Ridiculous Blame Game On “Divisiveness”

November 20th, 2008 By: Arvak | Tags:

Since the contested 2000 election sent many elements of the left off the emotional deep end, the term “derangement syndrome” has entered the political lexicon to describe those that seem to lose control of their logical faculties when evaluating any story, analysis, or even rumor about the object of their ire.  “Bush derangement syndrome” has been on prominent display since at least the 2003 Iraq invasion, for example, with no charge too ridiculous to gain the eager support of the leftist blogosphere.  Since the beginning of 2008, an “Obama Derangement Syndrome” has emerged on the right with a similar pattern of credulous belief and over-enthusiastic promotion of any story or rumor about Barack Obama’s allegedly nefarious past and dictatorial future.

Promoters of these mirrored derangements nearly always blame the victim, arguing that the target of their rage has reneged on their promise to be a “uniter” rather than a “divider”.  It is a convenient case to make, since the people who hate the target can themselves create the conditions under which they blame the target for failing to follow through.  They can themselves escalate the hateful rhetoric, then point to that hateful rhetoric as itself being the evidence of “divisiveness”.  This was the trick that many on the left played with the Bush presidency and that equal numbers on the right appear to be modelling in 2008.

The truth is, of course, less blameworthy and more intrinsic to broader patterns in American political culture that are independent of the specific promises or personalities of the politicians.  Writing at RCP, Jay Cost documents the growing polarization of the American electorate.  Since their goal is, naturally and appropriately, to get elected, politicians have no choice but to pander to the “with us or against us” divisions that the American voters have built amongst themselves.  “Divisiveness”, it seems, is more effect than cause.

Alot of those who complain about the divisiveness of politicians need to look in a frickin’ mirror.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.