The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    Turn off your VPN to register and your email must be a working email to join and login.

Bush Hatred and Obama Euphoria

opinterph

Fright is caused by the unexpected
Staff member
JUB Administrator
JUB Moderator
JUB Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
37,781
Reaction score
723
Points
113
Location
Jawja
A short opinion piece appeared today in the Wall Street Journal written by Peter Berkowitz, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

Mr. Berkowitz proposes that the passions Americans exhibit through their rhetoric expressing “Bush hatred” or “Obama euphoria” essentially derive their energy from the same common sources. He notes that many of the people who espouse such rhetoric are otherwise intelligent, educated professionals and that their immoderation says more about themselves than the public figures they seek to describe. He notes that the media promotes the problem by its failure to appeal to reason. But it seems that he primarily blames our universities, resulting from what he regards as their cultivation of intellectual conformity and by quelling the exercise of reason in public life. Whatever the true source of the condition, it seems that some people don’t think for themselves.

Mr. Berkowitz introduces a quasi-religious explanation wherein persons who challenge what could be called “non-thinking patterns” are sometimes treated like apostates or heretics, while our political leaders are sometimes elevated to the status of redeemers. It seems fairly obvious (to me) that either of those outcomes does little to promote genuine discussion, critical thinking, or sound judgment.

I think it is safe to say that we see some of the zeal the opinion piece attempts to describe here in CE&P. It takes the general form, “My politician can do no wrong,” or “Your politician is evil incarnate.” These sentiments, when expressed with sufficient frequency or vociferousness have a tendency to squelch reasoned debate. Perhaps they indicate an intellectual lethargy of some sort. Or perhaps they are simply manifestations of excessive consumerism.

Regardless of the the most appropriate explanation, I agree with Mr. Berkowitz that such zealous statements say more about the person making the statement than the persons being described by those statements.


Both represent the triumph of passion over reason. Both are intolerant of dissent.
 
A short opinion piece appeared today in the Wall Street Journal written by Peter Berkowitz, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

Let's frame this post from the start - WSJ and Hoover Institution are right wing conservative organizations

Mr. Berkowitz proposes that the passions Americans exhibit through their rhetoric expressing “Bush hatred” or “Obama euphoria” essentially derive their energy from the same common sources. He notes that many of the people who espouse such rhetoric are otherwise intelligent, educated professionals and that their immoderation says more about themselves than the public figures they seek to describe. He notes that the media promotes the problem by its failure to appeal to reason.

When Mr. Berkowitz writes:

and the oft-made and oft-refuted allegation that the Bush administration lied about WMD in Iraq,

he loses all credibility with me. The Bush Administration lied about WMD in Iraq.

But it seems that he primarily blames our universities, resulting from what he regards as their cultivation of intellectual conformity and by quelling the exercise of reason in public life. Whatever the true source of the condition, it seems that some people don’t think for themselves.

Universities and colleges are the corrective for the lies put forward by the government and the media.

Mr. Berkowitz introduces a quasi-religious explanation wherein persons who challenge what could be called “non-thinking patterns” are sometimes treated like apostates or heretics, while our political leaders are sometimes elevated to the status of redeemers. It seems fairly obvious (to me) that either of those outcomes does little to promote genuine discussion, critical thinking, or sound judgment.

Quasi-religious? From the article that you referenced:

At least it's unfair to those forms of biblical faith that teach that God's ways are hidden and mysterious, that all human beings are both deserving of respect and inherently flawed, and that it is idolatry to invest things of this world -- certainly the goods that can be achieved through politics -- with absolute value. Through these teachings, biblical faith encourages skepticism about grand claims to moral and political authority and an appreciation of the limits of one's knowledge, both of which well serve liberal democracy.

That is religious, not "quasi-religious"

I think it is safe to say that we see some of the zeal the opinion piece attempts to describe here in CE&P. It takes the general form, “My politician Obama [my word] can do no wrong,” or “Your politician Bush [my word] is evil incarnate.” These sentiments, when expressed with sufficient frequency or vociferousness have a tendency to squelch reasoned debate. Perhaps they indicate an intellectual lethargy of some sort. Or perhaps they are simply manifestations of excessive consumerism.

Opinterph I've followed this forum closely over the last year. I've read many posts that have vilified Bush. I've read very few posts from supporters of Obama that could be even be closely considered to have declared him to do no wrong. Declarations that he is a "messiah" have come from his detractors, not his supporters.

Regardless of the the most appropriate explanation, I agree with Mr. Berkowitz that such zealous statements say more about the person making the statement than the persons being described by those statements.

Agreed. In the context of CE&P, the most zealous statements made recently are anti-Obama, not anti-Bush.


 
Mr. Berkowitz proposes that the passions Americans exhibit through their rhetoric expressing “Bush hatred” or “Obama euphoria” essentially derive their energy from the same common sources.


I think he says Bush hatred and Obama euphoria.

Maybe I'm mistaken but he seems to link the two as opposite sides of the same coin rather than distinquish them as separate "either/or" entities.

And they would seem to go hand in hand.
 
Bush has done everything to earn our hatred.

However, Obama hasn't done anything to deserve our adoration.
 
I think it is safe to say that we see some of the zeal the opinion piece attempts to describe here in CE&P. It takes the general form, “My politician can do no wrong,” or “Your politician is evil incarnate.” These sentiments, when expressed with sufficient frequency or vociferousness have a tendency to squelch reasoned debate. Perhaps they indicate an intellectual lethargy of some sort. Or perhaps they are simply manifestations of excessive consumerism.


Maybe. Or maybe it's frustration with ineffective or incompetent or untrustworthy public servants, and with the two political parties in power.

In fact I think we are, in general, an increasingly frustrated and fearful society.
 
Mr Obama has done exactly half of what should entitle him to clionization. [a word just-now born; you witnessed it here! a bit of portmanteau?]
He has awakened/engaged the dormant political imaginations of millions of the previously semi-indifferent.
The other half is of course, what he does with that awakening.
 
Let's frame this post from the start - WSJ and Hoover Institution are right wing conservative organizations

Actually the WSJ editorial page is conservative, but the rest of the newspaper has a much more liberal slant.





he loses all credibility with me. The Bush Administration lied about WMD in Iraq.

If Bush lied, so did everybody else from the Clintons on down. Saddam had WMD, but they had been spirited away by the time we got there. Get over it.
 
Mr Obama has done exactly half of what should entitle him to clionization. [a word just-now born; you witnessed it here! a bit of portmanteau?]
He has awakened/engaged the dormant political imaginations of millions of the previously semi-indifferent.
The other half is of course, what he does with that awakening.

That may be true for some of his supporters. In others, he has induced a state of semi-religious euphoria - hardly a good thing. What's the line from JC, Superstar? "and they'll hurt you when they find they're wrong."
 
..... and now a word from the opposition's [strike]Messiah[/strike] Buddha:

 
^^ Limbaugh is a radio personality.

Not a politician, not an elected official, and not a religious figure.

But it's interesting you place him in the same category.
 
..... and now a word from the opposition's [strike]Messiah[/strike] Buddha:


The biggest tragedy with Rush and his listeners is that Mr. High School Degree is allowed to challenge Paul "Nobel Laureate Economist" Krugman's statements concerning resurrecting the economy.

That's a damn shame.
 
^^ Limbaugh is a radio personality.

Not a politician, not an elected official, and not a religious figure.

But it's interesting you place him in the same category.
He evokes a political, religious-like fervor in his audience .... to deny that is unrealistic at best.
 
The biggest tragedy with Rush and his listeners is that Mr. High School Degree is allowed to challenge Paul "Nobel Laureate Economist" Krugman's statements concerning resurrecting the economy.

That's a damn shame.

"Allowed to challenge" is a "damn shame?"

Sounds as though you don't believe in the First Amendment.
 
He evokes a political, religious-like fervor in his audience .... to deny that is unrealistic at best.


He's a radio personality. That's his job. He talks. He doesn't craft laws.

Elected officials who are effective at governing and legislating need to have a different kind of talent.
 
The biggest tragedy with Rush and his listeners is that Mr. High School Degree is allowed to challenge Paul "Nobel Laureate Economist" Krugman's statements concerning resurrecting the economy.

That's a damn shame.


Education snobbery is pretty funny coming from someone who thought FDR rebuilt the interstate highway system.
 
He's a radio personality. That's his job. He talks. He doesn't craft laws.

Elected officials who are effective at governing and legislating need to have a different kind of talent.
To deny that right wing radio/tv personalities like Limbaugh and Hannity do not greatly affect, if not literally lead, Republican legislators is laughable. You're missing the aroma of the morning coffee Nick.

IMO, Republican sheeple have always needed direction (marching orders). The collosal failure of George W. Bush has shifted their focus from the Falwells to the Limbaughs. Their leadership vacuum needed to be filled because they have none coming out of the GOP heirarchy.
 
To deny that right wing radio/tv personalities like Limbaugh and Hannity do not greatly affect, if not literally lead, Republican legislators is laughable. You're missing the aroma of the morning coffee Nick.

Your allegation is laughable in the extreme. If, as you allege, Limbaugh and Hannity had 'literally led' Republican legislators for the last several years, things would have been a lot different.


The Republicans in the House and Senate could have done a lot worse than to have listened to Limbaugh and Hannity. Too bad they failed to do so.
 
To deny that right wing radio/tv personalities like Limbaugh and Hannity do not greatly affect, if not literally lead, Republican legislators is laughable. You're missing the aroma of the morning coffee Nick.


Limbaugh and Hannity were not elected by the citizenry to govern or legislate and they do not craft law. They're entertainers, not legislators.

If Republican legislators followed the lead of radio personalities that's something Republican legislators should be held accountable for. Limbaugh and Hannity are paid to entertain an audience; legislators are elected to exercise good judgment in crafting our laws.

But you inadvertantly reiterate a point I've often made, that our culture has elevated the status of entertainers (including those who "entertain" with their likability or good looks or seduction) to the dangerous point of valuing shallow excitement, or "style," over substance.
 
Your allegation is laughable in the extreme. If, as you allege, Limbaugh and Hannity had 'literally led' Republican legislators for the last several years, things would have been a lot different.

My fault Henry .... I edited my comment above with an additional paragraph that might answer your question:

"Republican sheeple have always needed direction (marching orders). The colossal failure of George W. Bush has shifted their focus from the Falwells to the Limbaughs. Their leadership vacuum needed to be filled because they have none coming out of the GOP heirarchy."

The Republicans in the House and Senate could have done a lot worse than to have listened to Limbaugh and Hannity. Too bad they failed to do so.
I don't doubt this at all!
 
Back
Top