The Most Divisive President Ever in the History of the U.S. …

Loading

…and the Award goes to…?

I don’t know my history of presidents well enough to know for certain if it is in fact Barack Obama…but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t George W. Bush.


“make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”
-President Obama, earlier this year

I don’t remember President Bush 43 ever demonizing his political opponents in the manner in which President Obama has done time and time again. President Bush behaved as a president for the American people. President Obama behaves as the president for the Democratic Party (No, I’m not making an argument that he is the most radical, left-wing politician we’ve ever had- he’s not; nor that he hasn’t also frustrated his own base). He has never abandoned his political campaign rhetoric and in so many speeches during his first term, he has attacked those on the right of an issue with divisive language and belligerence. Yet President Obama was heralded/ushered in as The One who would unite our country and heal a nation. The post-racial president who would reach across the aisle in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation.

President Obama has been anything BUT bipartisan in his governorship of these United States of America.

President Bush has been much criticized for his “tough guy talk” right after the events of 9/11- “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

But how has President Obama been more polarizing, through fault of his own rather than through the designs and machinations of his political opponents?

Dr. John:

No one has done more in last several decades with his inflammatory community organizer rhetoric to divide this country than Barack Obama.

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama: “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
** Obama: “I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I’m itching for a fight on a whole range of issues. I suspect they will find I am.”
** Obama: “It’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers”
** Obama: “We’re going to punish our enemies
** Obama: “Those aren’t the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.”

And there’s this:

** “All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.”

Victor Davis Hanson’s target list of those ridiculed and demonized by the Alinskyite President:

African Americans: “Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complainin’. Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’.”

Americans: Are “not a model for the world” and have a “tragic history.” Also, “we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” and, more recently, we have gotten “a little soft” and lost our “competitive edge.”

Bankers: “Fat cats”

Border enforcement: Its overzealous adherents want “alligators and moats” on the border and would arrest children on their way to get ice cream.

The Cambridge, Mass., police: “Acted stupidly” and, like law-enforcement officers in general, racially profile

Corporate-jet owners: “Are you willing to compromise your kids’ safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?”

Democratic base: Must “shake off this lethargy. People need to buck up . . . if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren’t serious in the first place.”

Doctors: Needlessly chop off the limbs of diabetics and take out tonsils to increase their own profits

Donald Trump: A “carnival barker”

Grandmother: “Typical white person”

Las Vegas: Where you are likely to “blow a bunch of cash when you’re trying to save for college”

Millionaires: They don’t pay their “fair share” and are synonymous with those who have 1,000 times more.

Nancy Reagan: Don’t “get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any séances.”

Rural Pennsylvanians: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment.”

Sarah Palin: “You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.”

Special Olympics: Comparable to the president’s dismal bowling scores

Super Bowl: Where you go “on the taxpayer’s dime”

Supreme Court: Would “open the floodgates for special interests”

Supreme Court Justice Thomas: “I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don’t think that he, I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation.”

Tea Party: “The teabag, anti-government people”

How often has President Obama claimed not to be anti-business? Yet continues in speech after speech to express disdain for corporations and insurance companies. He is often demonizing “the rich”, thereby fanning the flames of class warfare while fostering wealth envy and an entitlement mentality amongst “the have nots”.

Gary Shapiro:

“Corporations” and “greed” seem to go together in every Obama address. “Spread the wealth around” and all forms of higher taxes on successful entrepreneurs are part of the president’s reelection platform. I don’t recall a President benefiting from so much American innovative business success (Facebook, Google, Twitter, Groupon and scores more) who is so hostile to the concept of the American Dream.

So is this Administration the most anti-business in recent memory?

Yes. No one else even comes close.

I’m a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another.”-Presidential candidate, -George W. Bush

And of course it isn’t just the rhetoric that is anti-business and class-divisive, but also his policies which are anti-business.

Remember his Alinsky-ridicule of the GOP driving the car into the ditch? He beat that dead horse metaphor to death in speech after speech all of last year.

Last Wednesday in a speech at the National Women’s Law Center Annual Awards Dinner, President Obama (mis)characterized Republican opposition to his policies in this manner:

The American people are with me on this –– and Republicans in Congress should be with me, too, because it’s right for the country. Instead, they’re spending time focusing on how to turn back the clock. Instead of figuring out how to put more Americans back to work, they’ve been trying to figure out how to take away preventive care that is covered under the Affordable Care Act. (Applause.) Instead of making life easier for women in this country, they want to let insurance companies go back to charging higher prices just because you’re a woman. Instead of working to boost our economy, they’re out there spending time trying to defund Planned Parenthood and prevent millions of women from getting basic health care that they desperately need –– pap smears and breast exams. (Applause.)

That is not the right direction for this country. These folks know they can’t win on the big issues, so they’re trying to make the fight about social issues that stir up their base. They’re spending their time trying to divide this country against itself rather than coming together to lift up our country.

Peter Feaver wrote a very valuable piece last month- one which should be read by anyone who wishes to influence those with whom you disagree with rather than simply alienate and anger:

The result of this is sometimes to moderate my own views, which is what purists fear. But it’s just as often to sharpen the content while softening the edges. That is, having friends on the opposite sides of issues does not mean I have to change my mind about certain policy convictions. But it does make it harder to demonize them.

That, I believe, is essential for fruitful democratic politics — and that is what’s largely missing today. It’s often said, but it happens to be true: When I talk to long-time Members of Congress, they sometimes wax nostalgic about a time when the Members did not rush back home to raise money in their district but hung around Washington to socialize with their fellow political leaders, including those from across the aisle. There were plenty of partisan fights and deep ideological divides in those days, but they were laid on top of an underlying foundation of personal connections and personal trust that was more substantial than it is today.

Second, a consequence of living in such a bipartisan world is that many (in my case most) policy discussions happen with people who fundamentally disagree with you. If you are going to make any intellectual headway in those discussions, you have to be able to understand their position before you can hope to change their mind. This is what is supposed to be (but rarely is) the hallmark of scholarly persuasion: describing the other side’s position fairly enough that an objective observer cannot detect what your position is. None of us, myself included, live up to that ideal — but it is possible to get a good deal closer to it than what we see today.

For professional politicians, one worthwhile goal may be to describe the policy arguments of your opponents in a manner that they would recognize the arguments as (more or less) their own. This is a rare thing to witness; the best example in the Bush administration can be found in President Bush’s 2001 speech on stem cell research. It is, I would argue, the closest thing we’ve seen in recent times to a model of responsible and civil debate, whatever you think of the merits of his decision.

So I would ask: When was the last time President Obama described the views of his opponents in such a fashion? You’ll be hard pressed to think of a single example. And until he can do this more consistently, his capacity to persuade the undecided, let alone those who disagree with him, will be quite limited. And if he cannot effectively persuade people who aren’t already Obama cheerleaders, it’s hard to see how he can lead effectively.

If President Obama read and actually understood Feaver’s post, he might actually gain some bipartisan traction. President Bush has often been touted by his critics as being “incurious”, yet I’ve never seen any indication that President Obama, in any of his bipartisan meetings with the opposition, was ever actually interested in listening to the other side of an ideological issue.

Would it be a distortion for me or my political allies to claim that President Obama himself has admitted to being “anti-freedom”? Well…we’re all political partisans here who don’t hold high public office. What’s the president’s excuse?

If the President- or any politician for that matter- could refrain from mischaracterizing and demonizing his political opposition, I think he will gain greater credibility and a more receptive ear from those with whom he disagrees. At the end of the day, we may still stand on opposite sides of the fence, but at least there was real listening going on and not just heated rhetoric, filibustering one’s ideological worldview, and dismissive name-calling. When you treat the other side with civility and respect, it makes your views more receptive to being heard by those who disagree with you but who you wish to try and influence. The president’s way of doing things is what political partisans do; and this kind of rhetoric only has appeal to his amen chorus political base. He already has their votes.

I don’t believe President Obama is an evil, Marxist, closet-Muslim Hitler hell-bent on the destruction of the country I love. I believe that he, like many fellow Americans I politically disagree with, aren’t evil- just wrong on the issues. I don’t like that kind of talk amongst my political allies; I understand the need to vent and speak in blunt terms if one is standing in an echo chamber; but if one is seeking to influence more voters- moderates in the mainstream middle, independents, and crossovers- to join one’s cause, I think there’s a smarter way to go about it- especially if one is a politician.

I understand that demonizing the other side is nothing new, but…If one is to win elections, it’s not going to happen by simply firing up the base and the fringies. There simply aren’t enough votes in either political camp for that approach. One has to speak in a way that appeals and influences those who stand in the middle of the aisle and brings over those who sit across from you.

“The people who represent you in Washington have a responsibility to do what’s best for you — not what’s best for their party or what’s going to help them win an election that’s more than a year away.”-PotUS calling the kettles…er…better not go there lest there be charges of making a race comment.

