance the issues, to forgive, with someone on 'their side', but Chappaquiddick was treated like heading the Nazis.
Kennedy served the country very well for decades. He was often described by both sides in the Senate as one of the best Senators who was key to passing a lot of the best bills.
This isn't about hating Kennedy even for passing legislation to improve education or feed the hungry or whatever cause - it was irrational rage.
I think it'd be good for people to recognize the irrational nature of this, and to try to somehow better understand why it happens and to be more rational about the issues.
We saw something similar in the people who were irrational about Bill Clinton - he had murdered ince Foster and many other people, running a criminal network that dealt drugs and he was determined to sell out the country to the Chinese at least. He and Hillary were the enemies of the country out to destroy it. There was a $50 million 'get Clinton' 'investigative fund' from one billionare alone, and an army of operatives out to find any way to destroy them. That's before Obama's birth certificate/Muslim/terrorist etc.
It's remarkable how this irrational rage can last for decades. I don't think it's good for political views.
Ironically, the same people can spot rage and dislike it - whether or not it's deserved - in the opposition.
No matter how rational opponents of Bush might be in criticisms of his policies, these same people loved the phrase 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' to dismiss the concerns as this 'irrational rage'. 'But Bush sold access to government policies and required lobyists to stop donating to Democrats...' "Bush Derangement Syndrome! BDS! BDS! BDS Alert!!!!"
That's not to say there wasn't such a think as 'BDS' - there were some who had 'irrational rage' against Bush and others also. The 'he starts wars because he enjoys killing' lines.
(Enjoyed the power it brought him without concern for the victims is, sadly, a reasonable description - but enjoying the killing, no.)
The effect of this is not only sad for the people, it's dangerous for the world - when issues of 'the morality of a war' can't be heard over the cries of 'hate Jane Fonda!'
I have seen countless people who say 'Anyone but Obama!', just this week I heard a Republican say he'd vote for ANY Democrat for President over Obama.
This is just irrational rage preventing any reasonable political discussion. How can issues be talked about over that rage?
Sadly, few of these people realize they have that rage - hating Obama is like hating child molesters to them, it's just how they 'feel' now.
As sad as the situation is - and I'm not going to say it's new to politics - it's also sad that money seems able to determine who the rage is aimed at, to shape public opinion.
This is how the rage can be turned on an organization with as an American cause as 'increasing voter participation' lke Acorn - attacked like it was 'Al Queda'.
In an environment like this, niceties about things like 'constitutional rights' and 'rights for those you disagree with' are easily trampled beneath 'hate the enemy!'
Common sense would say that Ted Kennedy did not want the young woman he was remembering his brother with to be killed. That whatever happened, however much fault he had for bad judgement not realizing she might be saved, that he should quickly call the authorities, that the bottom line was at most alcohol-fueled poor judgement, deserving of strong criticism and anger but nothing like the rage that took place.
When the right is ready to say nothing else about Bush is important than his drunk driving incident, which could have killed someone, and show the same rage - we'll talk.
That won't happen because the rage is excessive for the terrible act. And it's harmful to our political discussion.
At the same time, much that deserves MORE fury doesn't get much more than a yawn, the corruption, the lies, the use of money to undermine democracy, and so on.
So when Rick Santorum just this week misrepresented what President Kennedy said and argued for removing the 'separation of religion and politics', how many of his supporters - some of whom did mildly 'disagree' - really criticized him for the misrepresentation? I don't remember any.
This rage can occur against groups, countries, religions, etc., not just certain people.
When Hermain Cain commited the outrageous act of religious bigotry to pander to one religious group by saying he would not appoint any Muslims, how many Republican leaders condemned him? How many even of his opponents for the nomination? I don't remember any doing so. They might not have gone as far as he did saying they wouldn't appoint any either, but they were his accomplices, treating his bigotry as legitimate and acceptable.
But when there is irrational rage against Muslims, how is that fixed in the political debate?
This rage this thread is about affects politics, rights, killing. It's rage against gays that supports opposing their equal rights, calling discrimination 'protecting marriage'.
And this rage is a tool used to manipulate people by 'handlers'. Need people to support removing a regulation? Make them feel rage for the backers of the regulation. It rarely gets that specific - just demonize 'the liberals' and get 'your people' in power - but sometimes it does, like with 'Obamacare'.
There are rational issues with Obamacare to favor or oppose - but the rage against is a sort of 'rage against losing America to Stalinism'.
A phrase I find useful about this is 'rage addiction' - when people get so conditioned to be outraged by a daily diet of these manipulations, that that's what politics becomes for them, an ongoing hatred of what they're supposed to hate, much like some people can become 'addicted to war' - it provides adrenaline and entertainment and gives them a sense they're 'for something', a team - not unlike sports team fanatics, but much more intense.
It's hard to get through to people who have irrational rage on something. It's hard to remember a case of their hearing something that got them to be more rational.
A lot of this is hard-wired - every election is painted by the manipulators as 'a historic election which will save or destroy our country'.
Almost everyone will claim they don't 'fall for that', but a lot more have areas of this 'irrational rage'.
Save234
Indeed Fox News has been described as the 'make old white men angry channel'.
The content of their message/propaganda, is filled with 'infuriating' things - liberals hate America, liberals are at war with religion, liberals hate freedom and capitalism, on and on.
Sometimes, 'symbols' happen that are focal points for them to rage against.
Jane Fonda comes to mind. Nevermind that her intent was moral, about feeling the killing and war machine driving Vietnam were wrong, about reminding people both sides were human beings instead of the dehumanized 'enemy'. Muhammed Ali went to prison saying 'the North Vietnamese had never hurt him' rather than go kill them, and this was in the same vein. So nevermind the morality of war issues. Nevermind that having her sit on an anti-aircraft gun was some flack's PR stunt asking her to sit there which she did without much though, nevermind that she later regretted it and apologized for that particular action while not for the trip to North Vietnam otherwise.
The right did and does just have rage and hate for her as some sort of superhuman demon. Nevermind the question about the blood of 2 million people on their hands.
This isn't rational rage - the sort that might be directed at a Hitler or a Stalin who are behind such massive suffering and killing for those actions.
It's just rage they themselves don't understand - 'don't say her name'.
You see the same thing with Michael Moore, with Julian Assange and Wikileaks - figures they could discuss 'the issues' with, but instead have an irrational rage.
I mention this leading up to an example of Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick.
What if a loved one of yours drove drunk and hurt no one? Is there any room for saying that was horribly wrong, but you don't now curse their name daily afterwards, wanting nothing to do with them? Is there any room for balancing and saying 'people make mistakes'? What if your loved one crashed and killed someone? Could you be filled with sorrow and anger and yet not disown them? Decades later?
At the least, Ted Kennedy had a driving accident, driving in the dark, with no lights but his car's, when a sharp turn led him to miss the turn and crash into a small river, upside down, and in shock he struggled to escape and wasn't functioning well, barely managing to get back to the people he knew. I remember a story of a man who crashed on a bridge near me, and after the accident was walking around - then walked off the bridge, because the shock of the accident left him that confused.
At the most to a reasonable person, Ted Kennedy might have been drunk as a cause of the accident; he might have had poor judgement assuming the young woman had drowned, and left the scene in a panic - a common reaction which is why there are so many 'hit and run' crimes, and he might have not saved her life when he could have had he got help as fast as he could have rather than returning to his companions where they spent hours before contacting authorities.
There is a level of dislike for his actions that is rational - assuming it was more than 'just an accident and he was in shock' - it was a tragedy and killed a young woman.
But the level of rage is not rational. It's as if Kennedy had killed a million children and eaten them. These people would normally have only a certain level of concern for the young woman, but it's far, far more not for her but for hating Kennedy. Do they show the same level of concern for young women in other situation? Say, Rachel Corrie, the young woman who was protesting the Israeli policy of bulldozing the homes of families of terrorists and tragically killed in similarly ambiguous degrees of fault - and even worse possibilities?
(At best, the bulldozer seemed less than concerned with the people warning it off but it was an accident, at worst it intentionally ran her over when she sat in front of it.)
How does Chappaquiddick compare to the Bushes? George W. Bush was convicted of drunk driving. How is that less bad than Kennedy's act? What if Kennedy had driven drunk and not killed anyone, and George W. Bush had killed someone? In terms of how bad their actions were, assuming Kennedy was drunk, they're the same as far as the accident. It's just a matter of luck that one drunk driver has an accident and another doesn't. By the time they're driving drunk, they're already committed the crime of people people at risk.
Rationally, their actions - assuming Kennedy was drunk - are similar. Laura Bush DID kill someone breaking traffice laws. You don't see anything close to the levels of rage.
For that matter, Bush's attorney Alberto Gonzales helped him cover up his conviction in the election - and for that sort of 'ask no moral questions' help, was later rewarded by being appointed Attorney General - after the previous AG had refused to sign off on secret approval for things like illegal warantless wiretapping when Gonzalez went to Ashcroft's hospital bed with the documents, because Bush knew Gonzales would not put the constitution and the law ahead of Bush's desires. But you don't see the rage for that.
A rational person could even consider some sympathetic issues that do not excuse but help understand if Kennedy were making bad choices - he'd just had his third and last brother killed a year before, the evening was spent with a couple people close to Robert Kennedy, the young woman had been his aide. Ted had almost been killed - had his back broken - not long before in a fatal small plane crash, just as he'd lost a sister in a plane crash. These might make people say 'he was wrong but I sympathize with some things.'
You don't see that. Just this enormous irrational rage like Ted Kennedy was the only drunk driver in history.
These same people would do far more to balance the issues, to forgive, with someone on 'their side', but Chappaquiddick was treated like heading the Nazis.
Kennedy served the country very well for decades. He was often described by both sides in the Senate as one of the best Senators who was key to passing a lot of the best bills.
This isn't about hating Kennedy even for passing legislation to improve education or feed the hungry or whatever cause - it was irrational rage.
I think it'd be good for people to recognize the irrational nature of this, and to try to somehow better understand why it happens and to be more rational about the issues.
We saw something similar in the people who were irrational about Bill Clinton - he had murdered ince Foster and many other people, running a criminal network that dealt drugs and he was determined to sell out the country to the Chinese at least. He and Hillary were the enemies of the country out to destroy it. There was a $50 million 'get Clinton' 'investigative fund' from one billionare alone, and an army of operatives out to find any way to destroy them. That's before Obama's birth certificate/Muslim/terrorist etc.
It's remarkable how this irrational rage can last for decades. I don't think it's good for political views.
Ironically, the same people can spot rage and dislike it - whether or not it's deserved - in the opposition.
No matter how rational opponents of Bush might be in criticisms of his policies, these same people loved the phrase 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' to dismiss the concerns as this 'irrational rage'. 'But Bush sold access to government policies and required lobyists to stop donating to Democrats...' "Bush Derangement Syndrome! BDS! BDS! BDS Alert!!!!"
That's not to say there wasn't such a think as 'BDS' - there were some who had 'irrational rage' against Bush and others also. The 'he starts wars because he enjoys killing' lines.
(Enjoyed the power it brought him without concern for the victims is, sadly, a reasonable description - but enjoying the killing, no.)
The effect of this is not only sad for the people, it's dangerous for the world - when issues of 'the morality of a war' can't be heard over the cries of 'hate Jane Fonda!'
I have seen countless people who say 'Anyone but Obama!', just this week I heard a Republican say he'd vote for ANY Democrat for President over Obama.
This is just irrational rage preventing any reasonable political discussion. How can issues be talked about over that rage?
Sadly, few of these people realize they have that rage - hating Obama is like hating child molesters to them, it's just how they 'feel' now.
As sad as the situation is - and I'm not going to say it's new to politics - it's also sad that money seems able to determine who the rage is aimed at, to shape public opinion.
This is how the rage can be turned on an organization with as an American cause as 'increasing voter participation' lke Acorn - attacked like it was 'Al Queda'.
In an environment like this, niceties about things like 'constitutional rights' and 'rights for those you disagree with' are easily trampled beneath 'hate the enemy!'
Common sense would say that Ted Kennedy did not want the young woman he was remembering his brother with to be killed. That whatever happened, however much fault he had for bad judgement not realizing she might be saved, that he should quickly call the authorities, that the bottom line was at most alcohol-fueled poor judgement, deserving of strong criticism and anger but nothing like the rage that took place.
When the right is ready to say nothing else about Bush is important than his drunk driving incident, which could have killed someone, and show the same rage - we'll talk.
That won't happen because the rage is excessive for the terrible act. And it's harmful to our political discussion.
At the same time, much that deserves MORE fury doesn't get much more than a yawn, the corruption, the lies, the use of money to undermine democracy, and so on.
So when Rick Santorum just this week misrepresented what President Kennedy said and argued for removing the 'separation of religion and politics', how many of his supporters - some of whom did mildly 'disagree' - really criticized him for the misrepresentation? I don't remember any.
This rage can occur against groups, countries, religions, etc., not just certain people.
When Hermain Cain commited the outrageous act of religious bigotry to pander to one religious group by saying he would not appoint any Muslims, how many Republican leaders condemned him? How many even of his opponents for the nomination? I don't remember any doing so. They might not have gone as far as he did saying they wouldn't appoint any either, but they were his accomplices, treating his bigotry as legitimate and acceptable.
But when there is irrational rage against Muslims, how is that fixed in the political debate?
This rage this thread is about affects politics, rights, killing. It's rage against gays that supports opposing their equal rights, calling discrimination 'protecting marriage'.
And this rage is a tool used to manipulate people by 'handlers'. Need people to support removing a regulation? Make them feel rage for the backers of the regulation. It rarely gets that specific - just demonize 'the liberals' and get 'your people' in power - but sometimes it does, like with 'Obamacare'.
There are rational issues with Obamacare to favor or oppose - but the rage against is a sort of 'rage against losing America to Stalinism'.
A phrase I find useful about this is 'rage addiction' - when people get so conditioned to be outraged by a daily diet of these manipulations, that that's what politics becomes for them, an ongoing hatred of what they're supposed to hate, much like some people can become 'addicted to war' - it provides adrenaline and entertainment and gives them a sense they're 'for something', a team - not unlike sports team fanatics, but much more intense.
It's hard to get through to people who have irrational rage on something. It's hard to remember a case of their hearing something that got them to be more rational.
A lot of this is hard-wired - every election is painted by the manipulators as 'a historic election which will save or destroy our country'.
Almost everyone will claim they don't 'fall for that', but a lot more have areas of this 'irrational rage'.
Save234
Facebook
Twitter