please understand I am not suggesting that Obama is losing legitimacy, at least not for any valid reason that reflects on him. And I know it was only one person. But one person does not commonly show such a breech over such a trivial issue. There is a strong chance he represents a mood that is commoner. Nor is this the first incident.

We have the striking issue just in the past of few days over students not being allowed to listen to the president. That was not the work of one person, but of at least many thousands.

Now - understand -I am neither defending nor attacking Obama. I am saying there is a growing tendency in the US by a large number of people to perceive Obama as unamerican, and therefore something close to sinful.

Americans have criticized presidents for centuries. Nothing wrong with that. They should criticize presidents. But we are watching the crossing of a line.

When Americans elected Kennedy, it was the first time in over 175 years that such a thing had happened. The long delay was no coincidence. Many Americans throughout American history have regarded Irish Catholics as really not quite american.

Similarly, they have longer regarded blacks as not really quite American.  And moslems aren't even on the radar.

Obama is black. Surprisingly, millions believe he is also moslem. That is not a reflection on Obama. It is a reflection on widespread ignorance and bigotry. But it's there, and it's strong.

As Obama's popularity drops - and it seems likely it will, the danger of the perception he is unamerican will almost certainly grow. And as that happens, democracy itself will suffer.

Please read what I write, and don't leap to conclusions. I am not criticizing Obama. I am not saying he is in any way not legitimate. I am saying that many people see him as that. And that is dangerous.

The danger we're seeing is the impending implosion of the Republican Party as the fiscal conservatives find themselves embarrassed by the social conservatives, who are guilty of the worst partisan attacks and who are growing bolder and more reckless, as seen by this heckler, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and others.  The social conservatives are being emboldened by the support drummed up by the likes of Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and a litany of religious leaders.  They are playing to their base, and it's playing well to their base, but it's not working with anyone outside their base.

The danger is that the Republican Party will be split in two, and won't be a serious (and necessary) opponent to the Democrats for years.  They'll get 30% of the vote no matter what they do, and over 50% in some areas of the south, but that could be it for some time.  This is serious.

As for Obama's decline in approval rating, yes, it's declining.  The honeymoon is over.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php

But despite the Tea Parties, and despite the contentious health care bill, he's still around 50%.  More importantly, if an election were held today, Obama would win and the Democrats would probably maintain their advantages in the House and Senate.

BTW, for excellent polical polling and data analysis, bookmark http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ . These guys break down numbers very well.

Disrespect for the office of President has a bit of a history, beginning with, I would say, Nixon and reaching a nadir with Bush.  I am surprised that you think such vehemence began with Obama.  Do you not remember those people (and there were many) who argued (and still do in some cases) that Bush was responsible for 911, that it was an inside job?  Even though I didn't like Bush's politics, I thought that was pretty nutty. 

Another example:  I think we forget too quickly that, during the Bush years, to be a Christian was, in leftist or liberal circles, to invite ridicule.  We were all dumped into the same bucket.  Christian mean fundamentalist and secularist liberals could be extremely nasty about it.  Now that there is a liberal Christian in the White House, who says that the Gospel of Matthew influences his views on social policy, we have not hear a peep on religion and the White House from American liberals.  There is powerful hypocrisy at work here.

Eight years of strident and often extremely vicious ridicule (with little or no political content) from knee-jerk liberals was quite the sideshow.  What we have with Obama is more of the same. And Clinton got it his fair share of mud too (some of it deserved, unfortunately).

I think I am often very naive and I had hoped that it would change with Obama.  He seems to be a person very much interested in reconciliation and cooperation, but perhaps the water was already too muddied.

oh, i recognize that plenty of presidents have been publicly hated and ridiculted. But I'm talking of something new,  here. bush was called a fool, a liar, a killer, all sorts of things. But it was never questioned that he was an American. He was never an unamerican in the sense that a communist was. Or a black. or a terrorist, for that matter.

Unamerican is a very american concept. In effect, it places a person as beyond having the rights of an american. That's what I think is dangerous in what may be going on here.

Incidentally, I do not understand how one can say the public ridicule began with Nixon - or why you pick only republicans as victims. Few presidents were as hated by some people, at least, as Roosevelt. Lincoln was certainly hated by the whole south. pretty much every president h as been hated by at least a third of the population in his time.

I'm not much familiar with religious hatreds in the US. We don't get much of them in canada. But there are evangelists working to change that.

Sorry, I have to disagree with this. "Un Australian" is a common expression here.

(I've been called it myself!)

That's the bad news, the good news is -  thanks to the internet - we're not restricted to just the views of our fellow countrymen.

"Another example:  I think we forget too quickly that, during the Bush years, to be a Christian was, in leftist or liberal circles, to invite ridicule.  We were all dumped into the same bucket.  Christian mean fundamentalist and secularist liberals could be extremely nasty about it."

