From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Acceptable Behavior
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:01:01 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Mike:
>        In regards to the talk of murdering our President-elect (an abhorrent
>proposal, even if made in jest), one of my former professors has remarked to me
>about the intense feelings of hatred for liberals that he senses from some of
>his conservative students.  He notes that these sentiments go beyond
>disagreement and beyond even dislike; rather, they are strong emotions of hate.
>This recent suggestion is one example of such feelings.  Now I realize that
>most on this list are reasonable, even those with whom I disagree, but could
>someone attempt to explain (rationally, a qualifier which would seem to
>eliminate the poster of the original suggestion) the causes for such hatred?

	There seems to be a lot of polarization since Reagan.  I don't think
it's Reagan's fault, I'm just stating that's when I noticed the trend.

	It's as if people transferred a dislike of Nixon, and conservatives in
general onto a part of the popluation that was not only refuting liberal
ideals, but making a huge economic recovery to boot.

	The avoidence syndrom/denial/victimization process took over to the
point where any injustice in society was to be blamed on these evil
conservatives, who were only letting the rich gain, etc. etc. etc.  With each
successive administration, the frustration grew.  Look at what happened this
time:
	A Democrat asserts (with a straight face) that Bush is just like
Reagan.  He gets away with it because Bush is in a lose-lose position.  If he
owns up, Republicans desert him.  Of course by staying silent he simply gave
weight to Clinton's words.
	Now, the only way liberals (hmm, ok: non-Reagan fans :) can resolve the
dichotomy of real Reagan success vs. perceived flaws is to discredit both
Reagan and supply-side economics.

	There are individuals who insist that the 80s were one long orgy of
greed where only those making over $100k made money while the rest grew poor
and lost their homes.  That Reagan didn't improve tax revenues by cutting
taxes, etc.  When people attempt to show them the data, their repsonses range
from simple denial "I don't believe it" to hostility--name calling and a
refusal to debate.  (Not that there weren't problems in the 80s.)

	Unfortunately, this seems to be a trend in society today: you aren't a
bad person, you simply came from a dysfunctional family.  You aren't a bad
worker, your boss is simply an exploitive racist white male.  It's not that
basket weaver's are a dime a dozen, the rich are preventing you from making any
real money at it.

	Maybe society is simply incapable of living in a time where there are
no significant threats to survival.  When real ones dissipate, imagined ones
must be constructed.  We (as a society) lean on religions to absolve our
consciousness of the reality of death; why not lean on victimization to absolve
the reality of the differences between individuals?  Finding scapegoats has
always been a favorite past time of societies.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU