From Robert Reich on FB:
“Polarizing” has now become a negative political adjective bestowed on anyone in public life about whom people have strong feelings, pro and con. President Obama is now commonly described as a “polarizing” figure – “the most polarizing president in recent American history,” as one pundit put it a few days ago. “Polarizing” is so often used to describe Hillary Clinton that it’s almost become her first name. I keep reading that Elizabeth Warren shouldn’t even run because she’s too “polarizing.”
Can we get a grip? The President is “polarizing” because he’s finally shown the gumption and courage to take on the Republican right, after too many years of holding out olive branches that Republicans summarily rejected. Hillary Clinton has been “polarizing” since she stepped on the national stage in 1992 because she’s a powerful woman. Elizabeth Warren is polarizing because she stands squarely and firmly against abuses of power emanating from Wall Street and corporate boardrooms. In this political environment -- with regressive Republicans dissing the President, sending open letters to Iran’s rulers, and threatening to close down the government if they don’t get their way; with Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and their right-wing media clones fanning the flames of resentment and hate; with so many Americans frustrated and powerless because they’re getting nowhere and big money has taken over our democracy – anyone with strong conviction, who tells it like it is, who challenges the status quo, is likely to be deemed a “polarizing figure.” But the problem doesn’t lie with these people. It lies with a rabidly regressive right coupled with a sensationalized media looking for red meat 24/7. Under these circumstances, anyone who’s not a “polarizing figure” is probably not doing his or her job.
What do you think?
*********
Home
