Good Sense--Hopefully It's Common

Lately, I've noticed that people in the United States treat everything like a spectator sport. I had the opportunity to attend the BYU-Florida football game. From my seat I could hear the angry, frustrated responses to fumbles, scores for the other team, etc. Now we've all been frustrated at a game, or sat by extremely displeased football fans who shout out what the players on the field should have done, or didn't do right. My high school history teacher called it armchair quarterbacking. I don't recall being so engulfed by fans hating on their own team. Except in politics.
Instances like Joe Wilson shouting "you lie" in President Obama's speech, or the outrage at the president's school broadcast telling kids to stay in school, have been displays of disproportionate hatred. There was a time when the president was supported, regardless of whether the people voted for him or for his opponent.
The above are recent events, but past presidents have had similar reactions. President George W. Bush, for example, was publicly hated. I cannot tell you how many conversations I hear that criticize President Bush personally, unrelated to decisions he made in office -- I mean below-the-belt insults that went after his accent, or his grammar (I even had a friend curse him repeatedly during the early election process before his first term in office). I cannot tell you how disgusting it is to hear people still grumbling about how Senator Al Gore should have won, eight, even nine years after the election. Being that bitter about the way things happened is ridiculous; if you want the system to be changed, then do it through the system; being bitter isn't going to change policy.
The first president I remember was hated on as well. And I think the trend of unreasonable attacks really took off during his presidency. President Bill Clinton was attacked vehemently, so much so that he got impeached. Of course having an affair is not right. Lying under oath about it was doubly not right. The outcry from these things was merited, to some extent. But in reviewing the situation, and age-old question comes to mind: do the means justify the ends? Several presidents have had affairs, and have not been impeached for it. It goes under the category of 'personal life,' and not under 'oath of office.' Of course there's the argument of broken trust. If he lied under oath about an affair, would he lie under oath about other things? Possibly. But it's arguable that the people who most vehemently propagated the cause of impeachment just used the affair as an excuse to kick the president out of office. And that's where I come to distrust this method of hatred.
Have you ever heard the idea that anger blocks out reasoned thought? That's what I think the effect is of this spreading bitterness. People aren't able to see past the apparent faults to what may be the motive behind the message. Everyone has a reason to speak their mind, from the proverbial little kid who wants a cookie and tells his or her mommy that cookies are healthy, to the official who wants to win an election, or the writer who wants to sway opinion. Perhaps it would be easier to see motives and act according to one's best knowledge if anger and bitterness is rethought and held back for the sake of reasoning.
And this is where my argument gets tricky. I don't believe it's good to listen to people like Glenn Beck, who yell at the top of their lungs and shut out fair debate. If an argument is so high-stakes that he, or anyone else, can't let it be said, it implies that he can't capably rebut it on his own radio talk show, where his opinion can be said unfettered. A radio talk show, in my opinion, should be about talking things out, exploring the details and letting ideas and opinions form and change to reflect the most reasonable conclusion. I don't trust people that won't let the facts stand on their own. I don't think anyone else should, either.