I wonder at what point the Republican Party will begin to see themselves as part of the solution to American's problems rather than a dedicated opposition to anything associated with Barack Obama. Michael Steele's statement on the Nobel Peace Prize is an excellent example of what a right-wing talking head thinks is a good idea when pitching this week's cable or radio show. It is not reflective of the values and tone I associate with the long-time, dedicated Republican Party members I know. Those Republicans have been increasing set loose to fend for themselves in a war of words.
The bitter, angry tone of criticism against the President has me, frankly, worried. At what point do the comments of Rush Limbaugh stop being "entertainment" or even "political commentary," and venture into "fighting words" prohibited by Supreme Court challenges in the past? If something, God forbid, were to ever happen to the President, will we be able to look back at the shrill tone of the right and say it incited violence? And if it does incite violence, who is responsible? Does that tone have its roots in criticism of George W. Bush or Bill Clinton? Or is there something more irrational at work here?
As I have listened to, watched, and read coverage of the award, one point seems to be lost: the President did not nominate himself for the award, campaign for it, or encourage the Nobel committee. In other words, if the Nobel Prize committee overlooked other worthy causes or hurt the feelings of some groups, the bad guy here is not Obama. He is as surprised as anyone that he was given it. He acknowledged that he feels humbled to be in the company of great people, who have done more than he has. His good sense in recognizing the obvious shows his instincts and read of the American people is still on target.
The right-wing racist insults (his award is part of an "affirmative action" quota?!) and associations of Obama with terrorist groups (simply because he exists) is dangerously out of step with most of America. But should a violent splinter group take the call to hate Obama to an extreme, I wonder if Morris Dees can file a lawsuit on behalf of the American people to silence the poisonous cheerleaders. Better yet, I wonder if we can do something ourselves, RIGHT NOW, to take away the cheerleaders' megaphones.
Don't the haters need internet service providers? Don't they depend on advertisers? Who books them to speak at public venues, built by tax-payer dollars (in many cases)? We all know that a huge number of Americans support Obama, which is why he was able to out-fundraise all previous Republican candidates. I think the real future of mobilizing these supporters, who responded in huge numbers through sites like this one, lies in on-line action, like digital boycotts, email campaigns to advertisers, and electronic protests to local officials about the use of public space to encourage hate, etc.
Obviously, as someone posting on the Organizing for America web site, I have supported Obama in the past and do now as well. But I really object to the idea that it is not possible to dislike the President without being irrationally angry at the same time. At the risk of helping the Republican Party recover from its 2008 defeat and strengthening it for 2012, I would like to be part of a campaign to restore rationality to political debate. I want my parents, life-long Republicans, to have some viable option in voting their beliefs in the future--and not to be at the mercy of the likes of Joe Wilson. I want to be able to say that I saw where this kind of "debate" was going and tried to prevent the bitterness from spinning out of control.
