The Questionable Value of Fanatical Distrust

I can't decide.

It seems every day the news reports on a new outrageous form of outrage from the far right against the White House -- whether it's the spike in gun sales since Obama took office, the claims that Obama's "death panels" will kill your grandmother, the practice of bringing assault rifles to health care town hall meetings, the backlash against Obama giving a speech directly to schoolchildren to encourage them to finish their education (even though Reagan did the same thing), the claims that Obama wasn't born in the US, the allegations that Obama is a Muslim, a socialist, a communist, a fascist, a Nazi, and a hippie all rolled into one, the complete acceptance of Bush's fiscal insanity coupled with unbridled outrage at Obama's... it goes on and on.

Despite all of the unnecessary fear, hate, and ignorance that fuels these claims, actions, and prejudices, there is a part of me that wonders if somewhere deep, deep down they reflect something I desire the American public to posses: a distrust of the state. Would TJ's assertion that a little rebellion is a good thing apply here? Certainly I would take educated civil disagreement over uneducated yelling any day, but I'm not sure that this vitriol is worse than a public which trusts that their president's every action is implicitly in their best interest.

Then again, the distrust in this case is one-sided. The far right is perfectly comfortable with allowing Bush to spy on them, spend their money to bankruptcy, torture prisoners of war, go to war on bad information and then vastly underestimate the reconstruction effort, fake news reports, and so forth, but when Obama wants to improve our healthcare system the pitchforks come out. Am I wrong to take comfort in the public's distrust of the state if that distrust only applies to "the other guy?"

Not only that, but clearly this uproar is hurting any chances we have for an honest, open, national debate on critical issues and any progress which might result from it -- even though in my idealistic view, Congress should be ignoring its extremist constituents as part of the congressional responsibility to legislate not precisely what your constituents want, but what you discern is best for them. Still, given the reality and not the ideal, is sacrificing progress for fanatical distrust of the state worth it in the end?

I can't decide.