The Politics of Hate

I've been thinking about how often the word "hate" is used in a political context these days. It almost always comes from the left, directed at George W. Bush. And more often than not, it's an expression of hatred for the man himself, not the politician or his party. Sometimes it's so extreme as to result in comparisons of Bush with Adolph Hitler. Since the people making or approving such comparisons are presumably intelligent enough to understand what Hitler represents, I have difficulty understanding how they see equivalent evil in Bush.

Of course, it would be inaccurate and unfair to say that all liberals express this kind of hatred. But enough do that it makes me wonder if hate has been elevated to the status of a moral value in our political discourse. Is it necessary to say you hate Bush in order to be accepted among liberals of a certain stripe? Howard Dean, now head of the Democratic Party, almost said it, limiting himself instead to saying he hates Republicans.

I have a good friend, an intelligent and informed liberal, whom I respect. Before the election last year, this friend closed an e-mail discussion about Bush and politics with the line, "God, how I hate that man!" That was something of a shock because I'd never before heard this person talk about hating another human being. Worse, I'm not even sure this person is a friend any longer. I supported Bush and opposed Kerry, for reasons I discussed elsewhere, and that seemed to be too much for this person to bear. There's been very little contact since then.

Some liberals are not willing even to discuss points that might indicate Bush could be anything less than pure evil. There are no shades of gray, no nuance. They cling doggedly to every argument that supports their fixed opinions, no matter how tenuous or unreasonable it may be. A good example is the Swift Boat Veterans. I don't know the extent to which they were right about Kerry, and neither do liberals. However, instead of admitting that some 260 honorable veterans who stirred themselves to enter the political arena might be worth listening to, they simply dismissed them as liars, sleaze, and so on. Why? To do otherwise might have damaged Kerry, thereby helping the hated Bush.

It's hard to discuss this without being labeled as an ultra-conservative, a right-winger, or even a dreaded "neocon," the left's new corporate antichrist. The truth is I'm not a Republican or much of a Bush supporter. I disagree with his policies about as often as I agree with them. But in this new climate of highly personal hatred of Bush, it's very difficult to take any position short of outright hatred without being peremptorily assigned to the Bush camp. That's one of the things that worries me about hate having become a political value--it leaves no room for moderate views or compromise.

I realize that Republicans and conservatives in general are also capable of strong dislike for people and ideas they disagree with. Sometimes these feelings are expressed in highly partisan, intemperate ways. However, it isn't the same emotion, in either depth or intensity, that I see in the hatred some liberals direct at Bush himself. I remember the Clinton presidency well, and I understand that many conservatives neither liked him nor respected him. Those feelings are still there, for him and his wife both. But still, they're qualitatively different from today's intense personal hatred.

As one who always considered himself a slightly left-of-center Democrat, I believed that the most positive characteristics of liberalism in American were tolerance, respect for every individual, and intelligent open-mindedness. Sadly, those values seem quaint in this atmosphere of hate, and liberals have diminished themselves by letting it happen.

This personal hatred of Bush has put liberals in a box they may have trouble climbing out of. How can they ever admit that someone so hated may have been right about something or may have achieved successes? Will they be capable of saluting their President and rejoicing in America's success if Iraq works out well, democracy spreads in the Middle East, progress is made toward peace among Israel and the Palestinians, relations with Europe are improved, Iran and North Korea are contained, and economic and social advances are achieved at home?

The depressing reality is liberals may be so committed to their hatred of the President that they can only rejoice in American failure and disgrace. Is their hatred of Bush so deep and personal that anything is acceptable to justify it? Since they so delight in beating up the President with each new American casualty in Iraq, seemingly in the inane belief that he doesn't care, would they actually be disappointed if fewer and fewer American soldiers were killed and maimed?

The politics of hate has no place in America, and I have no respect for those who embrace it. Ultimately we have only one president, and no matter how much we disagree with him we must respect and support him. Any American who feels otherwise has seriously lost his or her way.