No president is ever universally liked. Both Lincoln and FDR were accused by their opponents of being tyrannical for expanding the power of the federal government. Lincoln was also called such names as "ape" and "baboon." There will always be segments of the population that direct venomous hatred toward their opponents. However, it seems this situation has gotten much worse of late. Look at President Bush, for example. You'll hear him called anything from a "moron" (by Martin Sheen) to a "dumb f***" (by Chevy Chase). Why, exactly, does this vitriol seem so much worse lately?
The rise in the use of the Internet over the last few years has undoubtedly contributed to a huge spike in political "commentary." To paraphrase Keith Olbermann, all it takes is "an idiot with a modem" to be heard nowadays. Just about anyone can post comments on a Web site or start a blog - and many have. Although no one knows for sure how many blogs there are (estimates range from 30 to 50 million), their impact is staggering. In fact, political blogs are some of the most highly visited Web sites. The liberal-progressive blog Daily Kos, one of the most visited political blogs, has approximately 15 million site visits every month. Unfortunately, instead of promoting rational political debate or analysis, many sites (on both sides) simply contribute to poisoning the political atmosphere.
Recently, the liberal site MoveOn.org was filled with anti-Semitic comments on its forum, referring to "media-owning Jewish pigs" and "Zionazis," among other things. After President Reagan's passing in 2004, liberals flooded the forums of John Kerry's official campaign Web site and DemocraticUnderground.com (to name a couple), posting such comments as "to Ronald Reagan: may you rot in H*** you sorry evil creep" and "why should we feign grief?" While I take the principles of the First Amendment seriously, there is no place for this kind of venom in politics.
Whenever anyone is brave enough to defend President Bush from various insults insinuating that he's a Nazi, a war criminal or whatever the insult du jour is, the most common response is that the Democrats are simply paying back the Republicans after all of the terrible things they said about Clinton. Dan Rather claimed in a recent interview that he sees no real difference between the criticism hurled at Bush and the criticism the Republicans leveled against Clinton. That is absurd. The Republicans blasted Clinton for his deliberate lies (Can anyone say, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman?"). He was caught lying, and the Republicans were right to be upset. It's hard for him to claim that it's insulting to be called a philanderer or a cheat when, in fact, he admitted as such.
Conversely, look at the slurs thrown at Bush. He's called a "liar" and a "war criminal" for the War in Iraq. Only the most rabidly anti-Bush person would actually believe that Bush deliberately lied to the American people about, say, WMDs, or that he deliberately ordered soldiers to kill Iraqi civilians. This is war, and it never goes as well as planned. There is a huge difference between being wrong and being a sneaky conspirator. I'm not saying that the left is completely filled with crazies that direct venom at the GOP, or that the right is immune to this. However, it seems that a lot of this hatred that is being spewed throughout the political arena seems to come from the left, and thanks to modern technology, we all get to enjoy it.
Whenever the College Democrats and the College Republicans are at a student activity fair, someone gets the idea to put our two tables right next to one another. Students and faculty often comment on this oddity. Why should it be odd, though? Can't the Republicans and the Democrats learn to respect, or at least tolerate, one another? For the sake of our nation's sanity and decency, I sure hope so.
Caleb Enerson is a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs and a conservative columnist for The Eagle.
