Paul Krugman is thinking the same thing I'm thinking today -- when did everyone go so nuts? At the moment, one of the most prominent news stories in the country is the possibility that President Obama might be trying to "indoctrinate children with socialism" with his stay-in-school speech scheduled for next Tuesday. Other presidents have made similar gestures that have been met with partisan reactions -- Democrats once accused George H.W. Bush of using federal dollars for "campaign advertising."
But of course, "campaign advertising" is far less sinister than "indoctrination," which carries with it the connotation that Obama isn't merely a politician who must be held to account but some kind of malevolent ideological force that must be restrained. This is the president we're talking about here, a man who was elected less than a year ago by a margin of nearly 10 million votes. His proposal for universal health-care coverage, which preserves the private insurance market, is decried as "socialism" and "fascism." These terms were considered beyond the pale of polite discourse even after the last administration constructed a network of secret prisons in Eastern Europe, illegally spied on Americans, and made torture part of our national security policy. There are actual sitting members of Congress suggesting the president wasn't born in the United States, accusing him of wanting to euthanize old people, and claiming he wants to unleash terrorists on the country.
There was a moment, at the beginning of the administration, where this kind of craziness seemed so ridiculous it would subside. Now it's a regular part of our political discourse, and it's beginning to seriously affect the public's perception of Obama. Maybe this is par for the course with a liberal president -- but then Krugman is well acquainted with the Clinton-era craziness, and this insanity seems unique even to him.
When did this type of insanity begin to be taken seriously? I'm not really sure. But I can't shake the feeling that the fundamental distrust of the administration that would lead people to actually believe that euthanasia might be a part of Obama's health-care plan began with the Henry Louis Gates incident. Dave Weigel noted at the time that the president's poll numbers slipped seven points among white voters in the aftermath of Obama's negative remarks about the Cambridge police department. The president, to a certain extent, earned white folks' trust with his "responsibility" speeches directed at the black community. But in his response to the Gates scandal, Obama seemed to have broken an unspoken promise not to make whites feel bad about race. In doing so, he may have shattered the trust of those white voters in the middle, dredging up all the fears engendered by Obama's association with the Reverend Wright.
This is, of course, the Shelby Steele thesis of how Obama is "bound," and it's one I've criticized in the past. But at this point, I'm starting to wonder if he was right -- not about "white guilt" being the engine of Obama's political success but about the idea that Obama's popularity would depend at least in part on an implicit promise never to be confrontational with whites on issues of race.
Or maybe this is just how it goes with Democrats in the White House. I don't know.
-- A. Serwer