Dave Mustaine sums up the nature of the current PotUS quite well:

When asked about the ongoing “Occupy Wall Street” protests assailing income inequality, joblessness and big banks, Mustaine said, “I think it’s really dreadful what’s happening. The buck stops with the president of the United States. He’s the most powerful person in the world. He’s also the most divisive president we’ve ever had. I’ve never, in my 50 years of being alive, listened to an American president try and turn one class of people against another class of people. I’ve never — never — heard a president say, ‘Go down and join the protesters down at Wall Street,’ knowing that there are Nazis down there, knowing that there are people down there who are trust-fund babies, that are super, super wealthy and they’re going down there and pretending that they really care; they just wanna be part of the ‘movement.’ And the fact that that whole protest that’s going on down there, it’s costing the police $125,000 a day. And they’re not raising any money for that. Who’s paying for that? The taxpayers. What I would like to do is really help these guys get organized, but I don’t think there’s anybody there that you would be able to talk to about getting organized. If anything, if those guys wanna protest, protest on the steps of the White House, not on Wall Street.”

Far from being presidential, far from traveling the road high above political mudslinging, far from actually seeking honest bipartisan cooperation, President Obama has been the most divisive president….ever. And it’s not simply natural political polarity, bipartisan in nature. Much of the division has been unilaterally of the President’s own creation, due to his rhetoric and his policies.

Bipartisanship, where’s it’s existed, has been largely in opposition to President Obama’s policies.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
34 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

My God! Where have you been all this time! This is the most grown-up, intelligent, Anti-Obama thing I’ve ever read! Someone who actually hates his policies, someone who actually has a list of what he actually said! Fair and balanced criticisms against this president! Non-bias facts! Without doubt an excellent, well thought argument on Obama’s divisive attitude!

Questionman
hi’ yer , surely the best explanation of the PRESIDENT AGENDA as soon as he was pushed in the power to change AMERICA, by trying to humiliate AMERICA abrod, and appologyse for the most tolerant NATION OF THE WORLD, he pushed on the AMERICANS TO GATHERD IN MASS ON AIRPORT LIKE GATHERING THE SHEEPS, BY TELLING THEM THEY MUST BE SEARCH IN THE DEEPEST PART OF THEIR BODY FOR SECURITY’S SAKE, AND THE TOLERANT AMERICANS GATHERED, IN TRUST FOR THE PRESIDENT
DEMANDS, THEY WHERE HUMILIATED VERY PROFOUNDLY, BUT THEY BELEIVE IN THE PRESIDENT’
AND when he came out and told them of hating was okay, they respond by a question,
MR PRESIDENT ARE YOU A REAL BORN AMERICAN? BOY THAT WAS SO POLITLY ASK,
and the DEMOCRATS START WITH THEIR MEDIA AFFECTED TO COVER AND ATTACK THOSE POSING THE QUESTIONS TILL THIS DAY, COMPLRTLY CORRUPTING THEIR WORDS TO DIVIDE THE PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE MOST UNAMERICAN BEHAVIOR NEVER ENCOUNTERD IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA,
and the tolerant AMERICA started to search deeper,as it was getting worse on insults toward anyone resisting,
and now they know for sure, the real AGENDA TO DESTROY ANY THING CALLED AMERICAN,
and yet like many other AMERICANS, I can say they don’t have the HATE FOR OBAMA AND HIS PARTY OF DEMOCRATS, AND NOT WORDSMITH FOR SURE
THE HATE ONLY BELONG TO THE DEMOCRATS, THEY ARE THE ONE WITH THE POWER AND THEY USE IT TO PROMOTE HATE,
IT ONLY CREATE THE OWL DESTRUCTIVE ACTIONS THAT WE ALL WITNESSING NOW

Questionman
hi, yes the most divisived president, the most inciting toward hate against any thing he can think about, the most depressing person to have a job like he was put on to follow the agenda of those who have nurture hate deep in their core, eager to seek revenge for not having been strong enough to rise above the negative forces which where getting too strong too free to show the beast within, and look where it got everybody, so depress, so confuse from the kind of leadership they see ruining AMERICA, with insult for being decent
and live a life of true AMERICAN BELIEF TO THE LAWS OF THE LAND, THOSE ARE BEING TOLD TO GO TO HELL OR NAMED TERRORIST, BY THE DEMOCRATS ON THE RUNN SO SCARE TO LOOK WHAT IS COMING TO THEM SOON, THEY ARE SO DESPERATE NOW, THEY DON’T RESTRAIN THEIR THOUGHTS ANY MORE, THEY ARE EXPOSED AS THEY REALLY ARE, WEAK SCARED AND DANGEROUS FOR THIS COUNTRY.

Cheney. After all HE was the real President. Bush was his meat puppet. “Non-bias facts?” Questionman? Sorry dude, it’s all silly wingnut conjecture.

Obama has done more for business and small business than Bush ever dreamed.

See; http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/

@ liberalmann
That’s right liberalmann, you tell ’em. As long as you contribute to his campaign, Obama will hook you up. Of course you and your buddies on the left screamed bloody murder when Haliburton got no bid contracts. You seem pretty quiet with your buddy Obama.

