Rather than start the day by criticizing the president elect, I thought I'd start by criticizing the criticism of the criticism. From Mitch Albom's page 2 editorial in today's Detroit Free Press:
For nearly eight years, anyone who dared to criticize President George W. Bush risked being called unpatriotic. The people doing this name calling are mourning John McCain's loss today.
We'll soon see if it's about country or party. Remember, if you need to support the president to be a "great American," critics must get behind Barack Obama or risk total hypocrisy.
In truth, all of us need to get behind him. What lies before us is bigger than any party. We need to climb out of a huge hole -- together. If Bush supporters now sign on as full-time critics of Obama, all we have done is flip the pancake of hatred onto its other side.
While I'm a member of the "they" who are mourning McCain's loss, I have a different take on "name calling." For starters, I never thought that "anyone who dared to criticize" Bush was unpatriotic. As someone who dared to criticized him myself when I thought he was wrong, how could I? What I objected to was not criticism, but something known as Bush Derangement Syndrome, and I think we all know what that is. (Nazi comparisons, shrill calls for war crimes trials, vicious personal attacks comparing Bush to a chimpanzee, these things and more come to mind. People who did these things are hardly in a position to complain about "name calling.")
It is normal for people to criticize politicians they did not support, and there is no magic exception in the case of Barack Obama. In fact, I suspect that a number of the people who voted for him will criticize him when he does not do what they want him to do.
But notice the false dichotomy Albom creates between support and criticism -- if you need to support the president to be a "great American," critics must get behind Barack Obama or risk total hypocrisy. "Support the president" in the context he summons (the Bush presidency) does not mean blind obedience or agreement with all of a president's policies. What it does mean is supporting him in his constitutional role as Commander in Chief when the country decides to go to war, for the simple reason that the country's survival and the lives of its citizens are at risk. I think one of the biggest lies of the Iraq War was the notion that it was a unilateral war declared by Bush. He could not have -- and did not -- do it alone. A majority of Democrats voted for the war. But the way people talk, you'd almost think this was erased from history.
Anyway, I may be wrong, but I suspect that the vast majority of Barack Obama's conservative critics would support him as CIC in the country's wars -- even if they didn't agree with the war.
This statement, though, is the ultimate in conflation:
If Bush supporters now sign on as full-time critics of Obama, all we have done is flip the pancake of hatred onto its other side.
He's missing something. Criticism is not hatred, and there is a world of difference between criticism and Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Calling criticism hatred is not a good thing, nor is it healthy from a First Amendment perspective.
I mean, aren't there people who'd like to make hatred a criminal offense?
posted by Eric on 11.05.08 at 08:36 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/7610
Comments
They get "loyal" and they get "opposition", but "loyal oposition" is a complete mystery to them. I posted on another site a great piece by Mickey Kaus from a couple weeks back that I think every person, McCain and Obama supporter alike, should read:
McCain's Last Stunt?
If (like me) you want to feel better about Barack Obama, try reading conservative Bradford Berenson's Frontline comments on Obama's performance at the Harvard Law Review. Excerpt:
I think Barack took 10 times as much grief from those on the left on the Review as from those of us on the right. And the reason was, I think there was an expectation among those editors on the left that he would affirmatively use the modest powers of his position to advance the cause, whatever that was. They thought, you know, finally there's an African American president of the Harvard Law Review; it's our turn, and he should aggressively use this position, and his authority and his bully pulpit to advance the political or philosophical causes that we all believe in.
And Barack was reluctant to do that. It's not that he was out of sympathy with their views, but his first and foremost goal, it always seemed to me, was to put out a first-rate publication. ... [snip]
It confirmed the hope that I and others had had at the time of the election that he would basically be an honest broker, that he would not let ideology or politics blind him to the enduring institutional interests of the Review. It told me that he valued the success of his own presidency of the Review above scoring political points of currying favor with his political supporters.
tim maguire · November 5, 2008 10:16 AM
For the past 8 years all I have heard is that the highest form of patriotism is dissent. I intend to be very patriotic.
dittybopper · November 5, 2008 10:21 AM
"If Bush supporters now sign on as full-time critics of Obama, all we have done is flip the pancake of hatred onto its other side."
One must first assume that Bush supporters have not already been Obama's critics. Nothing is further from the truth. Is this his way of claiming, ahead of time, my hypocrisy? If I ever called anyone un-patriotic (and I have absolutely no recollection of EVER using that term) it would be because they were displaying behavior clearly defined as un-patriotic, not because they didn't support one individual's actions. There have been many instances where the term could be aptly applied.
Hatred is also a pretty strong word. I've used it sparingly and only in the most extreme cases. There is reason for some hatred. In some cases it's not so reasonable. It is in those unreasonable cases that I use the word.
He's making sweeping predictions and broad-brushing. Does this mean that Obama supporters like Code Pink cannot be described as un-patriotic lest I be labeled as a "hater", a "hypocrite"? He's yanking the door wide open for the same people who have been labeling me as a hypocrite for 8 years to just continue with the same baseless and blind criticisms.
Good grief.
Oyster · November 5, 2008 11:08 AM
Criticism was never unpatriotic. Treason and sedition, OTOH...
I'm with you, dittybopper! In fact, for the past few weeks, as it seemed apparent that Obama would win, I was thinking that if any Obama supporters asked me who I was voting for, I was going to remark "McCain, because I'm dissenting against the popular trend, and after all, as you on the left are so fond of saying, dissent is the highest form of patriotism." In fact, I still might say something like that.
Kurt · November 5, 2008 11:43 AM
At least Albom admits that hatred, not always simple criticism, was a characteristic of the left.
Hank · November 5, 2008 12:54 PM
What did Albom say? Plagiarism is the highest form of dissent?
Al Maviva · November 5, 2008 06:02 PM
I have heard this crap for the past several months from those anticipating an Obama victory, and I expect that thay are not aware that what they are really asking is "Please don't be feces flinging howler monkeys like we were."
Sure. I can't manage to work up the requisite hatred, and it's gratifying that the left is hoping we display more maturity and class than they did. As much as I despised Bill Clinton as a person I never fantasized about his assassination, much less refused to acknowledge him as President. I believe I've already established my non-feces-flinging cred.
This is still my country, and that is the only point on which I shall tolerate no argument.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
They get "loyal" and they get "opposition", but "loyal oposition" is a complete mystery to them. I posted on another site a great piece by Mickey Kaus from a couple weeks back that I think every person, McCain and Obama supporter alike, should read:
McCain's Last Stunt?
If (like me) you want to feel better about Barack Obama, try reading conservative Bradford Berenson's Frontline comments on Obama's performance at the Harvard Law Review. Excerpt:
I think Barack took 10 times as much grief from those on the left on the Review as from those of us on the right. And the reason was, I think there was an expectation among those editors on the left that he would affirmatively use the modest powers of his position to advance the cause, whatever that was. They thought, you know, finally there's an African American president of the Harvard Law Review; it's our turn, and he should aggressively use this position, and his authority and his bully pulpit to advance the political or philosophical causes that we all believe in.
And Barack was reluctant to do that. It's not that he was out of sympathy with their views, but his first and foremost goal, it always seemed to me, was to put out a first-rate publication. ... [snip]
It confirmed the hope that I and others had had at the time of the election that he would basically be an honest broker, that he would not let ideology or politics blind him to the enduring institutional interests of the Review. It told me that he valued the success of his own presidency of the Review above scoring political points of currying favor with his political supporters.