A similar article could be written from the other side of the aisle, but it’s easier to write it this way since we have (at least as of today) a Republican controlled legislature and executive branch.
I understand why people would join facebook groups like the one’s titled “F*ck Bush”1. The reason, as I understand it, is that many people feel an unbridled rage welling inside of them at the mere mention of his name and lashing out like this is the only way they can think to channel it.
Essentially what it amounts to is that they harbor resentment for a person they don’t even know because… well… for an assortment of reasons, and they lack the intellectual ability to articulate those any more eloquently than an invective. As I see it, this only really differs from the Republican/Clinton anger in its severity.
Now, understanding that our nation (and this includes both sides of the political aisle) is composed largely of morons, it stands to reason that groups like these would sprout and flourish.
What I simply cannot understand is this: what self-respecting law student (or would-be law student) would be a member of them? I know of a number of people who, at least until the job search started last year, were members of such groups. But what is gained from joining a group like “F*ck Bush” versus one like “Anti George W. Bush”?
I cannot imagine that anyone — even someone who agrees with the basic premise — is going to be impressed or think you’re edgy or cool. In fact, the only thing that came to mind when I saw classmates of mine in those groups was this: “How on earth did they get into law school?” So that this isn’t misconstrued, I am not meaning to say or imply that you have to like Bush to get into law school, only that you should have a little better grasp on your own emotions and have the intellectual capacity to express your feelings in an intelligent way (a faculty many members of these groups simply do not possess).
My favorite, though, is when you confront people about things like this, they always blame it on the person they’re angry with. “Oh, well, if Clinton hadn’t gotten a blowjob in the Oval Office / lied under oath…” or “If Bush weren’t such an idiot…” as though what that person did had anything to do with how they chose to respond.
Oh well. It adds to the diversity of the class when we allow a few loonies in.
Clearly different from the ‘Anti George W. Bush’ groups for many reasons.
November 7th, 2006 at 10:02 am
I certainly did not agree with pretty much anything Clinton did when he was president, either policy or personal-wise. But that’s nothing against the man per se… and certainly I never would have joined any group that was that derogratory. Maybe a “defeat Clinton” group or something like that I would have joined.
But I think this is just the natural extension of the public discourse. In the example of law students, for example, I would imagine some of them perhaps want to go into politics one day. Let’s say they are Democrats. (But it could easily be Republicans focused on someone else). They see some of the national Democratic figures assulting Bush personally. I think it’s just a matter of time before one of them says “F*ck Bush” publically.
Because at some point in the history of political discourse, we stopped debating and disagreeing over the issues. It’s become personal.
A lot has been made about how both parties are moving to the edges, further away from each other. Maybe they feel that if they want to be in politics one day, they have to be more extreme than the current politicians.
I don’t know. I think it’s childish, unclassy, and a complete lack of maturity to join a group like that.