« Who Loves Ya, Labor? | Ramona's Blog | This Wretched, Reckless Approach to Health Care: It's Killing Us »
The Danger in Underestimating the Right Wing
The JFK poster appeared all over Dallas just days before he was assassinated. I don't know how widespread the Obama poster has been, but the three of these pictures together tell a story that just cannot be denied. (Thank you, Max Pearson.)
There is something going on in this country that is insidious and destructive and dangerous. We just can't go on pretending that it comes from fringe groups in small numbers. Not when we have the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs and Michelle Malkins and even so-called Christian ministers advocating taking Obama down. They may not be selling violence outright, but they're adding flames to the fire, and they know it. It draws audiences and constituencies, and they know their people well.
These are the same flame-throwers who, if something does happen to President Obama, will be the first to say, "Don't look at me. I didn't do it."
At the same time, I don't want to be one who says, "I didn't do enough". I could cite dozens of websites here that advocate violence against our president, but I won't. A Google search with the right words is enough to give me nightmares again. It's out there, and it's growing, and it's becoming mainstream.
It's only one step from becoming normal behavior. One of our Four Freedoms. But speech can inflame. Speech can incite. Speech can be accessory to violence.
We've already seen the next step past freedom of speech. We've seen assault weapons being carried into political rallies, where the president is scheduled to speak. Gunslingers coming to shut the president up. Now it's at the threat stage--next will be the actual shooting.
When do we finally get it that this is no longer a Free Speech issue? This is anarchy, and we're standing around making jokes about it, pointing fingers, shaking our heads, and then turning away, as if ignoring the so-called crazies will dilute their messages of pure hatred.
They're just getting started. When the first "citizen" walked into a public auditorium with a gun slung over his shoulder and nobody stopped him, it gave permission to dozens, then hundreds, then thousands, to follow.
Nancy Pelosi teared up the other day when she talked about the very real dangers in the advocating of violence. What was the reaction? A campaign of hatred and ridicule against Nancy Pelosi.
I'm not about to carry a gun to get my message across. All I have are words, and in this present atmosphere, they're pretty puny. But I see what's happening--this all-out hatred, this increasing call to violence--as wholly un-American. This is NOT who we are. This is NOT who we were meant to be. Generations of Americans didn't work their asses off to bring us to this. This is not a vast Right Wing conspiracy, it's Right Wingers out in the open, advocating anarchy, threatening to "take back" a country they've never understood, never nurtured, never respected.
They don't deserve it and they're not going to get it without a fight.
Or are they?
(Addendum: read Bob Herbert's column here.
[It's] time for other Americans, of whatever persuasion, to take a stand, to say we're better than this. They should do it because it's right. But also because we've seen so many times what can happen when this garbage gets out of control. Think about the Oklahoma City bombing, and the assassinations of King and the Kennedys. On Nov. 22, 1963, as they were preparing to fly to Dallas, a hotbed of political insanity, President Kennedy said to Mrs. Kennedy: "We're heading into nut country today."Ramona
(Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices here.)
Advertisement
I was watched an on-line video on either Maddow or Obermann and this subject came up. The republicans are saying if anything does happen to Obama it'll be Pelosi's fault - she's the one who brought it up so she's the one responsible if anyone acts on it.
We definitely need a Walter Cronkite moment here. Someone to speak as the public voice and say enough is enough.
Unfortunately, I get a gut feeling the republicans are going to turn the tables on us in 2010 simply because of people like Senator Baucus who has done everything in his power to reduce the health care legislation to a three-ring circus in favor of republicans and their goals. I get the impression whatever is finally decided will be so poorly designed, it'll be all the evidence the republicans need to defeat democrats at the ballot box.
September 19, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that Beetle, made me so goddamnable mad. Boehner said much the same thing.
I swear that Scarborough more than supported this by dissing Petlosi and Carter.
This is inexcusable.
September 19, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans have more than their share of opportunists, and Boehner is at the head of the pack. They'll say the most idiotic things, knowing they're stirring up that crazy fringe base, and not give a thought in hell to what it'll eventually do to us all.
Someday, when they're back in power, they're going to be the targets. But all they can think about now is going on the attack against the Dems. They're stirring up the crazies with talk of fighting against the government without admitting that they ARE the government.
September 19, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, they are NOT the gov't. They are traitors attacking the Constitution they hate:
US Con. Art. I., s. 8, c. 15 Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the laws of the Union," -- which includes the Constitution, and thus this clause -- "SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
And I'm fed up with them being called "conservatives" -- no matter who is calling them that. They are EXTREMISTS.
Being EXTREMISTS, there is NO WAY they, or their America-hating views and actions, can be "mainstreamed": the masinstream is MODERATE. What they CAN do is pour their extremist poison into mainstream discourse and thereby pollute it.
The following is a several-fact chronology of that they call "conservative":
Note: S. Carolina "conservatives" lead the opposition to declaring independence from Britain -- until they got what they wanted in exchange for their support:
Preservation of slavery.
S. Carolina fired the first shots initiating the Civil War.
S. Carolina's Wilson is a member of "Sons of Confederate Veterans" -- secessionists; argued against removing the blood-red flag of the confederacy from the S. Carolina statehouse; attacked Strom Thurmond's illegitmate bi-racial daughter; and his son came to his defense against Jimmy Carter's comment about racism, even though Carter didn't name Wilson.