@liberalmann: Liberalmann (AKA: BOHICA):

Thank you for the confirmation of your delusional attachment to the past. Please, please, please get the Windex and clear your dirty window. If you continue blindly running around, you may inflict grievous bodily injury to yourself (probably no loss) or some hard working producer (taxpayer under siege by the moocher class).

@Wordsmith:

Wow, you said that with a straight face, as if it is even remotely true, which it is. I can’t think of a more divisive President in my lifetime than Ronald Reagan. He and Bush’s legacy’s are based on the fact they were as divisive as they were. Obama might take the cake!

Now do a ”Most two-faced president ever,” thread.

Newly released e-mails show: Obama’s DOE urged officers of Solyndra to postpone announcing planned layoffs until after the November 2010 midterm elections!

In an Oct. 30, 2010, e-mail, advisers to Solyndra’s primary investor, Argonaut Equity, explain that DOE had strongly urged the company to put off the layoff announcement until Nov. 3.
The midterm elections were held Nov. 2, and led to Republicans taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“DOE continues to be cooperative and have indicated that they will fund the November draw on our loan (app. $40 million) but have not committed to December yet,” a Solyndra investor adviser wrote Oct. 30. “They did push very hard for us to hold our announcement of the consolidation to employees and vendors to Nov. 3rd – oddly they didn’t give a reason for that date.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solyndra-department-of-energy-pushed-hard-for-company-not-to-announce-layoffs-until-after-2010-mid-term-elections/2011/11/15/gIQA2AriON_print.html

I thought it was egregious that Obama kept hiring and firing and re-hiring over and over again all those thousands of temporary US Census workers.
But this is even nastier.

@Nan G:

Personally I’d give that award to the Clinton Admin!

Nan G.
yes , and that’s what is going on since 2008, but then,
they had the MAJORITY to do all the under ground decisions away from scrutiny,
which some are still coming at the surface by the smart researchers like you,
bye

WORDSMITH
thank you,
I’m glad we got the integral message, of MR COOPERMAN,
I happen to see some of it from FOX NEWS best ANCHORS.
BUT TO READ THE WHOLE MESSAGE is a pleasure added to it,
and surely needed in this particular time of having the results of OBAMA inciting along with his MEDIA
associates AND DEMOCRATS FOLLOWERS, TOO SCARE THEMSELVES TO LIBERATE THEMSELVES FROM THE SAME GROUP OF OPRESSERS WHICH DON’T KNOW ANY OTHER WAY TO COMMUNICATE EXCEPT OF THE THUG TACTICS THEY MASTERED, BEFORE ENTERING THE HIGH LEADERSHIP WHICH THEY WHERE NEVER MADE TO EARN, AND THAT’S WHY THEY ARE SO ANGRY TO HAVE BEEN THE PUBLIC KNOWN FAILURE TILL THIS DAY AND WANT TO TAKE DOWN THE WHOLE NATION WITH THEM,
AS THEY PREPARE TO FALL MISERABLY IN THE WORSE HISTORY CHAPTER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Just an observation about Obama.

My son and his 20 something friends are extremely disappointed in Obama. My friends with 20 something kids tell me that the kids all regret voting for the big O.

These 20 something’s are college graduates, working hard in trades. They are bored by the occupiers and the non-workers. They are tired of the drama ofObama.

I have hope for change in the next election.

One last comment. The big O could have stopped all of this. All he needed to was to sit down with his advisors and tell them to stop. By allowing this behavior, he’s sanctioned it. People look up to him and follow his lead. He is the present after all. He does it, the lemmings do it.

Enough said.

Wasn’t Lincoln the most divisive and one of the best US Presidents? Under him – the country was split in half and fought in a bitter civil war. He was the best US President because he won and outlawed slavery. Compared to that Obama cannot be considered more divisive or better.

Paul Ryan: “Obama is the most divisive President in History”
http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-obama-is-most-divisive.html

Fay Paxton
so, why did you come here for?
what was your point?

Wordsmith
wow, that is a super answer, I took note of it,
in case I need it
thank you

I think the actual thrust of the article is that the Republican Congress is the most divisive body politic in history, refusing to entertain even an iota of any policy that deviates from their neoconservative, Tea-Party reactionism.

Oh, and yeah … the dude got re-elected.

@ilovebeeswarzone: The greatest danger to our democracy and Republic is uneducated white folk with the power to vote. Uneducated others only represent a very small percentage of that danger.
Wwaj49

The greatest danger to our democracy and Republic is uneducated white folk with the power to vote. Uneducated others only represent a very small percentage of that danger.
Wwaj49