In linking my post on the president’s demagogic attacks on the Republicans seeking to replace him come January 20, 2013, Glenn Reynolds quoted the paragraph I had intended to paraphrase in a follow-up post:
He didn’t need to attack Republicans. He could have simply highlighted his accomplishments on issues of concern to the gay community, notably repeal of DADT (which even yours truly believes is a feather in his cap). . . . The president’s mean-spirited attack shows his eagerness to repeat the talking points of left-wing pundits. He is attempting to hold Republicans responsible for the actions of perhaps not more than one boorish individual. This demagoguery, having defined the president’s governing style for these past several months, has also begun to define his re-election campaign.
So, why did it attack? Is it that, the president knows, as our reader MV quipped that “‘HRC’ stands for: Hate Republicans Campaign.” He was just playing to his audience.
Or is there something else to it. He could have just listed his accomplishments — and not just on DADT repeal — on those issues of concern to gay people. Instead, he chose to attack Republicans for standing silent when on numerous occasions, he remained silent when others, in his presence, hurled invective at his political adversaries or other groups.
So, why did this self-professed post-partisan politician feel compelled to attack? This is not the new kind of politics he promised, eschewing the name-calling, buck-passing and divisive rhetoric that seemed to have defined our political discourse for the sixteen years prior (save for a brief respite after 9/11) to his taking office.
The answer to this question might help us better understand the real motivations of the incumbent President of the United States.