Yes, it was so very difficult for you guys.  You were a step away from being thrown into internment camps.  Nevermind the fact that atheists are the most hated minority in America, ahead of both gays and Muslims.  Nevermind that there isn't a single openly atheistic member of Congress, except maybe for a Unitarian from California who came out with his non-belief conveniently after being elected.  Nevermind the fact that the vast majority of American politicians have to wear their faith on their sleeves, including Obama, who talks about God more than Bush does, in order to get elected.  Nevermind the fact that fundamentalist proslytization in the US military is so aggressive that non-evangelicals are either forced to leave or keep their mouths shut.  No, it is Christians who are being persecuted in America. 

"

The danger is that the Republican Party will be split in two, and won't be a serious (and necessary) opponent to the Democrats for years.  They'll get 30% of the vote no matter what they do, and over 50% in some areas of the south, but that could be it for some time.  This is serious."

Yes, the Republican Party will fall apart, and God knows we can't have that because they just been providing so much constructive opposition lately, whether it's feeding the prejudices of a frenzied mob that brings guns to townhall meetings, or filibustering legislation in the Senate or trying to prevent LGBT Americans from gaining equal rights.  What would the US ever do without them? 

As for liberals disrespecting Bush to the same extent, that's a lie.  As much as Bush was hated, there was never any serious attempt by left-wingers to assassinate him.  His opponents never showed up at townhall meetings with loaded fire-arms and then tried to disrupt the proceedings.  Maybe this doesn't show up on your moral compass Chansen, but this is big difference between burning an American flag and carrying a gun to a democratic meeting.  Obama had to face assassination plots while he was still candidate, which is unprecedented.  No other American President has had to confront such danger of assassination. 

free, perhaps you misunderstood my meaning.  To be a centrist or perhaps slightly left of centre AND a Christian, during the Bush years, was an interesting position in which to find oneself.  Christians were regularly ridiculed by the left, by people such as yourself, as you are doing now.  It was a common experience for mainstream or leftist Christians to be tarred with the same brush as fundamentalists and to be dismissed out of hand.  I am not talking about in the US.  I am talking about Canada, even in this forum. You are clearly coming at this from an ideological position, whereas I am simply arguing for civil dialogue. 

What American politics needs is a lot less stereotyping and a lot less rhetoric of the kind you are now voicing,  and lot more respect for the office of President.  As I already mentioned, the classic examples from the Bush years are still the accusation that Bush was behind 911 and that his administration was "just like the nazis."  Now the unhinged right "birthers" are accusing Obama of being born outside of the US (and that there is a conspiracy to cover it up), and there is a right wing movement to expose Obama as a nazi.  I guess not much has changed other than the direction of the nonsense.

I also think that Obama talks about God because he is a Christian.  You just proved my argument about how the left changes the rules now that there is a liberal/centrist Christian in the White House, i.e., "oh he really isn't one of the THEM - he is just forced to look like one."  You are part of the problem I just described and I sincerely hope that you will learn to drop the aggressive rhetoric and take a more balanced view.  But then I am an optimist. It is a part of my Christian faith.

Whoa there, Free.  I support Obama.  But the U.S. would be stronger with a strong fiscally conservative Republican party, instead of a bunch of "social conservative" blowhards who will never get Huckabee elected president.  I fear that if the Democrats get too comfortable, complacency will set in.  Right now, the GOP doesn't have a prayer in 2012, especially if the Secret Service can keep Obama alive.  Yes, that is a real fear.  There are people who want him dead, and they have air time on national radio.

I do wish we could stop using the words liberal, conservative, right, left. Almost nobody knows what they really mean -- and most people simply use them to express dislike so each means roughly the same as "dirty rat".

Equally,the term fiscal conservative has almost no intelligent meaning. For openers, conservatives in both Canada and the US have historically been the big spenders. And  how much you have to spend depends on the situation you face. There is no "fiscal conservatism", for example, in cutting government spending for health if people then have to spend twice as much as was saved in taxes out of their own pockets for health care. this is just a mindless slogan. Similarly, fiscal conservatives cut education budgets in this province. But now I have just had to pay some $350 for school supplies (retail prices) for what used to cost me half that in taxes.

pilgrim - I am astonished. I had no idea there was such a thing as unAustralian. If is possible that it comes out of Australia's old fear at being so isolated from the western world, and so exposed to millions of Asians? I know it made Australia an ardent ally of Britain - until Britain's inability to protect was revealed in WW2 - so Australia hurriedly realigned itself with the US. And I can see that leading to a very serious concern with the definition of an Australian identity. Or, I suppose, it could have resulted from the sudden loss of British imperial identity. In any case, it's interesting. I had no idea it existed.

Graeme,

Australians have always had a fear of  being invaded and overrun. Since our days as a British colony, there has traditionally been a fear of being overrun by millions of Asians. That is why we had a massive immigration policy that favoured British migrants (ten pound Pomms!) One slogan was "Populate or Perish". White Europeans were our next target. (we had a "white Australia" policy at the time.)

One disgraceful facet of our immigration policy was our so-called dictation test. Even if you were fluent in several languages you could be (and were) tested in one you were unfamiliar with, such as Gaelic!

Traditionally, the newest arrivals get the worst treatment. Now it's those from Moslem countries (even if they happen to be Christians).

