Columnist Robert Samuelson makes some points that are similar to Dave's:
If "hate" were used loosely (as in, say, "kids hate spinach"), the word choice would be harmless. But people who claim to hate really mean it, and that is serious.
It signifies that you have gone beyond discussion, compromise or even (to some extent) coexistence. The differences are too basic to be bridged. Genuine political hatred usually is reserved for true tyrants, whose unspeakable acts of brutality justify nothing less.
More than the language is being butchered. Once disagreement turns into self-proclaimed hate, it becomes blinding. You can see only one all-encompassing truth, which is your villain's deceit or stupidity. That was true of Clinton haters, and it increasingly is true of Bush haters.
A small army of pundits and talking heads now has devoted itself to one story: the sins of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and their supporters. They ruined the economy with massive tax cuts and budget deficits; the Iraq war was an excuse for corporate profiteering; and their arrogance alienated foreign allies. All ambiguity vanishes.
In the end, Bush hating says more about the haters than the hated
His fiercest detractors don't loathe him merely because they think he is mediocre, hypocritical and simplistic. What they truly resent is that his popularity suggests that the country might be more like him than it is like them.
On one level, their embrace of hatred aims to make others share their outrage. But on another level, it is a self-indulgent declaration of moral superiority – something that makes them feel better about themselves.
Either way, it represents another dreary chapter in the continuing coarsening of public discourse.
