Protest and Offense

Back when George W. Bush held the wheel of the ship of state, and steered us into Afghanistan and Iraq, a lot of the passengers, not to mention the deck hands, gathered in great anti-war demonstrations.  Those of us on the starboard side of the boat pointed out that there was a lot of hatred to port.  Pictures of Dubya with Nazi emblems embedded abounded, along with hatred for Israel and America in general.  We thought it not amiss to point out that many of the rallies were organized by socialist groups with a fondness for such guys as Kim Jong Il. 

But some of us managed to point out that such rallies were as American as cheez whiz, and were a pretty good idea anyway.  Rallies are designed precisely to attract everyone attractable, and that means a lot of very odd and interesting folks, none of whom have to take responsibility for the whole package, let alone the agendas of the organizers.  Presidents should have to look out and see a sea of unfriendly faces from time to time.  The word for this is democracy. 

My esteemed Keloland colleague David Newquist directs our attention to History Professor Joeseph A. Palermo, who doesn't see the humor in the Vox Populi when it ain't speakin' with his vox. 

The hatred was palpable today on the State Capitol's steps. Hatred for taxes, hatred for government, hatred for state workers, hatred for teachers, hatred for Democrats, and hatred for all of the straw men that leap from the imaginations of talk radio jocks. But the most hated figure of all at today's "Tea Bag" anti-tax rally in Sacramento was President Barack Obama. One of the first placards I saw as I entered the Capitol grounds read: "Wake Up! Fresh Prince of Belair is Destroying Us -- Stop Drinking the Red Koolaid."

Well, if by "hatred" Palermo means "opposition," that's fair enough.  But of course opposition is not the same thing as hatred, even if it is often accompanied by anger.  What generated the tea party thing is anger over the fact that the President plans on about a trillion dollar deficit every year for the next ten or more.  Maybe he has the right idea, but opposition to that sort of thing has a longer pedegree in American politics than anti-war rallies. 

To be sure, there were a lot of offensive signs at tea parties.  The Huffington Post has a sample, and it includes one with Obama's head on Hitler's body, and another warning of "White Slavery."  Both are hysterical and embarrassing, and the latter reaks of racism.  Everyone on the right needs to see that this kind of thing discredits their positions, and so the Left is doing us a favor when it points them out.  And consider this one:

Now that is hitting below the beltway.  But if you go back to the anti-war rallies, you will see the same or worse.  Consider this, from a 2003 anti-war rally in LA. 

It would be nice if large political protests could be done tastefully.  If you expect this, you are naive and in line for disappointment.  Democracy is often ugly, except in comparison to all the other forms of government.  The trouble with free expression is that people freely express themselves.  Conservatives pointed out the excesses when the Left was gathering in mass.  It's the Left's job to do the same now.  But if you are fair, you will recognize the hatred and bad taste on both sides. 

Comments

[A.I.]

A few points:

If there were any rallies against our actions in Afghanistan, I missed them. It was all about Iraq.

Any hatred from port was generally rooted in opposition to policy and certainly was not directed at "Israel and America in general" (which is, excuse the snark, a place I can't seem to find on a map). The Bush Administration liked to blur the line between itself and America thus making protesters unamerican threats to God, mom and apple pie. But that was just a semantic contrivance designed to deflect criticism, denigrate opponents and intimidate some critics into silence.

To elaborate a bit, anti Bush/war rallies were born out of opposition to real policy. The tea parties ostensibly protested Obama Administration tax policy which makes little sense since the bulk of the protesters are receiving tax cuts. Yes, some expressed legitimate concerns about deficits, but their anger generally seemed unfocused on the policy front and laser-like against Obama. And by the way, did you see anyone of color at the tea parties?

I know the world must look a bit different on the starboard side than on port, but really, isn't the double entendre on the dog a bit wittier and less offensive than the Obama bow with implications. I mean it's a low-slung dog so at worst he would have peed on Bush's ankle.

[A.I.]

Just looked at that dog again. He might be tall enough for the calf. My bad.

[J.W.]

I think I understand. Anti Bush/war rallies were more legitimate because they had people of color in the crowd. Ah, diversity run amok! While some of the protesters at the tea parties may be benefiting personally from the current administrations tax policy, is it that hard to imagine citizens being against policy they feel is bad for the country regardless of personal gain?

I guess this is what makes politics so damn amusing. For 8 years those on port were giddy about all the vile and distasteful things said about OUR president, but now that the shoe is on the other foot.....