It is polite to euphemize that America-hating extremism as being instead "conservative". It is time to stop the politeness that enagbles and lends false credibility to their claim to be "conservatives". Even Goldwater didn't buy that lie from them, even as they hid behind "Reaganism".
September 19, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, I didn't think I was being polite. Did you see polite? I didn't.
September 19, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, didn't finish my thought there. Thank you for bringing the info about the S. Carolinians to this post. We need to do more exposing of these people who would want us to believe they're the mainstream. If we don't put a stop to them, they WILL be the mainstream and we'll be done for.
September 19, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Beetle, there IS no Walter K anymore. But there is Bill Moyers. I'm surprised the Wingers haven't gone on the attack against him. But beyond Moyers, who is only seen for a 1/2 hour once a week, I can't think of a single one who has the guts or the integrity to actually report honestly on what goes on.
Keith Olbermann's commentaries are usually spot on, but he gets too damned clownish. Some of his "Worst Persons" are such a stretch, even Keith has to struggle to convince himself. I wish he'd cut the exaggeration and stupid voices, too.
Rachel Maddow is one of the best. She has done a few commentaries, but she doesn't really need to. Her overall reporting is impeccable.
Beyond that, I'm thinking. . .
September 19, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moyers would be my choice too, but I think having been inside the beltway makes him ill-at-ease with accepting the mantle. Cronkite knew how to talk to the people as your friend, brother, father or grandfather and that's what made him so special with so many. He earned just about everyone's trust. While Bill is exceptionally good at getting to the meat of an issue and playing fair to both sides, he just doesn't command the authority that Cronkite did. Moyers is more about fairness and what is just, regardless of what the law says or what common business practices allow. I think Cronkite was more a universal man while Moyers is a just man. In other words, Cronkite appealed to our sense of who we were as a people whereas Moyers appeals to our sense of right and wrong. It's those people skills Cronkite had that Moyers lacks. And because his skill is airing the dirty laundry some wish to keep under wraps and out of the public eye, Moyers would have a difficult time earning the acceptance of the right wingers.
September 19, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, BJ, so I guess there's no one?
September 19, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one's auditioning for the position.
September 19, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Studs is no longer with us...
September 20, 2009 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
RIP. . .gone but not forgotten.
September 20, 2009 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Studs was a solid good man. Democracy through-and-through.
And one of the first to give bobby d. air time.
September 20, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Speaker Pelosi said was very carefully stated, I felt, as to not be suggestive in any way but to speak directly to the leaders who are fanning the 'crazy' flames.
I am appalled by the behavior of many of our republican senators.
I will be furious if health care reform includes mandates without a public option. I would consider it a complete failure of the president and congress as a whole.
However, based on their behavior, at least for my part, because of the lack of alternatives and because the repblicans have gone so far into crazyland, the democrats could win the next election just with the slogan 'vote for us, we're not the republicans. I hope it will not be reduced to a choice between wingnut politicians and ineffective politicians... what a choice.
September 19, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Synch, I'm afraid I have to go along with Beetlejuice on this one. I see another Republican win ahead. They get the most air time these days, their fringe element gets the most air time, the corporations and Right Wingers have the most money and, it seems, the most energy, and they're going to fight like hell to get the Republicans back in power. (Not that they've ever been OUT of power.)
For those very reasons they shouldn't win. It will be disastrous for our already hemorrhaging country, but the Dems in charge are fools and incompetents. They've done very little right, including not fighting hard enough for single payer or public option.
We need not just a good health care bill but a great health care bill in order to make up for the years of neglect and abuse at the hands of the insurance companies. We need laws to stop their abuse, but instead it looks like, no matter which bill is approved, the insurance people are going to be rewarded handsomely for being unconscionable pricks. Go figure.
September 19, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised you are appalled. The republican leadership is looking for any possible way to push this albatross on to the Democrats. And unless the MSM, Pelosi and the Democrats calls their bluff, it will succeed. Republicans seem to prefer anarchy over Democracy. I suspect Obama hasn't anything to worry about. The SS is beefed up enough no one will get near him, however, I suspect there'll be a lot of collateral civilian damage if someone or group attempts anything. Of course, the republican rallying cry will be innocent civilians had to die because of the public unrest over Obama for whatever the reason of the day is.
September 19, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats are brain dead. You've got Pelosi with her faux tears crying over an old murder in San Francisco. Even Barney Frank said the analogy didn't apply.
They ought to be busy connecting the dots, i.e., Republican and corporate leaders to the crazies. They ought to be building their case against the real culprits, i.e, the ones who set the fire.
Follow the money. You know like they did back when we had journalists doing investigative reporting.
September 19, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bluebell, I watched a panel discussion on C-Span this morning about the fate of newspapers and magazines, and they touched on investigative reporting. The bottom line is money. Most newspapers and magazines have cut their budgets to the bone, and paying the expenses for investigative pieces is a luxury to them. They talked about some stories that have taken years to complete--leaving the reporters themselves, when they've figured their own costs in time and money, with not much more than minimum wage per hour to show for it.
Much of the investigative work is coming out of the internet and the blogosphere now, but they don't always get the coverage they deserve. It's also hard to separate the wheat from the chaff when anybody can set up a platform and publish anything at any time, true or not, coherent or not.
Publishing nowadays is held hostage by corporations and stockholders. The days of the maverick muckrakers are gone. Now we have the bottom-feeders in their place.
