Obama's Call for Civility Amid Prayer Breakfast Controversy

Rahm Emmanuel has a reputation for a foul mouth but he does not get on radio and TV and label people as fascists, socialists, etc,etc.
He doesn't grind people into the dirt to get an audience riled up. He doesn't cast those who disagree with him as uber-evil. That said, I wish someone would clue him in that foul language is out of place in public or pirvate discourse in his position.

Cost does a good job of distilling Obama's thought process down to this:

We're the ones who are (mostly) public-spirited and rational; they're the ones who are (mostly) self-interested and using propaganda. Thus, bipartisanship will come when they mend their ways. In so doing, they will start to agree with us. While there may be some lingering divisions, many will disappear. After all, if both sides are motivated by the public interest and making recourse only to rational argument - how much divergence can there possibly be?

While I think both parties think like this, the Democrats are particularly prone to it because they see themselves as the party of the little guy while Republicans are the party of "big business" and "the rich". They dismiss out of hand the idea that Republicans may be operating from principles from time to time.

Are these political opponents or are these folks enemies?

Obama has also demonized people. Anyone who disagrees with any of his policies.

That's an outright lie. The trouble is that many of the people who disagree with him can't accept honest, legitimate criticism, so they take any disagreement as a personal attack. Besides, he actually had the goods.

The U.S. is waging war in a number of countries abroad in pursuit of its political objectives. So it is using violence to achieve its objectives. Why isn't that terrorism?

All of these groups are engaging in violence in situations in which their perspective is that peaceful means are not available to achieve their objectives. This is just what Obama said he is doing in his Nobel war speech.

Also note that Hamas was elected by majority vote in a free election, which is a peaceful means, and yet the U.S. aids Israel which responds with violence and refuses to talk with this democratically elected government.

I don't buy the "their violence is bad, our violence is good" argument. This is what leads to perpetual war, which is the current policy of the U.S.

You are arguing that groups which have killed in the hundreds or low thousands are terrorists, but the group (U.S. government) which has killed in the tens or hundreds of thousands is legitimate. This is essentially an ideological not a logical argument, and it very certainly is not a Christian argument.

One cannot sit there and be "civil" when genocide is involved. Genocide -- putting people to death simply for who they are -- is an act of pure evil.

The so-called "Good Germans" were too "civil" and that allowed the Holocaust to happen.

There is a difference between someone who's a political opponent who simply has a different set of political beliefs, and who wants to win elections to carry out said beliefs, versus someone who endorses violent murderous action to carry out said beliefs.

(Paraphrasing I believe Sun Yat-sen) The difference between democracy and dictatorship is this. In a democracy, you count heads to determine who wins. In a dictatorship, you chop off heads.

Going back to the cold war days, would it be right to not oppose communism, even with force, when they themselves are proclaiming violent revolution and subsequent dictatorship as their goal? (Full disclaimer: the anti-communists in all fairness DID commit plenty of atrocities of their own, all in the name of opposing Communism. If we remove the "violent revolution" part from Communism, we'd get something much closer to socialism. And socialists should be part of any reasonable discourse.)

The opponents that the US Government is sending drones and others after are certainly not people who would, at least at present, be willing to sit down and negotiate. Nor are they the type who would be willing to forsake violence for whatever change they desire. No, they are ones who would kill, pillage, loot and burn to bring about their version of Islamist utopia.

All in all, it is not kind, holy, or just to refuse to lift a finger against true evil that exists in this fallen world. That being said, we are certainly far from perfect, and need to make sure we're not pointing out the speck in the other's eye while we have a plank in our own.

Watch the video from the recent meeting he had with Republicans at their retreat. He accused them of saying the healthcare bill was a "Bolshevic Plot" (sp?). Which is a lie. There is more. Watch the whole video. It was on CSPAN, so I guess you can dig that up somewhere on the web.

How about when he didn't want to listen to others persepctives on the healthcare bill he said "Shut up and get out of the way so I can do this" I paraphrase that. Ironically, he now is suggesting that he sit down with Republicans and Democrats and the health care industry and go through the bill line by line and work out something. I have to admit he is changing his tune. Let's hope it's real and not just lip service.

How about when he compared his bowling skills to handicapped people with his comment about Special Olympics on Jay Leno? Would that fit? He took a lot of heat from the press.

How about when he demonized the police up in Massachussets for the arrest of the black professor (sorry their names are eluding me right now) who was breaking into his own house? He said they acted stupidly when he had no knowledge of what happened and he admitted such. Remember? They then had the beer summit at the Whitehouse (PR stunt to cover over the 'police acting stupidly' statement). And what the cop did was not even an opinion on policy, he was just doing his job.

How about when he laughed heartily at the National Press Club Conference when Wanda Sykes made a joke wishing Rush Limbaugh would die from his kidney problems? Is that not demonizing by laughing at something that was not funny, but rather a cruel comment?

If I think of others I will let you know.

Cost does a good job of distilling Obama's thought process down to this:

We're the ones who are (mostly) public-spirited and rational; they're the ones who are (mostly) self-interested and using propaganda. Thus, bipartisanship will come when they mend their ways. In so doing, they will start to agree with us. While there may be some lingering divisions, many will disappear. After all, if both sides are motivated by the public interest and making recourse only to rational argument - how much divergence can there possibly be?

While I think both parties think like this, the Democrats are particularly prone to it because they see themselves as the party of the little guy while Republicans are the party of "big business" and "the rich". They dismiss out of hand the idea that Republicans may be operating from principles from time to time.

Thanks stevie I forgot about that one. But I did recall one over the weekend. Calling the GM and Chrysler bond holders speculators in a way as if they were greedy and evil. They got ripped off in the bankrupcies of those two companies while the govenment gave GM 45 billion that just disappeared (most likely used to prop up unions). Goldman Sachs got dollar for dollar compensation from AIG in the bailout.

Neither Gandhi nor MLK was guilty of "refusing to lift a finger against true evil". Both could be described not as passive, wet-noodle cheek-turners, but as holy warriors of sorts. They fought against the evil they encountered in the worlds that they lived in - they just chose to use weapons that empowered the powerless rather than seeking to destroy the people wielding the intolerant attitudes. Neither was willing to assassinate folks on "the other side" even as they received death threats and were finally assassinated themselves. I think BillSamuel makes an unavoidable point...

The comment to the Republicans was the truth. For months, regarding the healthcare reform bill (and everything else, as a matter of fact) Republicans have called the bill Socialist, Marxist, Leninist, over and over again. They didn't use the particular term "Bolshevik", but Bolshevik is an accepted synonym for Socialist, Markist, Leninist, and Communist, so what the President accused the Republicans of calling healthcare reform is true.

The Senate Democrats in conference with Republicans for the healthcare reform bill accepted nearly 150 - ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY - amendments to the bill offered by Republicans, and they still refused to vote for it. How much more listening would you like him to have done?

I have watched the whole video...although I couldn't have watched it on FOX...they pulled the feed as soon as the President began calling Congressional Republicans to task for their obstructive behavior. Frankly, I was glad to see and hear him do it - truth needs to be spoken. I pray he keeps it up.

Those tempted to take the President's rhetoric about civility at face value would do well to probe deeper into the nature of his partisanship. This essay by Jay Cost is rather long, however it lays out the fundamental problem with such face-value acceptanceL http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/...

Re-reading Jim's article, I'm reminded of the danger of McCarthyism--that is, drawing connections between one's political/cultural opponents and a particularly repulsive group such as communists or NAZIs. The connections drawn between the organizing group of the prayer breakfast and the legislators in Uganda seems to me a case of McCarthyism, or at least it verges very near McCarthyism. Terri Gross interviewed a representative of the sponsoring group on Fresh Air a few weeks ago and the connections between "The Family" and the anti-gay legislation were thoroughly discredited. Far from encouraging such legislation, the group that sponsors the prayer breakfast tried very hard to discourage Ugandan lawmakers from their course of action.

I am sure that many of Obama's leading supporters have had relationships of one sort or another with very unsavory left-wing characters, but that does not make them responsible for the tyrannical things those characters do. It would be like accusing Jimmy Carter of supporting totalitarianism because he has from time to time reached out to unsavory leaders.

No, none of those things would be considered demonization...they were not intended to deliberately demonize anyone. Demonization requires deliberate intent, I believe.

Cost does a good job of distilling Obama's thought process down to this:

We're the ones who are (mostly) public-spirited and rational; they're the ones who are (mostly) self-interested and using propaganda. Thus, bipartisanship will come when they mend their ways. In so doing, they will start to agree with us. While there may be some lingering divisions, many will disappear. After all, if both sides are motivated by the public interest and making recourse only to rational argument - how much divergence can there possibly be?

While I think both parties think like this, the Democrats are particularly prone to it because they see themselves as the party of the little guy while Republicans are the party of "big business" and "the rich". They dismiss out of hand the idea that Republicans may be operating from principles from time to time.

One cannot sit there and be "civil" when genocide is involved. Genocide -- putting people to death simply for who they are -- is an act of pure evil.

The so-called "Good Germans" were too "civil" and that allowed the Holocaust to happen.

Okay, let's just agree to it... Obama is perfect. Perfection with an angelic halo over his head. He'd never (gasp!) dare to even demonize anyone. He's so kind, so wonderful, so charming. He can do no wrong. He wouldn't ever stoop to doing anything like demonizing someone. He just loves and adores his enemies, in fact. Loves Fox News. Loves Limbaugh. Loves it when people critize and oppose him. He's practically God. Well, at least according to Newsweek!

Okay, yes, I am being sarcastic, but I get so exasperated with how people seem to think that Obama is this innocent, do-no-wrong, above-all type of person!! He's NOT!

Thank God for the people of Massachusettes and the election of Scott Brown, because now, the "reform" bill (more like a control, we-will-micromanage-your-lives bill) is almost dead! And I am celebrating!!

We need health reform but we do NOT need Obama being the god of our lives!! WE do NOT need him contolling not only car companies, banks, Wall Street, and everything else he is atempting to control, esp. health care!!

I have no problem with the accusations that he is Socialist/Marxist/Leninist. Not sure yet which he is for sure, but he certainly is a narcissistic, control-freak, and we need to call it like it is. Speaking the truth is not demonization. If Obama is Socialistic,which by his very comments and actions, he certainly appears to be, there is no demonization in labeling him as such.

I am grateful for the Republicans. Thank God they have spoken out and obstructed certain things. For many Democrats, including Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc.... they want nothing more than for Republicans to just be dumb/blind/mute so that they can have total control over this nation.

Is that what America is all about? A one-party rule? Nope. And for that, I am thankful, because living under liberal leadership, as we are living under, is sheer misery!!

FWIW, he was describing people in the center of my state right before the primary election -- and he was right (and was proven him such).

You made a point about Mass's health care coverage. I wonder too if that's why he was elected (their health care needs were already taken care of). Thanks for pointing that out. I haven't seen that point in the media but have thought about it myself.

"progress doesn't come when we demonize opponents"

Jim,

Will you and Sojo take the lead in not demonizing opponents? Will I no longer read articles on Sojo demonizing Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, James Dobson, and Dick Cheney?

There is a difference between someone who's a political opponent who simply has a different set of political beliefs, and who wants to win elections to carry out said beliefs, versus someone who endorses violent murderous action to carry out said beliefs.

(Paraphrasing I believe Sun Yat-sen) The difference between democracy and dictatorship is this. In a democracy, you count heads to determine who wins. In a dictatorship, you chop off heads.

Going back to the cold war days, would it be right to not oppose communism, even with force, when they themselves are proclaiming violent revolution and subsequent dictatorship as their goal? (Full disclaimer: the anti-communists in all fairness DID commit plenty of atrocities of their own, all in the name of opposing Communism. If we remove the "violent revolution" part from Communism, we'd get something much closer to socialism. And socialists should be part of any reasonable discourse.)

The opponents that the US Government is sending drones and others after are certainly not people who would, at least at present, be willing to sit down and negotiate. Nor are they the type who would be willing to forsake violence for whatever change they desire. No, they are ones who would kill, pillage, loot and burn to bring about their version of Islamist utopia.

All in all, it is not kind, holy, or just to refuse to lift a finger against true evil that exists in this fallen world. That being said, we are certainly far from perfect, and need to make sure we're not pointing out the speck in the other's eye while we have a plank in our own.