Vitriol and invective stain US political history, but the poison of falsehoods, half-truths and innuendo now spreads with the speed of light across partisan airwaves and the Internet — the din drowning out the country’s moderate political center.
Countless Internet blogs have taken on the administration of the first black president, claiming — falsely — that US President Barack Obama isn’t a US citizen, is a secret Muslim, is a socialist, wants to establish death panels to decide when elderly Americans would no longer receive medical care and be allowed to die. The list is long.
Most recently, a partisan furor blew up when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Republican national chairman Michael Steele set the tone, declaring that giving the prize to the US commander in chief showed “how meaningless a once honorable and respected award has become.”
Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, was not immune, nor was former US president Bill Clinton. But today the volume of screeching partisanship is cleaving the US electorate, perhaps, as deeply as at any time since the US Civil War a century and a half ago.
“The environment is much more extreme today because of the level of public involvement, the level of incivility among both the political elite and the public,” said Chris Dolan, a political scientist at Lebanon Valley College, Annville, Pennsylvania.
At Meredith College in Raleigh, North Carolina, Clyde Frazier said: “It is nasty and getting nastier.”
While he believes US history is littered with dirtier political periods and nastier claims among politicians, Frazier, also a political scientist, sees today’s climate partly the result of the “media culture.”
“Vitriol seems to sell. If you are telling people the end of the world is at hand, they watch,” Frazier said.
From the lectern at the White House briefing room, spokesman Robert Gibbs routinely bemoans what he sees as the negative slant on coverage of Obama by the conservative Fox News cable television outlet.
While Americans once sought news from media outlets that aimed for objectivity, they are now turning to sources that reinforce their political viewpoints, including the conservative Fox news and the liberal MSNBC on cable television and the exploding blogosphere that ranges across the political spectrum.
The heated partisan atmosphere produced a staggering break with decorum last month when a member of the House of Representatives shouted out “You lie!” as Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress, extolling his efforts to overhaul the US healthcare system.
Representative Joe Wilson’s outburst drew the South Carolina Republican a rebuke from the House, but, tellingly, supporters quickly began donating heavily to his political war chest. Obama backers did the same for Wilson’s Democratic opponent in next year’s election.
Not long afterward Florida Democratic Representative Alan Grayson took the House floor to attack minority Republicans on healthcare, declaring: “The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.”
A Republican congressman quickly drafted a call for Grayson’s reprimand, but the matter was later dropped.
Partisan political pundits took both events and ran with them.
Conservative Republicans praised Wilson’s courage as liberals voiced shock over his lack of respect for the president.
Grayson took praise and heat from opposite ends of the political spectrum.
“Political animosity has become professionalized,” said Frazier, specifically mentioning talk radio’s ultraconservative Rush Limbaugh, who openly calls for the failure of the Obama presidency.
Fox News host Glenn Beck has called Obama “a racist” who has “a deep-seated hatred for white people.”
The revival of bitter partisanship has built quickly and steadily since the nation united behind Bush in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US. It was quickly discovered that Bush’s rationale for going to war in Iraq — claims that the late Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons — was untrue and the temporary unity dissolved.
“It’s a hard thing to stop and it is escalating” each time Republicans or Democrats cede power in the capital, said Jack Holmes, political science professor at Hope College in Holland, Michigan.
Is there a way out?
“At a certain point the public well demand an end, say ‘We want this to stop,’” Holmes said. “The public has to demand it and will start judging political leaders accordingly.”
A signal moment arose when Obama came under attack from opponents when he planned an Internet address at the beginning of the school year to encourage students to study hard and stay in school.
He was accused, before the very moderate and apolitical address, of wanting to indoctrinate pupils and students with his alleged “socialist” ideals.
He left the doomsayers with red faces.
Frazier said a return to unity or at least a willingness to compromise can only happen around the president, the country’s most visible and powerful symbol. Given that, he said at first, that he believed a modicum of bipartisanship would only take hold if the US again faced an extraordinary external threat, such as the Sept. 11 attacks.
On reflection, he was more optimistic, but not much: “I don’t think that we are hopelessly stuck in this nasty place. I don’t really think there is anything we can do, but I do think it’s possible that the nastiness will run its course.”
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations