I was reminded by Claire Conner's recent diary of a couple of disconcerting things. The diary embedded the image of the famous 1963 "WANTED FOR TREASON" poster with President John F. Kennedy's picture on it, along with a list of rhetorical grievances that bear an uncanny similarity to what we've all hearing and reading lately about our current president on Fox, talk radio, and so forth. The diary then led with this quote from one Lauren Pierce, the president of the College Republicans at the University of Texas, Austin, which was tweeted as a "joke" on November 16, 2011:
“Y’all as tempting as it may be, don’t shoot Obama. We need him to go down in history as the WORST president we’ve EVER had!”
Those of us outside the
paracosm would be expected to recoil in horror at the "don't shoot Obama" part of this tweet, especially given the too-close-for-comfort similarity of the JFK poster's right-wing rhetoric to that of today. But what horrifies me a bit more is what comes after that:
“We need him to go down in history as the WORST president we’ve EVER had!”
(emphasis added). Now, we all know that inside the paracosm, Barack Obama has been the "WORST president we've EVER had!" since long before he was even elected. (I'll never forget the man-on-the-street interview I saw around the beginning of March 2009, where the interviewee stated, in these exact words, "He's already destroyed most of the country.") There is simply no possibility that he will be seen, perceived, understood, or talked about as anything else by anyone inside that paracosm, no matter what objective reality might fairly or reasonably suggest. In that universe, he is, has always been, will always be, and will "go down in history as the WORST president we've EVER had!" no matter what he does and no matter what happens while he is in office.
But this idea got me thinking: Why do they, as Ms. Pierce put it, so desperately "need him to go down in history as the WORST president we've EVER had!"? Even if you replace the word "need" with "want," the question still stands.
To Ms. Pierce and her cohort, I might ask, Really? You "need" that? That's what you "need"? That's something you "need"?
We don't "need" affordable health care?
We don't "need" a clean environment?
We don't "need" a robust economy?
We don't "need" jobs?
We don't "need" infrastructure?
We don't "need" peace in the Middle East?
We don't "need" economic fairness?
We don't "need" consumer protection from the financial industry?
We don't "need" alternative energy sources?
We don't "need" better public schools?
We don't "need" equal pay for women?
No, we "need" President Obama to "go down in history as the WORST president we've EVER had!". That's what we "need," and that's all we "need."
Tell me, what would have to happen in order for Obama to actually, legitimately "go down in history as the WORST president we've EVER had!"? What kinds of things would have to happen for anyone [outside the paracosm] to make that judgment? What kind of pain and suffering and misery and disaster and hardship would have to befall the United States and its people in order for Obama to genuinely "go down in history as the WORST president we've EVER had!"?
Wait, who am I asking? I'm sure you have a laundry list of answers to that question.
So, once you're done reciting all the talking points and rhetoric about all the pain and suffering and misery and disaster and hardship that are certain to befall the nation and its people as a result of Obama being President, I'll ask you again, for each item on that list:
We "need" that?
Why do we "need" that?
Why do you want that? Why would you want that?
Is there any reasonable interpretation of Ms. Pierce's tweet other than, "Don't kill Obama; we want the country to be wrecked, and countless lives to be ruined, so we can blame it all on him!"?
What's that? Oh, I see; you don't want the country wrecked and you don't want countless lives ruined, you just know that it will happen and want to make sure this President is blamed for it. OK. But if you don't want any of that, and if we don't "need" any of that, how do you reconcile the fact that we don't "need" all those terrible things to happen with the aforecited "need" for Obama "to go down in history as the WORST president we've EVER had!", a need so strong that it necessitates keeping him alive through the end of his presidency? If none of those terrible things actually happen, how can he "go down in history as the WORST president we’ve EVER had!"? How can you have one without the other?
Again, I have to ask: WHY do "we need him to go down in history as the WORST president we’ve EVER had!"?