What is the difference here?

Question

Democrats speak out against George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon. Republicans call the democrats "un American." However, republicans speak out against Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and John F. Kennedy. Why aren't the republicans "un American?" If we judge people as being patriotic or loyal Americans according to how they talk about the president, then wouldn't we all be "un American?" We've all done it at one time or another. So what is the difference between Dems bashing Bush and Reps bashing Clinton? I'm ready for (most of) your incredibly biased and close minded answers.

That IS my point. So why are WE the ones being criticized?

Chris just about hit the nail on the head. Good answers so far. And Chris...you probably already know this, but the Dems on this site that call Bush those names are only a few. We don't like him, but most of us are mature enough to leave the personal insults and name calling out of our debates. I just let the man's presidency speak for him...it makes my job easier.

Answer 1

It's not "un-American" to criticize a President, regardless of party. In fact, just the opposite: Voicing your opinion, whether it's in support or dissent, is part of what being American is all about. However, if you're going to criticize, it should be constructive - personal attacks and name-calling don't add to the debate.

I think you see the charge of "un-American" from Republicans when Democrats criticize President Bush for two main reasons:

1. We all remember what happened in Vietnam (or, for those of us too young to remember, we learned about it). We saw and heard about how our troops were treated - it was most disgraceful, and when it came to things like spitting on them when they came home, that WAS un-American in my opinion. Criticizing the war is one thing, but to treat the soldiers like that is entirely different. I think that many Republicans see anti-war Democrats' statements and actions regarding Iraq and notice some similarities to Vietnam protests. I personally believe that the overwhelming majority of Dems today wouldn't stoop to the level that the previous generation did, however, so as much as I disagree with them, their criticisms don't make them "un-American".

2. The level to which the national debate has sunk. Democrats aren't content to just criticize Bush's policies; they have to call him names as well, as we all have to hear how he's a "moron", "Nazi", "chimp", "Hitler", etc. You need look no further than this board to see evidence of that, though to be fair, there's plenty of crap from the right as well. Now, before you Dems all tell me how previous Presidents have been called worse, ask yourself how you'd react if a President you supported was called such names. Having said that, I think the Republican response of "un-American" is a bit over the top.

Please note once again that in no way do I endorse the branding of anyone as "un-American" simply for expressing their views. This is just my opinion - take it for what it's worth.

Answer 2

Dems spoke out against Reagan while he was in the process of bringing down the Iron Curtain and they dog Bush while he's fighting the war on terror. They both did some things that deserve criticism, but Bush especially gets bashed for anything he does.
Nixon was justly criticized by both parties (I remember).
I personally believe that Jimmy Carter was one of the worst presidents and Bill Clinton could have done alot more than he did regarding terrorism. I don't hear many Repubs critisizing J.F.K. He was much more conservative than either Clinton or Carter. Unfortunately, he couldn't finish his term and the whole Camelot myth took place. So it's not as easy to judge his performance.

Answer 3

Well Democrats have mostly been labeled as "unpatriotic" in the past 5/6 years in which Republicans took office in most government offices nation, state, and citywide. So the victor could write the history. I'm sure if Democrates held office it would be the same towards the Republicans. Personally as a Democrat, I don't care what you call me for 3 reasons. 1) I just don't care. 2) Your choice to do so (freedom of speech), and 3) If i get to insult you, why can't you insult me back right?
This is ok by me as long as i'm not sent to jail or drafted.

Answer 4

it is unamerican to say that anyone is not entitled to their opinion.

i believe that a leader is responsible for his own legacy. i don't think clinton was a perfect president, but i can point at some things he did right. he rose to some occasions and disappointed in others.

the thing that scares me about bush defenders, is that they insist history will vindicate what seem now to be poor choices. you can claim that forever. it is very hard to prove something is not working, until it fails completely. the idea that the war may be lost by the people speaking out against it rather than the actions of those who led us into it and lost is very scary. a war fought against an invisible enemy can go on forever, and that means there is always a good reason to stifle dissent.

there is no difference i can show you if you don't see it. keep speaking, and arm yourself with the truth. there is no hope but to continue dispelling what lies we can. and i have nothing to go by beyond my conviction that this country benefits from shining a light on our failures. that is the only way to fix them.

Answer 5

The Republicans are so outrageously self-righteous they believe they're the only "real" Americans. They call anyone who disagrees un-American. The real truth is that there is nothing more American than having the right to disagree. As a famous founding father once said, "I disagree with everything that man is saying, but I'll defend to my death his right to say it." If we ever lose that right (which the Reps would very much like to take away), we'll be no better than Al Qaeda.

Answer 6

Both sides (Rep/Dem, Lib/Cons) are given to bashing each other, name calling and closed mindedness in today's political climate.

I have always found the phrase "unAmerican" to be laughingly simple-minded. What does it mean? Of course, it means nothing at all. This allows those who use it to infer whatever meaning they want to.

For example, the use of that phrase in the naming of HUAC (the House Unamerican Activities Committee) of the 1950s that Sen. Joe McCarthy used to tar many people with the brush of innuendo, chose to make communism unamerican. Yet, America as a political ideal, is supposed to represent freedom of conscience and assembly. Shouldn't Americans be willing to defend to the death the right of other Americans to be communist, if they so choose, even if they themselves hate communism? How can there be free, democratic elections if one ideology is shut out?

I'm not a communist, just wondering why fear of a different ideology leads to the legal banning of it. Isn't that unamerican?

Answer 7

So many people have tried to make the point you are making right now, which is a very good point but unfortunately when you make a point in this forum the only thing you get is deducted 6. Keep up the good fight and don't let these guys get you down.

Answer 8

There is no difference.

Answer 9

there is no difference.....whats your point?