September 19, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those "old murders" you refer to were political assassinations by a "right wing nut". The type person whom could be driven to violence by the material presented in this blog.
September 19, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The internet/bloggers etc. ought to focus on who is instigating the crazies instead of getting so distracted by them. If we can feed the facts to the talking heads on a silver platter they might report it.
CNN actually did a good piece on the very professionally designed and mass produced "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy" signs. (Hmm...if you strikeout the "care" you start thinking of a different Kennedy and it's not an opinion it's phrased as a command.) Find out who is paying for this stuff.
September 19, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
One source was the "American Life League". See here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/3912841771/in/photostream/
September 19, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right idea, wrong political faction. Case in point, the murdered abortion doctor a few months back. The police didn't find any evidence the gunman was a steady viewer of TPM, Firedoglaake or Daily KOS. But there was more than enough evidence of his participation on many anti-abortion hate blogs.
September 19, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the material presented in this blog? It's a good thing they don't already have such as FOX and Rash Limpburger, which latter has stepped it up a notch by calling for racist segregation.
September 19, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totality of hate presented in this blog = material
September 20, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right: any critical expose of the far-right lunatic fringe is "hate".
When it isn't false accusations of racism.
September 20, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Judging from your prior comments on issues similar to this and your comments today, I feel that you have misinterpreted my words. Ramona has introduced (presented) material in this article that exemplifies the hate. I am in no way stating that her blog represents hate.
September 20, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean she has LINKED to materials which show RRIGHT WING hate? On that we can agree.
But if you want to assert that the posts here -- other than those by trolls -- are hateful, then you're off base.
September 20, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm asserting no such thing. We are in total agreement on the issue of hate speech.
September 20, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
We still have investigative journalists. We simply don't have any sensibilities capable of being offended by the stories they uncover.
I remember a time not so long ago when the bribery of a public official was a scandal of immense magnitude. We now see bribery as simply the way business gets done. Max Baucus receives over $4 million from the Health Insurance Industry and it is the industry's lobbyist who actually writes the bill to be presented to Congress. And it is reported that "of course a public option cannot make it through Congress, because the health insurance industry is opposed and its lobbyists are spending millions of dollars against it." In today's Washington, those who advocate for a public option are considered irresponsible ideologues - not because the public option is unworkable or lacking the public's support - but because they should understand that it is "un-doable" in the face of such monied opposition as the industry presents.
Also, it wasn't long ago that it would have been unthinkable that ANY President would entertain thoughts of torturing people - citizens or not. Nor could we have imagined secret black site prisons and renditions and such. These would have been major scandals. Not so today.
And don't even get me started on Haliburton and Blackwater and the cesspool that is our increasingly privatized "no-bid contract" military these days. It seems there is simply nothing anyone in Washington does anymore that will cause people to rise up in defense of our Constitution and our Republic.
Investigative journalists are still out there uncovering the incredible stories of greed, ineptitude, and corruption. It's just that there simply isn't any market for their stories anymore. We're too busy instead following Beck and Limbaugh and the GOP and others who concoct imaginable outrages that deflect attention from the truly important threats confronting this democracy.
September 19, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
SJ, amen to everything you just said. I can't add a thing. . .
September 19, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point. Somehow we managed to allow the right to speak for family values and we can't even muster up the capacity to teach civic values.
September 19, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was not it Pontius Pilate who seemed to wash his hands of the entire affair?
September 19, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
They'll say it's a shame that he brought it on himself by Overreaching and they tried to tell him.
They need to be called on it NOW for fomenting this.
No quarter!
September 20, 2009 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, how about a half?
September 20, 2009 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You insolent peeeeeeeeeeeeeeg! :)
September 20, 2009 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
A neeeeckle, then?
I personally will draw the line at half pence.
September 20, 2009 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8bLyxROLi0
I wash my hands of your own discretion!
Heh....
September 20, 2009 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of these "political activists" at the Washington rally was asked what it was that he was opposing in Washington. His answer was "socialism, fascism, communism, islam - they're all the same." In effect, his hatred and his fear was felt strongly enough to motivate him to go to Washington and attend the rally but remained sufficiently ill-informed to even know whom or what it was that he was protesting. There are many such people included among this birther/deather/whacko crowd that represent the perfect constituency for demagogues like Beck and Limbaugh and the other putrid souls who would incite violence and appeal to our basest instincts to lead us to - what, exactly?
What is the perfect world advocated by Glen Beck? What does that look like? In the end, how tolerant do you suppose the Beck's and Limbaughs are of the crazed masses they have embraced as their agents of political discourse who indeed care not a whit or even bother to understand "a country they've never understood, never nurtured, never respected."
When the anarchy and the hatred they so playfully exploit does in fact boil over into its logical expression as Pelosi implies, how do these "jackass patriots" square their involvement in creating this social madness with the responsibility for owning its consequence?
Unfortunately, I fear that it only represents for them an opportunity to claim no responsibility on the way to further consolidate a growing list of viewers and listeners who await the next target to be outlined in this "culture war." In fact, we already see that the talking points are already being prepared by them to insist that the Assassination of President Obama is a result of the left-wing over-reaching in their designs upon "our America."
Bottom line for Beck, Limbaugh, et. al., is the bottom line. It brings additional numbers to the ratings and this is, after all, all about entertainment, is it not?
