Eight Reasons America Is On Edge

[jimmy olsen]

Is Obama really oblivious of the fear he inspires in part of the electorate? I doubt it, it seems more likely that he's realized that he can't do anything to assuage their fears that would not compromising core Democratic party principals.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236685

Eight Reasons America Is On Edge
Howard Fineman

Fifteen years after the Oklahoma City bombing, the parallels to today are striking.
Apr 20, 2010

On the banks of the Potomac River, guys carrying guns gathered in a Virginia park to proudly advertise the state's "open carry" law. Their compatriots gathered on the National Mall to honor the Second Amendment. They carried signs warning "Don't Tread on Me". On cable TV, Republicans speak about a "gangster government" and the need to "reload"—all innocent discourse, they claim—while on another channel, Democrats warn that such talk could lead to violence. And in Oklahoma City this week, families of those who died in the 1995 bombing are remembering their loved ones. People across the country wonder if, or when, it could all happen again.

The country is once again on edge: We worry about violence. We worry about extremism. We worry about a government run amok. We worry that the frictional energy that makes us grow—the power of never-ending argument—will in these times tear us apart, perhaps with violent results. We have these periodic nervous breakdowns. And a lot of people think we are on the verge of another. It's as if the center might not hold.

Why are we on this precipice—again? Here are eight reasons.

Legitimacy. Never in modern times have Americans been more bitterly skeptical of their political and business leaders—in other words, the people in charge. Nearly four in five don't trust the federal government, according to Pew. A recent Bloomberg poll shows that most Americans have a negative view of Wall Street, big banks, and insurance companies. Approval ratings for Congress are the lowest on record. President Obama—once stratospherically popular—is now under 50 percent. Skepticism of leaders is an American tradition, even an obligation. But this level of anger is corrosive. It can leave us feeling rudderless.

Economy. We have just been through, and have not really escaped, the worst economic decline since the Great Depression. It would be extraordinary if people weren't volatile and angry. Tens of millions of Americans feel that they have lost control of their own destiny. And worse, they are confused as to the cause. Explanations are complex, impenetrable, and unsettling: if there is a new global capital economy, what is it really? And if we can do nothing as a country to control it, of what use is orderly government?

Presidency. When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, many Democratic liberals viewed him as an out-of-the-mainstream figure, and some reacted with rhetoric that bordered on the hysterical. Obama is seen as the mirror image by his opponents. Even though his proposals are hardly radical—they amount to little more than an updated version of the regulatory state—his enemies view him and them as beyond the normal, as some kind of a conspiracy against the essential character of the country. This view is more widespread than people inside the Beltway know or understand.

Politics. Democrats who are startled by the deepening reaction to Obama forget how different he is from the post-'60s run of Democratic presidents, even aside from his race, ethnicity, and name. He is a big-city, Northern liberal lawyer with two Ivy League degrees, a background in community organizing and academia, and no private sector (or even real courtroom) experience. How did they think the nonblue regions of the country were eventually going to react to Obama, once the generalized frustration with George W. Bush faded? I wish I could say that the sublime inaugural ceremony on the Mall in January 2009 was a harbinger of a new country, with new attitudes, but it wasn't. There were more than a million people there, but the Other America stayed away.

9/11 Posttraumatic Stress. In some ways we've never really dealt with the full implications and impact of the 9/11 attacks. But like a long buried personal catastrophe they will keep popping up at odd times and in odd ways. We are quicker to fear, quicker to anger, quicker to accuse. We are under much more government surveillance than before: more cameras, more wiretaps, more e-mail sweeps. We don't even know how much scrutiny there really is, which is of course what the authorities want. But it can put us on edge. We can kill terrorists abroad, and do, but now we are told that a new generation of terrorists will be homegrown.

GOP rhetoric. In the 1960s, it was the left that engaged in the incendiary rhetoric; the nonviolent protests at time veered off into ends-justifies-means nightmares. Now, with a president in power they regard as a stranger and a usurper, the right is running the same risk. Rep. Michelle Bachmann calls Obama "gangster government." Rush Limbaugh talks about "the Regime." Sarah Palin tells her supporters to "reload." Republicans think this is shrewd, that it will amp up turnout. Others, including Bill Clinton, fear a repeat of what happened during his time.

Obama's obliviousness. The president has no real sense of how much fear he evokes in some places and among some groups, because he doesn't really know them. Knowledge won't necessarily help. It didn't help Bill Clinton enough to avoid impeachment. But Clinton knew to tread carefully on matters of political symbolism. He knew he had to make the effort to reach, say, rural or Southern or conservative evangelical culture. Obama doesn't really know the language, and he hasn't really tried to bust through the wall the GOP has built around those constituencies since the election.

Media. We love conflict. We love trauma. We love pictures of militia guys carrying guns. We love outrageous tea-party rhetoric. We love to scare ourselves—and the rest of the country—silly. We are doing a pretty effective job of it right now.

© 2010

[Razgovory]

Perhaps if he changed his name and dyed his skin.

[Berkut]

Perhaps if he changed his name and dyed his skin.

You know, playing the race card every other thread is easy, and I imagine it is pretty much standard tactics when it comes to the Obama Fan Club, but it really makes you look like something of an idiot.

It's not like the Republitards who hate him as irrationally as you slobber over him would think he was great if only he weren't black. These are the same people who hat Bill and Hillary Clinton, who are as white as white can be.

