Without getting into any specifics, I see a tendency here, and elsewhere in society, to describe one's political opponents in very strong negative terms. It doesn't seem to be enough to say that So-and-So is a poor leader, or that I disagree with So-and-So's ideas; it seems to be necessary to say that So-and-So is evil, a hypocrite, a criminal, and so on.

TO BE DEBATED: Is this justified? Are the outcomes of political elections so important that one must use such strong language?

Well, first of all, this is nothing new. Politicians' opponents and their supporters have always been outspoken when it comes to describing their feelings about said politicians. Often, the negative feelings lead to statements that may not be entirely accurate, such as calling Bush the devil or Clinton the anti-christ. However, since the ultimate basis for the free speech part of the First Amendment was to protect political speech, there is no justification needed to defend such comments. Its all justifiable because its free and necessary to keep political debate alive. By the way, Bush is, in fact, the devil.

Those who constantly resort to it show how little of substance they have to say. I never liked it during the Clinton admin and like it even less today.

Demonizing is what A does when B starts to get ahead in the polls, and A can't compete by less repulsive methods. Union leaders were branded as communists just for wanting labor to have a more equitable share of the capitalism pie. All democrats are by default left wing radical liberals, all republicans must be right wing fundamentalists christians out to form a theocracy. All this is orchestrated distraction.
IMHO, the only ones worth demonizing are the extremist capitalists in the political/corporate world (in BOTH parties) who think that they are entitled to their positions based on birthright and/or education. They and their families have reached the top of the economic ladder, and have pulled that ladder up behind them. They even want to control the few opportunities left to us by which we might get ahead, with the primary opportunity being access to a good education.
They demonize us by assuming that we are incapable of gaining the education and skills to govern ourselves.
The outcome of political elections IS too important to leave to the 'great unwashed ignorant masses' (which would be us), and who the rich and powerful fear!
And Bush can't be any more than a tool of the devil. He isn't that smart. Clinton is, tho.

I couldn't agree with you more.

I am getting tired of reading posts that characterize those of the opposite political persuasion as "hypocrites." To dismiss someone on that basis is an effort to give oneself permission to pay no attention to what s/he is saying, even though there might be something to be learned from us "hypocrites."

Every election is a power struggle. The candidate with the most money and the most clever campaigners stands the best chance of winning, because it doesn't seem to be brains and experience that are winning these elections in recent years. Madison Avenue and Chase Manhattan trump proven leadership experience.

No, I do not think mud slinging is appropriate--but it does serve to distract from the real issues. Let the unwashed masses watch the circus. The bigger the spectacle, the greater the chance they'll be thinking less about their empty bellies. (NOTE: Please do not take this metaphor too literally; it's just my attempt to compare it to the Roman empire
But in case you want to attack my metaphor, I'll wager that there are many houses in this country with a big color television in the living room and relatively nothing in the refrigerator. No, most people aren't going hungry here, but "Behold the power of [entertainment]!")

I'm a man of strong opinions and I don't mind defending them. However, I find that demonizing the other guy doesn't raise the level of debate but only coarsens it.

I think the influence of "talking heads" television, shock jocks and talk radio all have contributed to speaking in soundbites, catch phrases and treating debating the issues of the day like a sporting event:
Who's winning and who's losing? What's the score? It matters less if you are right as long as you are loud.

I recall when Rush Limbaugh first hit it big on the airwaves in the early 90's. You couldn't get away from his mug on billboards, "Rush Is Right" on bumperstickers and for a brief time, a television show. I'd listen to his show as long as I could stand it before bailing out in anger and disgust. I even tried to call in a few times to give him a piece of mind.

One day I was griping about Limbaugh to a friend and he quietly listened to my whining then replied, "Why do you want to waste your time listening to someone who pushes all your buttons? HE ALWAYS GET THE LAST WORD."

That's when I realized that Rush WAS right. Just not for me.

I try not to generalize and name call (though I do have my lapses). It's not enough to have a open mouth. You need to have a open mind too.

Rush is great at demonizing. Has anyone read Al Franken's book, "Rush is a big fat Idiot? It is funny. Be sure to read the index as well.
The sad thing about his kind of demonizing is the large number of dittoheads who swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
Democracy is supposedly the better equpped minority ruling the lesser equipped majority, with our consent, but it appears to be manufactured consent.
Eventually, we are going to have to stop willingly subjugating
ourselves to the lesser of 2 weasels, or evils.
I wonder if a 3rd party that represents the Moderate view would be viable. And I also wonder how the left and right would demonize the middle?

Apparently... There must be some benefit to this or it wouldn't be done... I suspect though that the benefit is not mutual but exclusive to the individual who is using the stronger language.

Most likely it serves to allay fears that the other party may be right.

Should we demonize the opponent? No.

But what if your opponent has already done a great job at demonizing themselves?

-Robert

The more power over our lives politics and politicians have, the more important the outcome of elections is. Downsize government, get it out of our daily lives, and people won't be so passionate about it all. And that would be a very good thing.

Re: Al Franken -- I haven't yet read his book, but I am pretty familiar with Limbaugh, having spent many, many hours listening to his show. I don't agree with all of it, not surprisingly since he's a conservative and I'm a libertarian, but I do enjoy it and think it's a good show. Thus far I'm inclined to think it's Franken who's the "big fat idiot", since the phrase certainly doesn't fit Rush.

Just a little FYI - Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot was published in about 95 or 96, when Limbaugh was still big and fat. He remains to be, however, an idiot.

Nu Marx,

I think that's a good example of the demonizing this thread was about. Limbaugh is not an idiot, he's a very intelligent and educated man who happens to have political opinions opposite to yours. Why do you feel it necessary to call him an idiot just because you find his opinions disagreeable?

Uh yeah, I guess I called Al Franken an idiot. I take that back, he's probably a smart guy whose opinions I don't like.