Hatin' on the president?

Our president’s name elicits an emotional response on both ends of the political spectrum to the point of painful stagnation in the debate process. Sadly, this provokes further argument, and, as a result, we tie up brain cells fighting rather than solutions and compromise.

A Facebook group, as someone’s idea of a joke, “prays” to God about the deaths of beloved favorites. The prayer lists the individual’s favorite president as Barack Obama, inferring that God should take him away, too.
In response, another Facebook page petitions Facebook to remove this “prayer” group, calling them hateful, which is an accurate description of the spitefulness behind the “humor.”

The wall of this booming group has overflowed with comments from people showing their support, whether conservative or progressive. Some say they didn’t vote for him, but they would never wish anyone dead. Others say they did vote for him and tell off Tea-Baggers.

Some see through the stupidity of the “prayer group.” Jason K. posts, “It’s just a facebook group … not a movement.” Tyler Y. posts, “Of course it is a stupid thing to post … most of you are overreacting.”

It’s not a stupid joke to others; it is a personal attack. Elizabeth R., whose profile depicted an African-American woman, posted, “Racists are very evil and sick people.” She may not have read the details of the other group, which lists Michael Jackson as one of the favorites that God took last year. The “prayer” group doesn’t express hate at an ethnicity, just one person, albeit one person too many.

Race monopolizes much of the conversation on the petition board. Schemika C. posts, “They hatin on the black man,” which elicited, “How do you know they…ain’t ‘hatin’ on his white half?” Hunter S. summed it up: “People can’t even criticize him without being a racist.”

And racism is one of the most blatant, stupid forms of hate.

Democracy is about dissent and resolving as a people to do one thing or another. Robert L. Ivie, professor of communications and culture at Indiana University in Bloomington says in “Rhetoric and Public Affairs” that when politics is reduced to hostility and dehumanization of others and ourselves, democracy is lost. He puts the burden of resisting this style of dissent on people rather than political elites. While his article, “Toward a Humanizing Style of Democratic Dissent” takes a jab at the war in Iraq, the truth in his statements translates to the heart of every American—not only about others outside our borders, but those within as well.

When we listen to our fellow nationals believing that they want what is best for us, even though their ideas may not line up with ours, we open a conduit for communication. This requires tolerance and forgiveness of some extremely stupid people, even if they don’t ask for it.

This is why the group shouldn’t be deleted. Their existence provokes a conversation, an opportunity to share what many of us have in common, a respect for our president, despite how we voted in the last election.

Many will take the First Amendment as an excuse to disengage the filter between the brain and the mouth. If more of us can take the high road and listen with tolerance and patience, we would set an example of how to listen, and when it’s our turn to speak, we must stick to that high road and pick words that convey ideas without insulting others’ attitudes because it’s impossible to have civilization without civility.