« Why Bankers Make So Much Money | ☠enghis's Blog | Persecution Politics: Beck Predicts Dollar Collapse, American Land Sold to China and Russia, Polar Bears Executed by 'Ivan' »

Persecution Politics: Bill Kristol Says, Rage On!


One reason that right-wing commentators continue to spout paranoid hysteria is that no one has told them to shut up. OK, Keith Olbermann and a bunch of left-wing bloggers have told them to shut up, and the White House has indirectly implied that they should please keep it down. But the people who really have the power to undermine the conspiracists--the non-paranoid conservative leaders, or what's left of them--have not said a damn word about the wild accusations hurled by Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Michele Bachmann. Some may be afraid, particularly after Limbaugh schooled RNC Chair Michael Steele when Steele called him an "entertainer." But others have cynically calculated that the paranoia works for the party, so they just let it ride.

Take Bill Kristol. Kristol is a very conservative man, but he is not a stupid man. Unlike Beck and Limbaugh, who never graduated from college, Kristol received a B.A. (magna cum laude) and Ph.D. from Harvard. Instead of beginning his career as a radio D.J., he taught political science at U. Penn and Harvard's Kennedy School. He has never expressed the kind of paranoia that has become the standard fare of FOX News commentary. But he has no intention of trying to stop it. Kristol believes that the Republican Party's center of gravity lies "with individuals such as Palin and Huckabee and Gingrich, media personalities like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and activists at town halls and tea parties," and he praises their effectiveness:

Some will lament this -- but over the past year, as those voices have dominated, conservatism has done pretty well in the body politic, and Republicans have narrowed the gap with Democrats in test ballots...The lesson activists around the country will take from this is that a vigorous, even if somewhat irritated, conservative/populist message seems to be more effective in revitalizing the Republican Party than an attempt to accommodate the wishes of liberal media elites. So the GOP is likely, for the foreseeable future, to be of a conservative mind and in a populist mood. In American politics, there are worse things to be.

In American politics, there are worse things to be. Kristol doesn't tell us what those worse things are, but red-baiting witch-hunters from the 1950's are fairly high on many peoples' lists--the politicians whose paranoid fearmongering tore the country apart until someone finally stood up and said, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" Conservative leaders of the day surely felt that the "populist mood" benefited their election chances. Eisenhower toured Wisconsin with McCarthy, and it probably helped him to win the Presidency.

But Eisenhower hated McCarthy and actively worked to undermine him after winning the election. We might also recall a more recent president, George H.W. Bush, who resigned his lifelong NRA membership after an NRA advertisement referred to "jack-booted government thugs," a fascist reference that seems almost quaint by today's standards.

Yet today, we hear nothing but silence from the right side of the aisle, or worse, complicity from politicians who seek to profit directly from the hysteria. As long as conservatives provide a haven for conspiracy theories, the paranoia will continue to boil and heave and devour the party that protects it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stay tuned for more crazy talk in my Persecution Politics series at dagblog.com.


33 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

It also bothers me that so many elected Congresspeople tend to validate the crazy lies and cruel accusations; the truth just hides in the shadows, and they don't mind.

user-pic

I disagree with you, I find Kristol to be a very stupid, or at least terminally ignorant, man. He's been wrong about every damn thing that he pontificated about (and that's a lot) over the last 10 years.

user-pic

There is a point at which being one twisted f**k is functionally the same as stupid.

Kristol's met that threshold.

user-pic

Kristol is wrongheaded for sure, but he doesn't subscribe to Beck's kind of crazy. He doesn't believe that Obama is a secret Marxist who is planning fascist revolution. The point is that he tolerates Beck for the sake of conservative politics, and he's not alone.

user-pic

Well, you are right, of course, but Beck is a psycho, so it's a rather low bar you're setting! =D

user-pic

I suppose it depends on how you define "stupid." Kristol's is quite well-connected through his family--which is how he got into Harvard (and for that matter, the jobs at the Times and the Post)--and he undoubtedly worked hard in college, but he's basically a walking ethnic stereotype: The nice Jewish boy who never cut the apron strings, and never really grew up.

Moreover, he's remarkably sheltered about people who work for a living, or who live outside of the Washington/Manhattan/Cambridge bubble.

That's why he's such a fan of Palin: She's what a guy like him imagines the rest of America is like.