September 19, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y
Yes, quite a few of us have posted this on our facebook pages, h/t to Donal. I wish I could say it's 'entertaining'...unfortunately, it's that and so much more.
September 19, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Lis--I think! That video is just bizarre. I'm sending it to everyone I know, because seeing is believing. How do you fight those people? You can't do it with facts--that's obvious--so then what?
September 19, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You remind them of Ignorance, and what it means.
If they still want to fight you, you remind them of Greed, and what that means.
If they still want to fight you, you sick SJ and OT on them, in that order.
If they still want to fight you, you turn them over to the rest of us. We'll chew 'em up.
And spit them out and ask for more.
Next question?
September 20, 2009 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lis, I thought that's what we're already doing.
So what's next?
September 20, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, Ramona. The juxtaposition of the broadsheets in this post is extremely chilling. This is scary business, indeed, and I remain perplexed how to confront it when we have too many "leaders" in Washington who remain too concerned about corporate campaign contributions to at last direct the anger and fears people feel toward a productive solution such as seizing control of health care away from the Insurance Industry, Big Pharma, and the other parasites who bleed us dry.
We had opportunity in voting upon "Change We Can Believe In" to create a populist movement that would move this country forward and address much of the anxiety that people are feeling. Instead, we (the Dem leadership) decide it was too important in the alternative to make certain the corporate agenda remained a priority. In this, we do bear responsibility for the growth of the culture wars we are witnessing that have sprung up in the absence of a legitimate political movement
September 19, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
SJ, those vicious talking heads never do look down the road at the future. They have no insight, no solutions because that's not their business. Their job is to keep their crowd anxious and riled, and as long as their crowds keep growing, they're doing their jobs.
That's what's so scary to me. Accountability isn't part of the plan. There's no tomorrow. So there's no responsibility, either.
September 19, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop referring to them as "fear"ful. They are not. They are malevolent haters who delude themeslves that they are not only right, but also the majority. They are absolutely certain and arrogant in that hatred.
A 20-something person I know slightly claims not to be interested in politics, and not to follow it -- it must be coincidence that his view is the mirror image of FOX -- which, of course, makes him an expert on politics.
I pointed out to him that his view is extermist. He accepted that without problem. When did the fact that extremism is not only not mainstream, but also not wise, get lost along the way?
September 19, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every mover and shaker has been an "extremist". Martin Luther King was an "extremist" in his day. So was Gandhi. So was Hitler. Some use that penchant for extremism for the common good, and others use it to destroy.
We could use a little extremism from our side right about now.
September 19, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm reminded that Sam Adams and the rest of the gang at Faneuil Hall were not only extremists, but revolutionaries. But I doubt you would see any of them today wearing flag t-shirts screaming "down with government!" They knew exactly what they were about. Not so with teabaggers who are against plenty, but just ain't quite sure what it is they propose to support.
September 20, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a bit more nuanced than that:
John Adams undertook the defense of the British troops involved in the so-called "Boston Massacre". Not becasue he liked the British -- he despised them -- but because he believed that no man accused of a crime should want for a competent defense.
While he was doing that, Sam Adams -- his cousin -- was calling it a "massacre" -- it was not -- and calling the troops "murderers" -- they were not -- and endeavoring to intimidate the jury into convicting them.
And his perjury in the case nearly destroyed his political career -- a consequence he dodged by stirring up anti-Catholic prejudice. (See Boston Massacre, Hiller Zobell.)
When John Adams was attacked by the likes of Sam Adams for undertaking that defense, John responded that,
"Justice and the rule of law are to be ABOVE politics."
John Adams believed in the rule of law. Sam Adams believed in rule by controlled mob violence. John Adams drove the Continental Congress to declare independence from Britain -- he was certainly a "revolutionary" -- but he believed above all in the rule of law.
As for their being "revolutionaries": if the meaning of "revolution" is "overturning" gov't, then they were not revolutionaries: there was never a lack of gov't during the "revolution". And throughout they were in charge of THEIR gov'ts, and doing all that gov't does, including law-making. This means they DID NOT approve of shootings at THEIR gov'ts -- and that didn't happen; not even by the British.
When elected to the Massachusetts-Bay General Court -- legislature -- Sam Adams had the cloud of indicctment over his head for having misused tax monies: yes, he was a tax collector.
John Adams authored the Massachusetts-Bay constitution -- except for the section establishing state religion. That section was written by Sam Adams.
September 20, 2009 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You offer an excellent rejoinder to my comment, JN. Thanks for this. Sam Adams probably does have more in common with the Limbaughs and the Glen Becks than I have otherwise cared to consider. You are right in pulling me up short on this, and it is appreciated.
I can also appreciate your nuanced reading of the difference between "progressives" and "extremists." In my own experience, I guess I find a correlation between MLK and the Southern Leadership Christian Conference on the one hand and the Black Panthers on the other. Both were engaged in the Civil Rights struggles, but it was progressives versus extremists in the objectives that were sought and the tactics that were engaged..
September 20, 2009 5:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed on the difference: the Panthers were extremists. Martin Luther King, Jr. was advncing a process, consistent with its history, which had been going on for at least 48 years (as of 1968).
Doubtless Medgar Evers was viewed as an "extremist" by those opposed what he was doig: voter registration. I don't tend to think of voter registration, which is the right underlying all the others, as extremist.
Before Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1954 Florida, a bomb was placed under the bedroom of an African-American husband and wife, on Christmas evening. He was murdered instantly, and his wife died several weeks later.
What was the extremism in that case? She was a school teacher, and he was engaged in voter registration.
Another useful volume is Sam Adams: Pioneer in Propaganda. Weirdly, there were two gangs, one in southern Boston, the other in northern Boston. (Boston was essentially an island about two miles in circumference, connected to the mainland by a thin strip of land.) On a particular day every year -- "Popes Day" -- they would meet half way and have a brawl, though both hated Catholics -- "Papists". Sam Adams managed to bring those two gangs together into one -- called "Sons of Liberty".
He also successfully lobbied for a balcony overlooking the legislature, ostensibly so the people could watch their gov't in action. Actually it was so his "Liberty Boys" could occupy it and intimidate legislators who went against his proposals. There is at least one instance of a "stubborn" legislator from Western asschusetts-Bay who was physscally assaulted outside the state house for his opposition.
Boston Massacre (Norton, 1976) is an especially valuable history -- an instant classic. When he wrote it Zobell was a lawyer in a Boston law firm with an office in London; he used that opportunity to research the case both in Boston and in London, not all relevant case materials being in Boston. He shows that Sam Adams was a central figure in the "Massacre" even before it occurred. In short, Sam Adams was looking for a pretext, and it appears he arranged it for that purpose.
Zobell is currently a Massachusetts state judge.
September 20, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a progressive -- ahead of the curve. Out in front. That is not extremist; extremist is far left and far right.
September 20, 2009 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
One can be a progressive AND an extremist. MLK's views were decidedly extremist for his day. He went to the south and pushed his extreme view of equality for blacks and he never stopped pushing.
ex·trem·ist (Äk-strÄ“'mÄst)
n. One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.
ex·trem'ism n., ex·trem'ist adj.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
September 20, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've asked myself how there can be a conviction among the GOP (whether mainstream or fringe, although it is a courtesy at this point to differentiate between them) that they have "lost their country" and are therefore entitled to "take it back."
First of all, the country obviously belongs to all of us; it is not theirs alone. Second, they did not lose what they perceive as their country, they lost an election cycle -- not exactly an unknown experience among Democrats. Third, it is possible to challenge election results through due process in the courts, whether one likes the outcome or not; it is not necessary to malign the winner personally, impugning even his right to run for the office in the first place. And obviously one has other choices for turning the tables in the next election-- for example, by running better candidates -- without resort to physical force to overturn the one extant.
However, that significant parts of the GOP are genuinely convinced of their rightful cause -- currently by any means without any limits -- is undeniable and therefore frightening. It moves their party strategy beyond the cynical manipulations of the past -- swiftboating, ballot box tinkering, etc. -- into an alternate universe of total surrealism and consequent real threat. To us, as well as to Obama, Biden, Reid and Pelosi, personally. (I name all four because I can't see what even the GOP fringe would think they could accomplish in "taking their country back" without removing not one, but all of the above. And that potential circumstance boggles the mind.)
We have been silent too long, stunned into paralysis perhaps by the serial tenures of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, allowed hope only during the Clinton administration during which both the degree of determination and the relentless campaign to get rid of him should have been early warning signs that this mentality was evolving into an entitlement complex that steadily gained ground and had to be taken more seriously than we did and, more often than not, still do.
I don't know about you, but I don't own a gun, have no intention of owning one and sold my barn pitchfork, along with my farm, a long time ago.
Never mind. Guns, or weapons of any tangible persuasion are not the answer to this madness, anyway. Even on a practical level. Bringing a gun to a knife fight may make some metaphoric sense, but bringing a real gun to a real gun fight would represent the first shots of a second civil war. ( It is a curiosity to me, parenthetically, that the faction that is so worried about their guns being taken away are the very people who are openly brandishing them.)
Maybe now is the moment, and this behavior is the perfect reason to get serious about gun control licensing and possession. While wielding pens and words as one collective voice may seem wussy in comparison, it beats the alternative.
September 19, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard somewhere today, may have been either Maddow or Obermann, a guest said the reason the right-wingers are crying about get their country back is because that country they want back was run by white men. Rude but true.
September 19, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy, it is madness and it's becoming mainstream. That's my fear. Your suggestion about the need for gun control and gun laws is what drives too many of them. It's so obvious to any sane person that gun laws don't take guns away from law-abiding owners. But they've been whipped into such a frenzy by the NRA and the Right Wing talkers, there is no getting reasonable with them.
I honestly don't know how we get out of this. The Right Wing has spawned this destructive force and it'll either take an act of great courage or an act of mindless destruction for the rest of us to finally wake up and turn this country around.
I frankly don't see any courageous leaders out there, so unless we can come up with some brilliant strategy, the only alternative is to wait for the other shoe to drop. And it will.
September 19, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not becoming mainstream because it cannot be mainstream. Nor is it "conservative". It is EXTREMIST, and fated to remain that.
That does not overlook the fact that the far-right lunatic fringe, via such as FOX, has for years been claiming to BE the mainstream.
In other words, they have been endeavoring to shift the ACTUAL center to where they are on the far-right -- to hoodwink that they are the actual center.
September 19, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody needs to remind the teabaggers what happened to their counterparts in Weimar Germany in 1934...
September 19, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really - it was the anti-teabagger types who got creamed by Hitler!
