Nancy LeTourneau has a good piece up at the Washington Monthly on what extreme anti-Obama rhetoric is doing to our country, particularly when it is uttered by formerly respectable Republicans like Rudy Giuliani and Dick Cheney. Even the New York Times has taken notice of the savage downturn in civility that has accompanied the right’s decision to side with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the nuclear negotiations with Iran.
LeTourneau refers us to a piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution by Jay Bookman. Bookman’s point of departure is a segment of an interview that the former vice-president gave with noted-wingnut and aspiring Republican debate moderator Hugh Hewitt:
“I vacillate between the various theories I’ve heard, but you know, if you had somebody as president who wanted to take America down, who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world and reduce our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama’s doing.”
If there is one word that I never thought I’d hear Dick Cheney self-apply, it’s “vacillate.” What’s ironic about this statement from Cheney is that it would seem to apply perfectly to the decision to invade Iraq.
Bookman says the following about Cheney’s remarks:
It would be nice to be able to brush such craziness aside as inconsequential, but it is not. For democracy to work, it requires a deep and mutual understanding among all parties that while we differ on the details, we’re at least all acting in good faith. The other side may be misinformed, dumb, incompetent or any number of things, but we at least have to allow that they are patriotic in their mistakes. And while that good-faith understanding will get bruised from time to time in the rugby scrum that is self-governance, it remains essential. In countries such as Iraq, where democracy has proved unable to take root, it’s usually because that minimal belief in the good faith of your opponents is absent.
I think this is largely correct, but with a caveat. In the end, if you think your political adversaries are destroying the country, it’s doesn’t matter whether or not you are generous enough to give them points for good intentions. Your reaction is going to be to try to save the Republic, and almost any means will meet the test of being necessary.
If, on the other hand, your predictions of doom are mainly theoretical and the potential harm really isn’t all that bad, then taking means that destroy the Republic in an effort to save it will create a self-fulfilling prophesy.
The evidence is in about the Bush/Cheney administration. They wrecked this country on the shoals of Iraq and the Great Recession. So far, most of the metrics you would use to judge the Obama administration point in the direction of recovery. The Republicans have predicted disaster from the moment Obama was elected, but their dire predictions just aren’t panning out.
Now they want to tear this country apart to prevent a deal with Iran. Why would we trust them this time?
