There has been a lot of commentary on this site implying that we cannot hold our political leaders personally accountable for their actions:
- Because we are not allowed to feel negative emotions for politicians - only for their policies.
- Because these politicians are only continuing a now long legacy of shameful governance.
- Because a politician did not make progressive enough campaign promises.
- Because politicians have no obligation to use the bully pulpit.
- Because the system makes moral behavior and thus moral accountability impossible.
- Because they disagree with the definition of hate
to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest
or that moral accountability is socially useful.
Below I will try to address these objections and given the slant of this diary - flame on.
Because we are not allowed to feel negative emotions for politicians - only for their policies.
This is a circular argument. The reasoning is that politicians are not corrupt or harboring malice for the under class - all of this is just a simple disagreement. Then having removed all morality from the situation, leaving just a scientific like debate, there is no reason for hate. The reality is that America's under class, the 99%, who for a generation are facing a more and more stressful existence have been slapped in the face. And this argument is the equivalent of don't hate the slapper just his policy of abuse.
Meanwhile the over class clearly detests us and no one is complaining.
Obama may yet stage a comeback. But to do that, he'll have to do what the left loathes -- cut domestic programs, rework entitlement programs, stand up to foreign adversaries (Obama's legacy is irretrievably ruined if Iran gets the bomb on his watch), cut back on growth-restricting regulations and keep tax rates low.
As Krugman points out all of these policies have failed dramatically. You can't continue pushing them now without having some sense of going for a final solution. If we can't hate the people advocating our country's demise then we have no right to existence as such a stance would have made the American Revolution impossible.
Because these politicians are only continuing a now long legacy of shameful governance.
This argument well explained here. But it really doesn't matter how long a tradition of wrong doing one is following. You can't avoid moral accountability by hiding behind the norms of a generation of corrupt politicians. This is not some anthropological expedition we are on where we try not to judge. This is Americans suffering needlessly because of the corrupt, stupid actions of our ruling elites.
Because a politician did not make progressive enough campaign promises.
Irrelevant. Moral accountability requires only two things - I know the politician is doing wrong and he knows he's doing wrong (Bush II can be held legally accountable but I always felt he was too stupid / demented to be held personally accountable). Again from Krugman
People tend to forget that Ronald Reagan often gave ground on policy substance -- most notably, he ended up enacting multiple tax increases. But he never wavered on ideas, never backed down from the position that his ideology was right and his opponents were wrong.
Yes the British might take your town and you maybe forced to feed their soldiers but you never give up believing that kings must be replaced by self-governance. To do so would be sacrificing the whole concept of right and wrong and you would be rightfully hated by Americans with spine.
Because politicians have no obligation to use the bully pulpit.
Even kings are obligated to speak out for principle - The King's Speech. And what the movie doesn't fully explain is that there was no constitutionally legal way to remove the older brother from power. The King's brother had to go because he was wishy washy on Nazis.
Fellow Nazi Albert Speer quoted Hitler directly: "I am certain through him permanent friendly relations could have been achieved. If he had stayed, everything would have been different. His abdication was a severe loss for us."
Because the system makes moral behavior and thus moral accountability impossible.
This argument is without merit. One is morally responsible for the bully pulpit and whatever action is possible. One is not morally responsible for re-election. Nor am I holding politicians to some high and abstract principle - this is the same standard we are all held to and being elected to a high position does not lessen your responsibility.
Because they disagree with the definition of hate
to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest
or that moral accountability is socially useful.
There are many variations of this philosophy. Some would liken hate to some form of racism. Others believe that strong emotion has no place in society. The latter is what George Lakoff refers to as "Old Enlightenment reasoning" - basically a fundamental misunderstanding of how our brains work. Without emotion there is no thought - literally. Still others think that hate and thus shame has no place in society because it won't work. But these mechanisms have been with humans a long, long time and I'm not willing to write off hate as a political tool until we give it a lot more of a try.
Happy holidays to everyone but it is a Dickensian Christmas
The seeds for the story that became A Christmas Carol were planted in Dickens' mind during a trip to Manchester to deliver a speech in support the Athenaeum, which provided adult education for the manufacturing workers there. Thoughts of education as a remedy for crime and poverty, along with scenes he had recently witnessed at the Field Lane Ragged School, caused Dickens to resolve to "strike a sledge hammer blow" for the poor.
We cannot love the converted Ebenezer
Samuel then took a large stone and placed it between the towns of Mizpah and Jeshanah. He named it Ebenezer (which means "the stone of help"), for he said, "Up to this point the LORD has helped us!"
without hating Scrooge. This season Santa finally brought me my Volt and if you have the money to afford an electric car and don't take any steps to burn less gas then you only have a few years left before I start hating you :-).