September 19, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh so true! And when the rational public saw what the government would do to people who stepped out of line, they all decided it would be better to sit back and shut up. They assumed Hitler was only an aberration and in a few years saner heads would prevail.
September 19, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm telling you guys, I'm living this...
My Uncle is saying they will take the country back by force if necessary (and I believe ha has a lot fire power stashed away) and my aunt (his sister) just jumped into the fray with the most hateful e-mail, attacking me, her own flesh and blood, because of POLITICAL differences...
These guys are SERIOUSLY whacked out.
BUT, we keep giving them more and more ammo...the ACORN scandal (which they see as having Obama's fingerprints all over it) the water issue in California, where hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland are being turned into wasteland because the water is being diverted to save a 3" fish on the endangered species list while 40% of the people in some districts have lost their farm-related jobs...It seems like every time I turn around there is another way in which the feds have successfully been portrayed as having messed up (the TRUTH doesn't matter, it's the perception!!!) and we're asking people to let them take over health care...They are working themselves up into a hateful frenzy, and I will not be one bit surprised if blood flows.
September 19, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has been posted before, but bears repeating:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009083205/fascist-america-are-we-there-yet
All the things you cite in the last paragraph all point in the direction of point #2 in stage 3, where "he economic or constitutional system in a state of blockage apparently insoluble by existing authorities".
September 19, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Matt. I hadn't seen that before. It's fascinating. I'm not sure we're THAT close to fascism, but she makes some great points about the disillusionment of a disenfranchised working class.
I'll pass it around. Thanks again.
September 19, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's depressing...
September 19, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what "wholly un-American" means. We've got as sordid a past as any country on earth, once you pull away some layers. Our constitution was written with a bi-cameral legislature and wording to entrench in large part the slave holding states to ensure the continuation of an abominable institution that haunts us to this day. We went to war against our brothers and cousins over the same issue, and the right side won that conflict. Now we're seeing the same issues being raised again over 200 years since the founding of this country, with of all things an African-American president. Racism is as American as apple pie, IMO.
I'm sorry I will not be around to comment on what I've written here, as other obligations call me elsewhere than my keyboard tonight. BTW, rec, Ramona.
September 19, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Miguelito, I guess if I were to be honest, I would have to admit that I want the America of our dreams, not of our reality. We've been working at getting it right for well over 200 years. We're at the beginning of a new century. As we age as a country, we're supposed to be smarter, more enlightened, more democratic. That was the plan, wasn't it?
We'll never be a utopia. I don't expect that. (I'm not sure I'd even want it.) But if it's true that we're sliding toward fascism, the least we can do, if we care at all about the country we live in, is to build barriers to stop the progress.
Doing nothing is not an option now. Things are getting out of hand, and I don't think it's alarmist to look at the signs and see real danger ahead.
Racism is a major factor in this war, and it may be the catalyst that will plunge us over the edge, but only if we let it. We can't cry "racism" every time individuals or groups come after the president. Some issues are legitimate, and so is the anger. But what we're seeing lately has little to do with issues and everything to do with the color of our president's skin.
There's a whole cottage industry cropping up to cash in on this hatred in the guise of issues, and they're the ones we have to go after.
If we only knew how.
September 19, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take back the term "cottage industry". It's a concerted corporate effort, and that makes it even more formidable. Those signs weren't made in somebody's basement.
September 19, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ramona, I watched Bill Moyers interview Sam Tanenhaus about his book Death of Conservatism.
Tanenhaus the editor of the New York Times Book Review and Week In Revies says that "I'm afraid they're radicals. Conservatism has been divided for a long time -- this is what my book describes narratively -- between two strains. What I call realism and revanchism. We're seeing the revanchist sideand
"...politics... based on the idea that America has been taken away from its true owners, and they have to restore and reclaim it. They have to conquer the territory that's been taken from them. Revanchism really comes from the French word for 'revenge.' It's a politics of vengeance."
I think what really is is going on has origins in Nativism where a sociopolitical policy favors the interests of few established inhabitants over those who might deemed different or considered the other. That of course includes black people and the most recent immigrants.
September 19, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never heard the term "revanchism" before. I don't think it's so much revenge as racism.
Tanenhaus has been on several talk shows lately to push is book, and he's always interesting. Thanks for the Moyers link. Everybody in the country gets to see Moyers on Friday nights except me. I don't know when the hell it comes on here, but it's not Friday. I usually go to the website later, but I haven't yet.
I'm wary of the conservatives calling the teabaggers "radicals". They could put a stop to this if they wanted to, I think. I don't hear much of a roar from the "true" conservatives over the takeover of their party.
But I agree that it's the older people who are having the most trouble with that euphemism, "change". But hell, how much more "changed" did this country become under GWB? Radical, I'd say, and not for the better. Do they want THOSE old days back?
September 19, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is about revenge -- against an imaginary victimizing enemy. And racism is the catalyst: what could be more different than good and evil, white and black.
And for many the ideological jabber is simply cover for their racism: for them it is racism first, and thereafter anything to effectuate it.
September 20, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Revanchism is a term that goes back to the Franco-Prussian War. The French were angry at their losses and wanted to regain land they had lost.
September 20, 2009 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that. He made much sense.
And, yes, it is about revenge -- against an imaginary victimizing enemy. That imaginary victimizing enemy is viewed in terms of race.
September 20, 2009 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Moyers touched on this in the first part of his program this week.
But the problem is that The Country they say they want back never really existed except in novels, movies, television and in their imagination.
