Peter Berkowitz writes about Bush hatred, and so-called progressives stated pride in it:

Bush hatred is not a rational response to actual Bush perfidy. Rather, Bush hatred compels its progressive victims--who pride themselves on their sophistication and sensitivity to nuance--to reduce complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil. Like all hatred in politics, Bush hatred blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent.

Some people, based on posts like the previous one, have mindlessly called me a "Clinton hater." Not just me, but anyone who points out that they are both corrupt liars. But there's no passion in such a statement--it's just a clinical factual description. If I state that Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson, or (for that matter) OJ Simpson are murderers, does it mean that I hate them? I don't. I'm simply making a factual statement.

I've noted in the past that I'm often foolishly accused by people of being a Bush lover, simply because I'm not a Bush hater. And I'm also often accused of being a Clinton hater, simply because I (unlike, generally, the accusers) am not someone who loves him beyond all reason. From my perspective, I'm simply rationally evaluating both men based on the record. George W. Bush has many flaws, but doesn't deserve the vituperation that is heaped on him. Bill Clinton isn't evil, but he is a profoundly corrupt, narcissistic man.

I don't hate the Clintons--I just don't want them to regain political power. Of course, I'm just not that into hate, period, for the reasons that Berkowitz describes--it's an emotion that clouds reason and judgment. I don't even hate Osama bin Laden. I wish him dead, but not because I hate him. I simply, dispassionately think the world better off without him, and those like him.

But of course, the word "hate," like "racist," has lost most of its intellectual currency as a result of overuse and abuse by the left. So it's all the more interesting that the same people take such pride in their admitted (and irrational) hatred of George Bush.

"Of course, I'm just not that into hate, period, for the reasons that Berkowitz describes--it's an emotion that clouds reason and judgment."

The logic of this sort of thing always mystifies me.

It never seems to occur to people who say it that the emotion can be a proper conclusion of reason and judgment.

Perhaps it can, but once the emotion is attained, it doesn't lend itself to further reason and judgment.

I am filled with loathing and disgust for many in the "progressive" movement; those professing socialist or communist views. For me to hate them, they would have to cause harm to me or mine.
The visceral, blinding hatred I have seen from some of these people first hand makes me want to have the patent on the gene or hormone that cause such a reaction. Of course I'd keep my topknot low and my powder dry.

>>Bill Clinton isn't evil, but he is a profoundly corrupt, narcissistic man.

I'm not sure I see evidence for that. For all but the most restrictive definitions of "evil," the word seems a good fit to the man's record.

A W

Hate requires effort. If someone is enough of a direct threat to me or mine that he deserves that much of my attention, I'd be better off directing it into taking action than in aerosolizing my spittle.

Politicians, as a rule, don't pose that kind of direct threat -- especially American ones.

It never seems to occur to people who say it that the emotion can be a proper conclusion of reason and judgment.

By the way, Billy, FWIW, you're echoing Jonathan Chait's justification for hating George Bush.

It never seems to occur to people who say it that the emotion can be a proper conclusion of reason and judgment.
Posted by Billy Beck at November 14, 2007 12:23 PM
__________________

Is love "a proper conclusion of reason and judgment"? I can see Rand's point about coming to the conclusion that the world would be a better place without OBL in it- in the old Southern phrase, "some folks just oughta be shot", but there isn't really room for hate in that process, although the other person is likely to be described as "hateful". Life's too short to invest time and what brain--power we have in nursing hate; given the ability of hate to foul up the mind just as surely as the adult beverage of your choice will if you indulge in hate constantly.

I can see Rand's point about coming to the conclusion that the world would be a better place without OBL in it- in the old Southern phrase, "some folks just oughta be shot"...

Actually, I think the phrase is "Some folks just need killin'."

Life's too short to invest time and what brain--power we have in nursing hate; given the ability of hate to foul up the mind just as surely as the adult beverage of your choice will if you indulge in hate constantly.

It seems to me that BDS sufferers are poster cases for this proposition.

Here's another poster case for that proposition.

"By the way, Billy, FWIW, you're echoing Jonathan Chait's justification for hating George Bush."

So what? We're talking essentially about a response to values (more precisely here: their actual or threatened violation), and everybody's got 'em. And as for "further reason and judgment": that's mainly a matter of new cognitive material to work on, and nothing about that is necessarily constrained by prior judgments or their consequences.

"Is love 'a proper conclusion of reason and judgment'?"

To me, it is.