The Uncivil State of the Union

During a recent trip to Phoenix, I listened to a lot of what President Obama has called the "cable chatter". I was struck by how deeply divided the country now seems to be, if this chatter is indicative of what is happening down on Main Street, U.S.A. The place seems to to be in a state of uncivil war.

Three issues in particular have riled up the folks, and pitted "conservatives" against "liberals". The rhetoric on both sides is heated and angry.

First was the fuss over the release of the so-called "torture memos" and the ensuing debate over whether some in the Bush administration who were responsible for the approval of the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" or "torture" (you choose your term) should be prosecuted. Some of those on the right are outraged that these memos were released at all in the first place, and are even more incensed that there is now talk of prosecution. Even moderate conservatives like Ed Rollins, who is opposed to the interrogation tactics, think that releasing the memos and prosecuting anyone involved would be a huge mistake. More outspoken right wingers, like Bill O'Reilly or Hannity, think that the release of the memos has endangered U.S. security, and that conducting "show trials" would invite a new major terrorist attack.

These folks do not pull any punches in their condemnation of the Obama administration. According to them, if another attack occurs it will be President Obama's fault and the effective end of his presidency. There is debate whether the interrogation techniques worked to prevent any attacks, with some certain that they did, others that they did not, while others asserting that even if they did work it would not justify their use. Human rights advocates want to see prosecutions, although there is debate about whether these would be successful. Add to this mix calls for a the creation of a "truth" commission, and the impeachment of a now sitting Federal judge who authored one of the memos, and we have a real messy situation. President Obama seems uncertain about what exactly he should do, arguing that the country should be looking forward and not backwards, but that prosecutions are still possible. This is a huge test for his presidency. (My prediction is that there will be no prosecutions and no commissions, but this debate will go on until the two sides to it have milked the issue dry.)


Then there were the tax revolt "tea parties" of April 15. This was fairly big news in the USA, but interestingly the debate was not about taxes. It was about who organized these tax revolt get togethers, who was behind them, and how the media covered them. The tea parties were seen by the liberal crowd as a Fox network staged event, attended by a group of anti-government, anti-CNN, fringe group, secessionists, racists, right-wingers, etc. (See eg http://www.newshounds.us/2009/04/17/oreilly_brags_about_tea_party_ratings_discards_journalistic_integrity.php) Fox News saw those who were critical of the tea parties as "uber-liberals", the committed left wing press, and the "haters at NBC" etc. O'Reilly crowed that Fox News beat the living daylights out of these other networks in terms of ratings. And so on it went. O'Reilly openly declared that there was a civil war going on in the media. My point here is not to analyze these tea parties or the assertions made about them. What is of note is the anger and mutual distrust that exists in the media and presumably the country in an ever deepening cultural and political divide.

Then there is the controversy over President Obama's interactions with enemies of the USA. Should he have so warmly greeted Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad or not? Did he weaken the US and give Chavez a huge boost? Should he not have spoken out against him at some point? (See http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/20/concerns-brewing-obamas-warm-embrace-chavez/). Was he just being polite and statesmen-like? And how about the fact that he sat through a 50 minute anti-US rant by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega without nary a response? (See http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/18/obama-endures-ortega-diatribe/). The two sides are battling this one out as well.

Of course, there will always be conflict between left and right in the US, especially in view of how polarized the nation is on fundamental issues and values. What is striking about the current situation, however, is the fact that the US has a President who effectively wants to be seen as governing, not by building upon the strengths and accomplishments of his predecessor, but by being the anti-predecessor. Every day the US and the world is reminded by the current administration that there is major repair work to be done due to the disasters of the Bush years. Whether it is about the economy, the US military interventions, or the reputation of the USA in the world, the President and his team make it abundantly clear that they have their challenges due to the havoc of the Bush years. Secretary of State Clinton openly mocks Vice President Cheney in a public committee hearing. (See http://www.poligazette.com/2009/04/22/hillary-clinton-takes-on-cheney/). Vice President Biden mocks President Bush and his lack of leadership. (See http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/04/10/biden_says_bush_didnt_lead_rove_says_vp_lies/).

When one administration makes it its full time job to humiliate and denigrate the previous administration, there will be the inevitable push back. Although President Obama talks about looking ahead and not dwelling on the past, read his lips. It is time for this to stop, because all it is doing is heating up an already badly divided country.