Palin's palpable ignorance, laziness and vulgarity doesn't bother him because he's been brought up to believe that every American who isn't, say, an Ivy/Seven-Sisters/etc. alum like himself, must be expected to slog through life being less intelligent, dignified and informed than cute little him.(Otherwise, what's the point of having elite universities?*)

On the contrary, what would rattle him is if Palin (or Huckabee, or Beck) said something coherent and well-considered. It would be as if a dog suddenly started speaking in complete sentences.

Whether or not he's stupid is a matter of debate. What's less debatable is the improbability that anything he says will be worth bothering to read.
________

* Douthat's got the same problem. The Times wants to "balance" their Op-Ed page with a conservative, but they want someone with posh credentials. That means they're mostly stuck with people whose conservative leanings were acquired through lifelong protection from the uglier facts of this life.

user-pic

For the Right, it is not whether they are right or wrong. It only matters if they are wealthy.

The speech that should end every one of their broadcasts, "Hey, thanks to all the little people who supported my becoming so rish. You ARE the real patriots!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!"

{Picks up bags of money and goes to bank.}

user-pic

I wonder who Kristol is endorsing in the NY-23 Special election? Yeah, this whole "somewhat irritated, conservative/populist message" seems to be working about as well for him as did the search for WMD's in Iraq.

I agree with brantlamb. He may not be stupid, but there's little in Kristol's professional record to show otherwise. It would be difficult to imagine anyone getting more things so horribly wrong in such consistent fashion.

user-pic

Hopefully, he's wrong on this too. But in a sense, it doesn't really matter whether the paranoia actually helps conservatives politically. As long as conservatives believe that the paranoia helps, they will keep their mouths shut.

As for NY-23, was there any doubt? http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/weekly-standard-hits-back-at-scozzafava-camps-accusations-call-to-the-police.php

user-pic

I'm not sure if you are being facetious or not, Jeezus, but Kristol is all-out for the conservative candiadate, and is dissing the Scoffalazza campaign left and right. His love for Sarah Palin seems to be leading him around like he is a puppy on her leash.

user-pic

Oops, sorry, I hadn't gotten to Genghis's answer, and then I mispelled Dede's name, to boot.

user-pic

Kristol's extremism problems are Freudian.

He can never live up to the conservative icon his father sculpted, bbased on real conservative values, not no-bid bppk-cooking neoconservative values, so Jr. doubles down on neoconservative dogma in an attempt to be to the new conservatives what his father was to the old conservatives.

COnsidering how crazy the Rigtht has become, that means Billy is dealing with a short deck, compared to his father's poker game.

Thus he encourages extremists because there aren't enough centrists left in the Republican Party to perform for.

He's desperate to claim the legacy his father created. And since he's the self-appointed inheritor of all that wind, he has to keep reaching further into wingnuttia for popular support in his vain attempt to match the old man's influence.

In order to keep up the psychological battle, his values float like a book-cooker's decimal point.

user-pic

Bill Kristol is the only thing that I can't bring myself to forgive Irving for.

user-pic

Great analogy.

Next interview question for Billy: "Do yoo think Sarah is a MILF?"

user-pic

I despise Kristol. He was 'phoning it in' at the NYT and that is why he was fired.

Comparing him to Safire, Kristol looks like he barely got through the tenth grade.

Frankly, I think Kristol sees where the money is as far as his own career. You can make a lot of money feigning to love America and hating Americans.

user-pic

Money, politics, whatever the reason, Kristol just said what other conservatives are thinking--or else why haven't they condemned Beck?

user-pic

For any party in opposition to be effective, it has to excite the passions of its supporters against the rulers of the moment.

Democrats were pretty good at being very very paranoid during Bush years (except of course they still can't figure out how to get on talk radio without cooking laws in their own favor).

From that standpoint, the dichotomy becomes clear and simple.

Socialists will continue to attack conservatives for not supporting their socialist health-care reform. The irony is that conservatives wouldn't be conservatives if they supported it, but who cares..."words matter", as we now know.

The same goes for attempts to discredit the opposition, which is clearly angry, growing and mobilizing. These attempts are misguided, given the fact the voter identification with the "paranoid" values has gone up 10 points in a year and that independents have been leaving the party of hope in droves. Surely it's the problem with the mirror not with the face...

And of course, that's not a uniquely Democratic trait.

Even the insistence that Americans love the public option in the midst of a search for a less toxic brand name for it ("The Consumer Option" - Nancy Pelosi, tm), even that tactic doesn't belong to any particular party (Patriot Act??).