If you read the transcript and/or watch the show one thing that is pointed out is how many of these people are in their 50s or older. Their belief systems have not only been challenged but nearly destroyed.
They are reacting to the the disillusionment of a fantasy they had been living and this has left these people lost, confused, angry and desperate.
And desperate people to irrational and dangerous things.
C
September 19, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, great minds think alike! Both of you quoting from Bill Moyers program. I think I was answering yours in my comment to 1849 about the older people. So see above!
Thanks.
September 19, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no shortage of young thugs among them. Ignorant selfishness as an ideology -- everyone our for her/himself -- is not the monopoly of the old/er.
It isn't the older who engage in the intimidation; it is their younger knock-offs.
And none of that is new: there were boomers during the '60s who were every bit as far-right violent against those opposed to US involvement in Vietnam. Some of us encountered and confronted -- and were confronted by -- that reality.
September 20, 2009 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I posted this today as a comment on Charles Blow's column in the New York Times.
The right wing hate we see today was mirrored in the 1960's. On November 22nd, 1963, the right eliminated a President, JFK, who was determined to end the Cold War and work for the Civil Rights Act. They also managed to blame it on a supposed left-winger Lee Harvey Oswald. Any thorough student of the JFK assassination knows that that is bunk. The right achieved two goals - get rid of JFK and discredit the left. As Nancy Pelosi and Eric Boehlert of Media Matters point out the climate that exists right now is getting dangerous for our African-American president. We must fight racism and protect him. It would also be helpful to encourage people to learn more about the assassination of JFK. This would not only help honor the Kennedy family, which recently lost Ted and Eunice, but it would open more eyes about the danger that the extreme right poses. Reading James Douglass's book JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE would be a good place for people to start.
September 19, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with most of your comment, I don't buy the conspiracy theories about JFK's murder. There were probably plenty of people who would wish him dead but I haven't seen any plausible evidence that anyone but Oswald was involved. Sorry.
September 19, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same here, Ramona.
September 20, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been studying it for over 40 years, Romana. I would recommend Douglass's book if you want to start with where the research is in 2009. If you want to start at the beginning of the research get a copy of the Warren Report and check out the footnotes in the volumes of supporting evidence. That whole thing was a complete and total fiasco although many people don't realize it. Also Mark Lane's RUSH TO JUDGMENT will lead you through the many obvious contradictions in the Warren Report. Google Operation Northwoods if you don't think powerful people on the right were not planning awful things back in the 1960's.
September 20, 2009 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure you've seen this, but just so you know--this is where I'm coming from. No conspiracy.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
September 20, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ramona,
Remember every conspiracy is not automatically paranoid nonsense. Obviously most of them are. But to give one example. Is someone who thinks Lincoln was murdered as part of a conspiracy a "conspiracy nut" or a student of history?
I would encourage you to read for yourself not to depend on the summary you link to. Did you check out Operation Northwood?
Clearly, I think the events of that time have great relevance to today, as you do - especially in regards to "the danger in underestimating the right wing."
Best,
Tom
September 20, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama got assassinated today the whole country would positively explode.
September 19, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly the chaos the far-right -- and the racists -- want.
They would not only view it as a triumph, but it would give them the incentive to push ahead with their intent to destroy the Constitution and rule of law as established by the Founders/Framers.
September 20, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wonder what would happen today if this movie was made about Obama? The movie was about "The television news report how a sniper fatally shot the President after his giving an economic speech at the Chicago Sheraton Hotel." It was called the Death of a President, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_President, and the president was Bush. What the hell was that about? Incitement to violence perhaps? That damn right-wing at it again?
I'm sure most of you have this listed as one of your favorite movies.
September 19, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. But what's your point?
September 19, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ramona, you said "I could cite dozens of websites here that advocate violence against our president, but I won't." My point in bringing up Death of a President was that if someone today made Death of a President, starring Obama instead of Bush, that would be considered by some to advocate violence against the president. I couldn't believe anyone would make a movie like that. Those who advocate violence against Obama are crazy and wrong, but not everyone who disagrees with Obama's policies is promoting violence against him.
September 19, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What The Reluctant Conspiracy Theorist fails to mention, or is not aware of, is that the movie, Death of President, is a British film.
The film attempted to portray the long range consequences of Bush's foreign policies, but even those who liked the film's message thought that the message was at least diluted through the act of using Bush instead of a fictional president.
A civil rights theme also runs through the movie when a Syrian man is captured and convicted on flimsy evidence, while the real assassin turns out to be the father of a soldier killed in Iraq. Meanwhile, Pres. Cheney has used the assassination as a means to grab more government power and legislate amendments to the Patriot Act to assist in the War on Terror.
Here is a working link to the Wikipedia article.
September 19, 2009 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
A movie is one thing, actual threats is quite another. It's pretty clear that there is a faction in the Right Wing movement whose rhetoric is getting more and more violent. Many of them were holding up posters at the Washington tea party. Others of them walk into rallies with guns strapped to them. (that, by the way, is unprecedented. Nobody--and I mean NOBODY--would have been allowed within two miles of Bush with a gun in full sight.)
I don't know where you're coming from with this, but I frankly don't care about a fictional movie. I do care about the fomenting of violence against my country and my president by Right Wing cheerleaders who play this dangerous game for fame and profit.