It isn't about race, except to the extent that his fanbois try to excuse any criticism of him by playing up his race. Thank god he doesn't think his race is nearly as important as you do.

[Razgovory]

There a significant numbers of GOPtards that think Obama is in fact a Kenyan.

[Queequeg]

There a significant numbers of GOPtards that think Obama is in fact a Kenyan.

[Berkut Obtuseness]What in God's name does that have to do with RACE?![/Berkut Obtuseness]

[Berkut]

There a significant numbers of GOPtards that think Obama is in fact a Kenyan.

Yeah, so I hear - however, the only examples I see of people going on about race are people like you, so apparently you are not any better than these supposed (and mostly imaginary) racist GOPtards, and since you are here and they are not, *you* are the one who ends up looking like the idiot who cannot mention Obama without bleating about his being black. Over and over and over again, and in direct response to criticism that does not in any way mention his race.

"Obama health care plan sucks!"
"OMG YOU ARE TEH RACIST!"

Let it go already. We get it - he is black. We know.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah, Berkut's right. The hardcore conservative types had every bit as much irrational hatred for Clinton as they do for Hussein.

[DGuller]

I agree.  I don't think race is the real issue, at worst it's just something that's piled on in roundabout ways.  The main problem is that many nuts on the right just don't accept any Democrat in power as a legitimate outcome of a democratic process.

[Fate]

Race is the only issue. These southern bubbas love moderate socialism and will defend it to the last drop of peasant blood, but only when it's lead by a white man (Bush/Reagan/LBJ/FDR/etc).

[Berkut]

I agree.  I don't think race is the real issue, at worst it's just something that's piled on in roundabout ways.  The main problem is that many nuts on the right just don't accept anyone from another party Democrat in power as a legitimate outcome of a democratic process.

FYP.

[Fate]

I agree.  I don't think race is the real issue, at worst it's just something that's piled on in roundabout ways.  The main problem is that many nuts on the right just don't accept anyone from another party Democrat in power as a legitimate outcome of a democratic process.

FYP.

Take your government hands off my Medicare! The epitome of modern conservatism.

They're only protesting because Obama is a nigger.

[DGuller]

I agree.  I don't think race is the real issue, at worst it's just something that's piled on in roundabout ways.  The main problem is that many nuts on the right just don't accept anyone from another party Democrat in power as a legitimate outcome of a democratic process.

FYP.

As usual, I think your middle of the road approach is misplaced.  The denial of legitimacy of the opposing side is much more widespread and intense on one side of the political spectrum compared to the other.  Note that I'm not talking about blanket criticism, I'm talking about just basic acknowledgement that the party has the right to be in power after winning elections.

[Fate]

I agree.  I don't think race is the real issue, at worst it's just something that's piled on in roundabout ways.  The main problem is that many nuts on the right just don't accept anyone from another party Democrat in power as a legitimate outcome of a democratic process.

FYP.

As usual, I think your middle of the road approach is misplaced.  The denial of legitimacy of the opposing side is much more widespread and intense on one side of the political spectrum compared to the other.  Note that I'm not talking about blanket criticism, I'm talking about just basic acknowledgement that the party has the right to be in power after winning elections.

George Bush stole the election in Ohio! DIEBOLD!!111111111111

[Berkut]

I agree.  I don't think race is the real issue, at worst it's just something that's piled on in roundabout ways.  The main problem is that many nuts on the right just don't accept anyone from another party Democrat in power as a legitimate outcome of a democratic process.

FYP.

As usual, I think your middle of the road approach is misplaced.  The denial of legitimacy of the opposing side is much more widespread and intense on one side of the political spectrum compared to the other.  Note that I'm not talking about blanket criticism, I'm talking about just basic acknowledgement that the party has the right to be in power after winning elections.

Well, lets see.

Plenty of nutbars on the left said Bush "stole" the election in Florida, right? And some not so nutbar, in fact?

And I don't recall any on the right claiming that Clinton, for example, did not actually win the election, even if they thought he was the anti-christ. Because there really weren't any grounds to make such a claim, silly or otherwise. Similarly nobody questioned Bush Sr. right to be president either, that I can recall - again, not really anything there to base it on.

So I think it is perfectly situational - if the circumstance presents itself, the nutjobs on either side will find some excuse for claiming the other guy is not legit. And the side in power will then pretend like the nutbars on the other side actually represent the bulk of the other party, and we will hear more about them than their marginal representation actually warrants. Which I actually think is the more odious tactic, since it comes from (presumably) the non-crazy elements who should know better.

So no - I don't think my "middle of the road" approach is at all misplaced. I don't even think it is a "middle of the road" approach to begin with - just recognizing that there isn't anything inherently "special" about the right that makes them more prone to the Crazies or anything special about the left that makes them less prone.

The data suggests in fact that it is perfectly consistent, and simple common sense would lead one to think that crazy is pretty well spread out over the political spectrum.

[DGuller]

The 2000 election was very unfortunate, and it would raise significant legitimacy questions regardless of who was declared the winner.  In fact, in was just a very bizarre event, and would prove to be even more bizarre in hindsight given how it influenced future events.  As for 2004 election, did anyone other than a very limited segment of the nuts on the left ever seriously question the election results?