Point being that it's not that far off in the future when Democrats get thrown out of power once again and re-discover paranoia, of which we will be duly informed by newly powerful political leaders and political junkies of a certain kind.

user-pic

Paranoia has reigned on the left before--among the Populists a century ago--and one day, it will surely come again. But today, the hysteria is on the right. (The leftie Bush conspiracists weren't even close in terms of numbers and organization.)

The question is, when progressive paranoia rises again, will the sane voices on the left welcome it as a useful political tool, or will they condemn as a stupid and dangerous?

user-pic

You make an interesting point about the intensity and size of opposition to Bush vs Obama, but leave it without exploring and drawing conclusions (perhaps, a topic for another post).

I'd say that is a rich topic, full of teachable moments, and it speaks volumes about the potential causes of the "paranoia" - unless of course we default into the standard left-wing position (birthers, racism et al).

user-pic

I have many, many things to say about it, as I've been researching it lately. The short answer is that the right-wing paranoia started long before Obama came to office. Its roots lie in the John Birch Society anti-communist paranoia, but the white-Christian-persecution narrative arose from the crucible of desegregation, gun control, and Roe v. Wade in the 70's and 80's. This narrative moved from the fringe to the mainstream through talk radio and cable news. For instance, if you look closely at FOX's war on Christmas from 2004, you'll see people like Bill O'Reilly presenting wild conspiracy theories about a secret plot between George Soros, the ACLU, and MediaMatters.org to destroy Christmas in order to create "a brave new progressive world." Thus, Obama's election has only inflamed an ideology that had been quietly spreading for many years.

In contrast, modern leftist conspiracism, which tends towards fear of CIA manipulation, has been on the decline since the post-Nixon reforms. There was a resurgence during the Bush years due to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, but the references to the "military-industrial complex" seemed almost dated. There was no living doctrine upon which to draw.

user-pic

Lalo, I'll start here. A definition of paranoia is that it is a thought process heavily influenced by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion.
The reason the word has a negative connotation is demonstrated in the second part of the definition where the anxiety and fear is characterized as often being irrational or delusional, but paranoia is sometime justified because anxiety and fear are often justified.
Your comment implies a false equivalence in the paranoia of the right and the left, at least in recent times.
By definition, I became paranoid during Nixon's tenure that some Republicans were willing to defy the Constitution, break civil and criminal laws, destroy other countries legitimate governments, and prolong our own Vietnam War just to stay in power. Over the years it has only become worse. I maintain for instance, that even if it was not proven to the publics satisfaction that the Republican operatives stole the 2000 election, it was demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that they were perfectly willing to do so and their followers were happy top accept the result. That sort of action keeps me rightfully "paranoid".
Now, right wing agitators push ideas like death panels and the belief in a foreign born President who has a secret plan to destroy America. That is creating a stupid and irrational paranoia. You say that the left was paranoid, now the right is paranoid but soon it will be the left again. Ho-hum, it's all the same, deal with it. Bullshit! It aint the same. My paranoia is the result of witnessing provable events, the other sides paranoia is mostly the result of provable lies.
Creating destructive paranoia with deliberate lies is a cheap, vile, and destructive tactic.

user-pic

"paranoia is sometime justified because anxiety and fear are often justified."

Diebold, anyone?

user-pic

Well said... it always amazes me that the Repubs can never make this distinction.

user-pic

As a general response, I wanted to add that it is rather fortunate in some ways that the far, far away right continues to expand on crazy in ways heretofore unimagined, so long as people with at least two brain cells to rub together are willing to serve as counterweight. Have you noticed that the less they get their way these days, the weirder they get? Its as if they‘re in an unending contest to one-up each other on the novelty scale. I imagine that for many mainstream Republicans and Independents, the so-called base (of the teabag variety) looks to have out-paced their weirdness threshold. It bodes well for us.

user-pic

"Your comment implies a false equivalence "

- I don't think so.

Your whole premise (and that of the OP) is based on the assumption that whatever conservatives are unhappy about is "irrational", "delusional".

I understand why left-wingers use it as their default mental outlook in how they process political process. It's because anything else would undermine the conviction in the value of their own principles. Simply acknowledging there are legitimate other options makes yours one of several and not the only truth.

It's easy to make the picture slightly prettier by pointing to examples of "paranoia" on the left. But that's just window-dressing because, as you eagerly demonstrated, even the paranoia on the left is on a different level.