Despite this, our climate and lifestyle is so comfortable that in a couple of generations each succeeding migration wave becomes absorbed in a more interesting and vibrant whole.

When it comes to racism, I'm encouraged by our youth who, on the whole, are more socially inclusive than my generation.

Having said all this, I love my sunburnt country - and there are many wonderful people here - fair dinkum!

I guess that's not surprising - and perhaps not even blameworthy. People must often become what their environment makes them become. They don't deliberately choose to be prejudiced.

I almost retired to Australia or New Zealand. Not sure why we didn't. The pictures looked great, and the people I'm met from there have certainly been congenial - if awesomely exuberant.

And what's so funny, is in the Canadian and British Parliaments, heckling and shouting thoughts during speeches is so commonplace as to almost be an official part of the debate, that one catcaller making such waves is almost ludicrous.

For the record I think Joe Wilson was rude, and there's a certain level I feel a wounded and angry Republican party is a dangerous Republican party. But I also feel since their 2008 losses that they're almost exposing themselves for the intransigent, spoiled, uncompromising idealogues that they are. What scares me is that their rhetoric is bringing along an unfortunate number of Americans. Hopefully Obama realizes he's not going to move ahead, by compromising with a party to whom that word means 'capitulate'; who openly wishes him failure (can you imagine someone saying that about George W. Bush? Treason! You're with the terrorists!).

well, I certainly wouldln't shout that closing comment in congress unless I were a ventriloquist.

One can, of course,  heckle quite freely in the house of commons. But only when the head of state is not there. To heckle the queen (the real equivalent of the president) when she is presenting the throne speech to the House would result in....well, who knows? It's never even happened.

"be a centrist or perhaps slightly left of centre AND a Christian, during the Bush years, was an interesting position in which to find oneself.  Christians were regularly ridiculed by the left, by people such as yourself, as you are doing now.  "

Don't blame the left.  If Christians have a bad name, whose fault is that?  It's unfortunate you were placed into that camp DC, but this is a matter of cleaning up one's own backyard. 

"I guess not much has changed other than the direction of the nonsense."

You're being disingenuous.  Anti-Bush protestors did not show up to townhall meetings with fire-arms, nor did they drop such open hints about killing to President.  This is unprecedented, and it sets this crowd apart in its sheer vitriol.  There is no moral parallel among the anti-Bush crowd, and it takes a great deal of white-washing to believe that there is.  You have yet to address this point, DC. 

Secondly, before we put both sides on some kind of moral plane, let's evaluate the issues.  Most people who detested Bush, myself included, detested him for things he actually did: run roughshod over American civil liberties, start a war in Iraq, fight an election on homophobia and fear, wreck the economy, etc.  Those are legitimate concerns about actual policies. 

The anti-Obama crowd, on the other hand, are riled up over things that exist nowhere except in mind of Rush Limbaugh: concentration camps, death-panels for grannie, a Muslim plot to take over America by secretly putting one of their own in office, and so on.  They're not protesting actual policies, because at no point has Obama even mentioned euthanasia.  Every single one of these claims has about as much credibility as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  What we're seeing is not a legitimate political movement, but an outburst of anti-civilizational, mass hysteria by a group of people who know deep down that their vision of white America is dying. 

interesting point in that last paragraph. It seems too terrible to even think of - but it seems likely.

Also, the idea that many parents refused to allow their children to hear Obama speak goes beyond anything that any previous president has experienced, I believe. I seem to recall that, Democrat or Republican, once elected, the person took on the mantle of President and that office was respected, regardless of who assumed it.

I could be wrong but those parents were almost foaming at the mouth at the thought of their children being exposed to Obama and his "socialism". I'm with Carter on this one.

Well, as it turns out, Obama is a right-wing homophobe, a bigot.  So far anyway. 

oh, so that should make him acceptable to most evangelical republicans.

graeme, if he can keep the other side interested, he might just get a huge majority next time around!

you're trying to show off your new avatar, aren't you?

The US is going through such a huge crisis, in fact series of crises, that I wouldn't bet there will be a next time around.

To some extent you're right, but it shouldn't be forgotten that Obama caused some of his own problems in that fiasco with a kit that was sent to schools that included a proposed lesson plan in which the students would be encouraged to find ways to help support President Obama's policies. That's not an exact quote, but it was some sort of overt support-Obama material in the lesson plan, and even the White House ended up apologizing for it.

Going back to the original post I don't agree that there's nothing like "uncanadianism." It seems to me that for several years the Liberal Party openly portrayed itself as the only Party that really stood for Canadian values, thus implicitly declaring itself "Canadian" and everybody else (especially those darn Conservatives) "uncanadian." I seem to recall it wasn't always implicit; sometimes it was quite overt.

I am surprised that more progressive parents were not worried that this  homophobe would expose their children to his bigoted views.  He is not in support of same-sex marriage.

DG, for someone who isn't gay and isn't personally vested in GBLT (or anti-GBLT) causes, you seem particularly fixated on this one issue. 

Did someone gay do something to you?  You can share with us.