It’s staggering how much can change in a few short years, isn’t it? During the previous administration, if you spoke out against the President or his policies, you were quickly shouted down as a moron at the very least, and possibly called a terrorist sympathizer or a Communist. Nowadays, if you speak a word of protest against the President and what he stands for, pundits come out of the woodwork to laud your patriotism and common sense, and you just might land yourself a show on Fox News.
Back when the words “Mission Accomplished” were first getting batted around in reference to the wars in the Middle East, saying that the wars were being mishandled got you called a coward and you’d quickly find yourself being sanctioned by any conservative within earshot. Talk about health care getting mishandled now, and you’re a hero. I could go on but I’d rather not belabor the point.
More and more a double standard is emerging. If your political party is in power, anybody who disagrees with you should be rounded up lest they begin an insurgence or secession movement. If they aren’t, it’s a moral obligation for you to protest their policies as loudly as possible and if they won’t listen, maybe it’s time to secede. The more the issue is examined the more ridiculous it becomes. I’ve said before we should treat our disagreements more as debates and less like open warfare. Shouting louder than your opponent in order to win an argument last worked as a system for political disagreements in the days of ancient Sparta. As eager as I’m sure Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh would be to grow manly beards and comport themselves in leather thongs (ew…) if that’s what it takes, I doubt Ann Coulter or Andrea Tantaros would be that keen on the idea.
How about this: Let’s put down the defaced photographs depicting Obama as Hitler and stop acting like we’re on a slippery slope into a Stalinesque meat grinder. Let’s actually talk about our differences of opinion and work together to find a common solution between them, rather than pointing out every potential character flaw and scandal as reasons why the opposition’s reasoning is stupid. Because, clearly, the errant behavior of a couple people within the party show the moral bankruptcy of the party at large, since political parties and ideologies are obviously a homogeneous group of individuals with identical viewpoints and lifestyles, so if one of them is a Communist, the entire group is Red.
Not that such reasoning applies to the Republican party, of course. If it did, their party is composed entirely of pederasts and closet homosexuals.
September 14, 2009 at 10:53 am
You can’t find a common solution when one side argues with logic, and one side argues with made-up bullshit.
That’s the reason I can’t stand “bipartisanship.” You shouldn’t have to compromise between facts and ridiculousness, health and bankruptcy.
September 14, 2009 at 11:05 am
It’d be nice if both sides could argue with logic. Unfortunately, our favorite pundits would have us believe that logic is for “communists and queers,” or something along those lines. Thankfully, not every conservative or republican out there is the same as the pundits, and there are some rational, logical people in the party. They just don’t shout as loud as the others.