Net: there is no serious argument here. Just political bickering and back-and-forth that has no party ID and correlates to your position relative to capture of power.

user-pic

Your response is too ambiguous for me to take much from so I will limit my response. First:

'Your whole premise (and that of the OP) is based on the assumption that WHATEVER [emphasis added] conservatives are unhappy about is "irrational", "delusional".

That is not a mere stretch or exaggeration of my position, it is a complete and obvious misrepresentation of it. I could probably better understand your critique of my statement if there was evidence that you read and understood what I said.
My premise is that MY paranoia about the right is justified based on the action of the right and that much of the paranoia on the "Right" which is gaining political power is based on demonstrable lies. Not on mistakes, but on deliberate, cynical,and harmful lies. I believe I made that clear.
I expect to be busy today and will probably not comment on this any further, at least for a while.

user-pic

"Point being that it's not that far off in the future when Democrats get thrown out of power once again and re-discover paranoia,"

And which new wing of the old Republican Party will make that happen? It is more likely a third-party conglomerate will form, rather than the Republicans regaining power. If that is what you are suggesting, it is still a long way off.

But if you are saying that the Palin Republicans (her supporters don't even like the word "Republican" any more) are going to unite with the McCain Republicans for another go at it, consider recent history.

Lalo35, your wishful thinking that the rift between ideological wingnuts(R) and consewrvative centrists(R) will heal soon is naive at best, more like downright delusional.

But, that is nothing new.

user-pic

Gallup as of this October shows that the Rethuglicans have lost ten % points while the Democratic Party has lose 2.

I certainly don't consider the Rethuglicans the party of hope!

Do a reality check.

user-pic

The Right constantly accuses anyone left of Limbaugh of being "paranoid", then labels it's own very dangerous and overtly well-armed paranoia "vigilance".

HYPOCRITES!

user-pic

Many of my fears from even the early Bush years were called paranoid by some of my friends. To wit: I had major arguments with self-identified Lefties over Colin Powell's presentation at the UN. The graphics he portrayed as Satellite images, were comic cartoons. 'X marks the spot of secret installatons"; easly dosproven. Flying laboratories of germ-warfare agents; nuh-uh. Mushroom cloud-ready nuke program, etc. Powell knew he was lying then; study his facial expressions.
Bush's secret Energy Task Force; it took eight long years of paranoia to find out they were all heads on Energy Industry, and by gum, they did in fact write policy, including the War In Iraq, and probably others.
Gitmo detainess: there were reports early on that Warlords were fingering rivals for the cash we were handing out for names. Many relative innocents were swept up and languished either in prisons, or were taken in rendition to other countries and tortures. Thank God the courts let many of them go; it served the administration's interests to keep calling them 'the worst of the worst.'
I'm sure there are many others, but I need to get on my pony and ride right now.
My point is that it was not paranoia; so many things that indie journalists were telling us turned out to be true, and the truth was often WORSE than we feared.
Having said that, I have fears in some directions that the Obama administration is going, too. And I will bet some of my fears won't turn out to be paranoid.

user-pic

☠enghis, you're right that Kristol isn't stupid, although his Harvard credentials are only good within the neo-conservative enclave, but probably not so much in the larger conservative arena.

Where Kristol fits in with every other Republican is in his conviction that the ends justify the means. When he sent the memo in 1993 to Congressional Republicans that they should kill health care reform rather than amend it, his strategy was based on the grounds that passage would result in almost permanent minority status for Republicans, and not on a belief that the proposed health care reform would be bad for Americans.

So if Kristol now believes that the birthers, tea baggers and other idiots in the conservative orbit are the keys to a Republican rebirth, he will go along with crazies even if he doesn't share their paranoia.


user-pic

And on the belief that it would be SO BAD for Americans that they would want to keep it for generations!

Guess he doesn't believe in democracy: just because a majority thinks it's a good thing -- that's no reason they should have it.

user-pic

you have a portion of the country who are haters.
they are racists and bigots and stupid too.

they are followers of anything and anyone that makes them feel good about their hate.

they happen to be the base of the republican party.

all kristol is doing here is what they all are doing and that is appeasing these people because they represent the only block of voters the republicans can count on.

its natural that eveyone wants to comes accross as their buddie.

the egos of these people wont allow them to distance themselves from their cheering.

thats all this is.

Leave a comment

☠enghis

user-pic

Following: 58
Followers: 82

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Website: dagblog.com
  • Location New York
  • Party Yes
  • Politics No

Favorites

  • Favorite Quotes "I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news." S.P.

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address