Our little Twitter exchange (above) left me unable to tease out my point within the confines of Twitter, so I wrote you a short post.
My initial reply was something to the effect of “The same could be said about the last couple of Presidents…” followed by my clarification and example that I, as someone who was anti-war/pro-peace was demonized as unpatriotic under the previous presidency.
My point in bringing this up is that under the current two party system, no matter who we elect, there is someone in office who is most likely pissing off the other half of Americans by pursuing policy they do not agree with. People from opposing parties will characterize their enemies as villains and there will be gloating by those who win.
Welcome to life.
As for my example regarding the Dixie Chicks, my main point was that being anti-war was not popular post 9/11, especially early on. Perhaps even less so than being pro-gun ownership after Sandy Hook. The Dixie Chicks were just one infamous/famous example of people getting hammered for being against the Iraq War. As someone who eventually took a strong stance against the Iraq War (and war in general), Bush’s pursuit of wars was certainly not representative of my wishes, and I knew from the treatment of other and the reaction I received to my own opinions that I was not seen as patriotic, nationalistic, or violent “enough” to be a good American.
Did Bush call me personally and refer to me as un-American? No. But do you suggest that there was no such sentiment at the time circulating around in the Media, on Facebook, in the News, etc. even if alternative viewpoints were also presented?
Does this make sense?
For the record, I think the Constitution has really gone out the window in both of the last two Presidencies and am highly critical of both Obama and Bush. I am for sensible gun legislation and for the private ownership of firearms, even assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.