The eight years of George Bush did more damage to our economy, to our reputation, to our people than any president in our time, and I protested against him every chance I got, but nobody I knew ever thought that taking up guns was the solution.
That's the difference.
September 20, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You provide us with a vague link and some odd commentary, and leave at least ME wondering, to quote you, "What the hell was that about?"
September 19, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too. She could at least make her two cents worth two cents.
September 19, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. I've never wondered what would happen if Death of a President was made today. I didn't give a crap about it when it was made....whenever it was made. Why should I give a crap now?
September 19, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a British film. Unless you consider the Brits a left wing splinter group this posting is dishonest; if you do consider them a left wing group, you are a moron.
September 20, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually 'most of us' have never heard of such a thing and would still consider it appalling.
Even though Bush and Cheney, from my perspective have done things they should be in prison for, I do not wish them dead. I just wish them to be kept from doing further harm to our country.
So given that 'most of us' never heard of this, your point is really pretty weak and slightly incoherent.
September 19, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops this was a comment in reply to 'The reluctant...' above.
September 19, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't look at me. I didn't do it
I'm pretty sure I actually heard O'reilly say this after Tiller's assassination.
September 19, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't look at me.
--I mean word for word, don't look at me...
September 19, 2009 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. It did sound familiar as I was typing it. This is how plagiarists get in trouble.
Gah! If I'm going to be plagiarizing, I could at least rip off somebody I admire. . .
September 19, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gah!
I think it's more in the line of unintended irony than plagiarism...the usage is one, after all, that cries out for parody.
September 19, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can we help it, Roger? That open vest....that smile....
But I digress.
I've given this a lot of thought, and I've come up with two words that hurt our country, and our planet:
Ignorance, and Greed.
September 19, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's it in a nutshell. Ignorance and greed. I with it was as easy to come up with a remedy.
September 20, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I digress.
*I blush...that said, I apprehend from these yahoos a malevolence which transcends even the predictable evls you reference.
I am absolutely convinced that the photoshopped "heath ledger" homage is incitement, and that incitement may be reliably sanctioned without offending existing First Amendment jurisprudence.
I can't understand why the secret service is not so busy that it is required to rent moving vans to round these motherfuckers up!
*Without denigrating the vest, there is a "redaction" of the picture as shown...
September 20, 2009 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Malevolence is a good word. Remember the Alfred E. Newman "What me Worry?" juxtaposition with Bush's face? That was funny but it wasn't malevolent. It didn't incite anything but a whole lot of guffawing.
Things are different now, and we need to be watchful.
September 20, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The idea that political violence "may happen" from the right is incorrect.
It already HAS happened:
1) Holocaust Museum shooter with ties to white supremacist groups and anti-government activities kills one guard, lives to see trial (there IS a God!!). "Suicide" note in his car reads like a typical Glen Beck show... "this is the only way Obama will get my guns."
2) George Tiller shot and killed by former Freemen member and anti-choice stalker/crank. Bill O'Reilly does not back off of "Tiller the Baby Killer" comments even after the man's death.
3) Three Pittsburg area cops are shot and killed by right-wing paranoid who, again, falsely believed they wanted to "take his guns away."
The idea that right-wing violence is future tense or back in the 90's simply isn't true. Many who bring guns to Obama events are linked to militia groups and Chris Broughton (the AR15 guy) recently said he wouldn't "answer directly" if he WAS advocating violence against the president, and "didn't care" how it happened, as long as he was dead. His preacher and his sponsor in bringing the weapon to the event are linked to 90's-era militia groups and the preacher was questioned by secret service for giving a sermon that alluded to violence against the president.
September 20, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you're right. It's a pretty shocking list, and it's only going to get worse. They're not developing this kind of climate for tea parties with tea and cookies and linen napkins.
September 20, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what we have to put up with in redneck southern middle America:
Watching David ("No Probe") Gregory a little while ago, I heard him ask the President about former President Carter's statement that "most" of the opposition to healthcare reform was rascism based. Of course, Pres. Carter described it as most of the intensity of the opposition was rascism based.
Then all of a sudden I start hearing a bunch of static emanating from my TV making Pres. Obama's responses almost inaudible. The static stopped as soon as Gregory asked the inane baseball question. This NBC affiliate is owned by WV Media whose President is constantly on his stations locally espousing the right wing memes-- he also owns the weekly published West Virginia Business Journal.
Damn, I really try not to be paranoid, but I have been around too much and I am just too old to believe in coincidence. This is not the first time I have notice bullshit like this in my locale.
So much for the very salient point by Robert Reich on ABC's This Week" that Pres. Obama is the great educator in our discourse right now.
Like Ramona says, do not unerestimate them.
September 20, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw the piece on Rachel during which her guest said that the folks on FOX were covering their own asses when they said that Pelosi had put the idea of assassination in people's heads. He said it about 3 minutes after I had begun screaming at the TV -- "When it happens they'll blame HER, dammit!" over and over.
the fact is, no one can put the idea in anyone's head at this point. it's been securely planted since November.
I have a number of conservative friends. this past week, 2 of them said they fear for his life. these are people who did not vote for him and do not like him -- and they fear for his life.
September 20, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
icetree, you're right. The Right Wing celebrities have been fomenting for a long time now. They see the results and it's like an addiction--they know it's wrong but they just can't stop. It'll take a life-changing moment for it to come to an end. I don't want to think about what that moment will be.
September 20, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink