Liking One Requires Hating The Other

[MediumTex]

I have noticed here and in the U.S. in general that feelings about the two presidential candidates in this race (as well as recent presidential races in our history) seem to translate into support for one candidate meaning that one also hates the other candidate.

What I find ironic about this ready willingness to hate the person running against the candidate that you prefer is that the candidates themselves appear to have no hatred at all for one another (they know it's all a game and that neither one of them would pursue THAT different a policies).

From my perspective, both candidates seem like personable, highly intelligent and well-intentioned people.  I'm surprised that people would be able to muster such intense dislike for one person in a race when the two candidates would be almost indistinguishable to a communist or a libertarian, so similar are 90% of their views.

As long as I can remember, the narrative in this country has been "The current President is an evil, misguided, morally bankrupt person", whether they were talking about Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II or Obama, even though the nation has experienced amazing levels of prosperity and political stability during this period.

Am I misunderstanding something here?  I sometimes feel like I am at a wrestling match where the fans are screaming all sorts of terrible things at the wrestlers, ultimately just because it is therapeutic, not because anyone actually cares about the outcome or the individual wrestlers as people.

[MediumTex]

Perhaps it is a process designed to create feelings of hatred in people who follow it.

Maybe what we have created is essentially a long form of the "Two Minutes Hate" described in Orwell's 1984.

Two Minutes Hate, from George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is a daily period in which Party members of the society of Oceania must watch a film depicting the Party's enemies (notably Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers) and express their hatred for them.

[Pointedstick]

I think it all comes down to peoples' desire to have their preconceptions validated. Mitt Romney perfectly fits into liberal distaste for rich people and can easily be portrayed as a nasty greedy mr. moneybags who steps on poor people as he leaves his mansion. And Obama fits into conservatives' fears to become a creeping internationalist who wants to destroy religion, guns, and the American way. It's all about making the candidates into caricatures that reinforce your existing narrative, no matter how  poorly they might fit (e.g. that Mitt Romney has given millions of dollars to charity and Obama has pursued an incredibly hawkish pro-America foreign policy).

[Benko]

MT,

It is very easy to get carried away by emotions.  However:

1.  I do not hate Obama.  He and progressives just wish to transform america (which has been happening) in ways in which I am not happy with.  

2. "neither one of them would pursue THAT different a policies)."
While I can sorta understand what makes you and other people on this board say that of the two candidates, speaking strictly of domestic policy I think you are minimizing VERY important differences.  Granted it might be starker if Romney were more clearly economically conservative but nevertheless ROmney has sucessfully run large businesses, and Steve Wynn (not a republican) had made comments about businesses feelings about Obama.

3.  Hate may be the wrong word, but you think Obama doesn't have strong (negative) emotions about Romney?

[Pointedstick]

2. "neither one of them would pursue THAT different a policies)."
While I can sorta understand what makes you and other people on this board say that of the two candidates, speaking strictly of domestic policy I think you are minimizing VERY important differences.  Granted it might be starker if Romney were more clearly economically conservative but nevertheless ROmney has sucessfully run large businesses, and Steve Wynn (not a republican) had made comments about businesses feelings about Obama.

It's very difficult for me to see any significant differences between the two in terms of domestic policy. Romney supports the core of Obamacare and admits he'd keep much of it. He supports government intervention in the economy on a variety of matters, differing only in the technical details as to how he'd do it. He supports all the tax cuts that Obama does, differing only in that he'd go slightly farther. Both of them talk about the need to balance the budget and support free trade agreements. Both of them want to continue and expand the government's role in inflating higher educational pricing (i.e. through Pell grants and subsidized guaranteed loans). Both support failed federal job training programs. Both of them want a federal energy policy that subsidize favored industries. Both support major changes to Medicare although to be fair I suppose they differ on their preferred changes.

The only major differences I can see are the perennial wedge issues of abortion and gay marriage, and Romney's desire to privatize Amtrak. I like that one.

Honestly, no matter which guy wins, I really just expect more of the same.

[MediumTex]

Honestly, no matter which guy wins, I really just expect more of the same.

Which is sort of what we got when we went from Bush II to Obama.

We're talking about different pilots of what is essentially the same aircraft.  The new pilot may claim to be able to change the engineering that went into the airplane's design, but what he normally finds is that he spends 4 or 8 years just trying to get a feel for how to fly the thing and never comes close to actually redesigning it (which is very hard to do in the middle of a flight).

Even Reagan, who was considered by many to be a "transformative" President, really just got lucky that oil prices plunged while he was President, the Baby Boomer demographic was entering its peak earning years, and the nation's primary enemy was on its last legs from decades of internal decay.  None of Reagan's slogans about smaller government, lower taxes or any of that stuff really added up to much beyond their value as propaganda.  Reagan was a statist like all of these guys have to be in order to fly the big planes.

[MediumTex]

MT,

It is very easy to get carried away by emotions.  However:

1.  I do not hate Obama.  He and progressives just wish to transform america (which has been happening) in ways in which I am not happy with.

Isn't "transformation" something that happens on a cultural and sociological level?  Do politicians really "transform" societies, unless we are talking about a tyrannical murderer like Hitler, Stalin or Mao?

Obama had a golden opportunity to do something transformative to the financial sector and he basically facilitated business as usual.

Obama had a chance to transform the health care delivery system and he gave the insurance industry the gift of tens of millions of new customers.

Obama had a chance to transform the military (he won the Nobel Peace Prize, after all), and he mostly stuck with the previous administration's policies, while increasing the campaign of targeted killings all over the world.

Obama had a chance to transform the tax code and he extended the Bush tax cuts and added a payroll tax cut on top of it.

I understand the fear of a transformation that one doesn't like, but I just don't see a lot of transformation under Obama compared to his predecessor.  The wars continued, the tax cuts continued, and the hawkish foreign policy continued.  It sort of reminds me of the Johnson-Nixon era, except in the current iteration Nixon would come first and the Texan is a Republican.

2. "neither one of them would pursue THAT different a policies)."
While I can sorta understand what makes you and other people on this board say that of the two candidates, speaking strictly of domestic policy I think you are minimizing VERY important differences.  Granted it might be starker if Romney were more clearly economically conservative but nevertheless Romney has successfully run large businesses, and Steve Wynn (not a republican) had made comments about businesses feelings about Obama.

The last successful former corporate executive we had as a President was Herbert Hoover.  I don't find the credential of private sector success to be all that impressive in a politician.  Private sector success depends on taking bold action and catering to a small population of parties with a single interest (e.g., investors and/or shareholders), while what I like in a politician is a tendency NOT to take bold action and a willingness to cater to a large population with many different interests.

3.  Hate may be the wrong word, but you think Obama doesn't have strong (negative) emotions about Romney?

I don't know.  When I was younger I spent some time working on Capitol Hill and I was shocked at how members of Congress who would constantly talk trash about each other on TV seemed to get along just fine when the cameras weren't on.  

The wrestlers don't hate each other--they're just putting on a show.

[WiseOne]

It's very difficult for me to see any significant differences between the two in terms of domestic policy....
The only major differences I can see are the perennial wedge issues of abortion and gay marriage, and Romney's desire to privatize Amtrak. I like that one.

Honestly, no matter which guy wins, I really just expect more of the same.

Agreed!  Most people seem to have forgotten that Massachusetts passed a universal health insurance requirement under Romney, predating Obamacare.  Most of the differences are in foreign policy, but it's hard to guess what Romney would actually do as President (hopefully not say stupid things while visiting other countries).

After so many election cycles, it amazes me that the religious right hasn't yet figured out that Republicans use those wedge issues purely to snag votes.  And, Romney was quite liberal on those issues until the moment he declared his candidacy.

So it comes down to which one is more likely to privatize Amtrak?  That would be great by the way.

[MachineGhost]

The wrestlers don't hate each other--they're just putting on a show.

Speaking of that, you guys got to see this great little movie...  The Wrestler starring an unbelievable comeback performance by Mickey Rourke.  The story is about an aged and washed-up WWE wrestler and his retirement journey.  Instant classic!

[Tortoise]

Am I misunderstanding something here?  I sometimes feel like I am at a wrestling match where the fans are screaming all sorts of terrible things at the wrestlers, ultimately just because it is therapeutic, not because anyone actually cares about the outcome or the individual wrestlers as people.

Kind of like this? (25:08 - fast-forward to get the gist)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfKVJEY-9VM

The wrestlers don't hate each other--they're just putting on a show.

Absolutely. The actors who play the hero and villain in a movie usually respect each other tremendously as professionals. I think it's the same way with high-level politicians. Any semblance of dislike for each other's views is purely a show for the public. It's just part of the role they're paid to play.

[AdamA]

Honestly, no matter which guy wins, I really just expect more of the same.

Which is sort of what we got when we went from Bush II to Obama.

We're talking about different pilots of what is essentially the same aircraft.  The new pilot may claim to be able to change the engineering that went into the airplane's design, but what he normally finds is that he spends 4 or 8 years just trying to get a feel for how to fly the thing and never comes close to actually redesigning it (which is very hard to do in the middle of a flight).

Even Reagan, who was considered by many to be a "transformative" President, really just got lucky that oil prices plunged while he was President, the Baby Boomer demographic was entering its peak earning years, and the nation's primary enemy was on its last legs from decades of internal decay.  None of Reagan's slogans about smaller government, lower taxes or any of that stuff really added up to much beyond their value as propaganda.  Reagan was a statist like all of these guys have to be in order to fly the big planes.

MT, I really like the aircraft analogy, and agree with it...just wondering, though, do you think if John 3McCain had been elected 4 years ago that we would be out of Iraq right now?

[MediumTex]

Honestly, no matter which guy wins, I really just expect more of the same.

Which is sort of what we got when we went from Bush II to Obama.

We're talking about different pilots of what is essentially the same aircraft.  The new pilot may claim to be able to change the engineering that went into the airplane's design, but what he normally finds is that he spends 4 or 8 years just trying to get a feel for how to fly the thing and never comes close to actually redesigning it (which is very hard to do in the middle of a flight).

Even Reagan, who was considered by many to be a "transformative" President, really just got lucky that oil prices plunged while he was President, the Baby Boomer demographic was entering its peak earning years, and the nation's primary enemy was on its last legs from decades of internal decay.  None of Reagan's slogans about smaller government, lower taxes or any of that stuff really added up to much beyond their value as propaganda.  Reagan was a statist like all of these guys have to be in order to fly the big planes.

MT, I really like the aircraft analogy, and agree with it...just wondering, though, do you think if John 3McCain had been elected 4 years ago that we would be out of Iraq right now?

That's really hard to say.  It's not like Obama really wanted us completely out either, but the Iraqis basically said GO NOW.  Someone in Iraq probably looked at Japan, Germany, and Korea and said "If we don't get them out of here now they will never leave."