ext_306469 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2013-10-10 01:11 pm
paft.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2013-10-10 01:11 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
Democratic Underground, 2002 -- In the eyes of many modern conservatives, the battle between Republicans and Democrats is a battle between the Godly and the Satanic. To call this mindset a rejection of civility is to seriously underestimate the danger it poses. It's a rejection not merely of civility, but of the assumptions about tolerance and equal access that drive our political process….
Modern right-wing rhetoric becomes much less irrational if it's seen as the last gasp of the right's pretense of commitment to political freedom. Rather than self-destructing or imploding, it's quite possible that many conservatives are on the verge of moving from the covert to the overt rejection of this ideal. (emphasis added)
The first opinion piece aside from discussion forum OPs that I ever posted to the Internet was an essay carried by the then-brand-new website, Democratic Underground back in 2002. My piece was about American liberals and moderates hopefully opining (and let me emphasize -- this was eleven years ago.) that the right was “imploding.” As I observed back then, “This often takes place after some spectacularly insane statement from the right, like a Bush administration spokesman claiming that toxic sludge is good for the environment or a right-wing pundit suggesting that we invade France… Many liberals mistakenly believe that the right wing has an emotional investment in the logic of its own claims and, as a result, is due any day now to simply die of embarrassment.”
And that, I think, has been the core of the problem – a naïve refusal by many in politics and the media to focus on the serious agenda underlying all that ridiculous right-wing rhetoric. For three decades these extremists have been dismissed as irrelevant by moderate liberals and tolerated as “useful” by moderate conservatives. Now they have amassed enough influence to set into motion their dream of what amounts to a political monopoly. Voter suppression and gerrymandering are there to short-circuit the power of demographically liberal voters, and the very ability of a presidential administration to implement a law it has passed has come under attack. Merely enacting important legislation with which the right disagrees is presented as an outrageous act, even an impeachable offense.
And yes, the fact that our president is an African American does give a boost to this attack on political diversity. One of the oldest tricks in the racist book is portraying acts considered normal when done by a white man as criminal when done by a black man. The Republican Party, always willing to exploit racism, is happy to use that assumption as leverage.
I don’t know where this will end. Salon has a piece up saying the Republicans are just likely to get even more right wing. How much further can the GOP go to the right without openly declaring themselves the party of racism and religious dominionism and embracing violence as a tactic?
*
Modern right-wing rhetoric becomes much less irrational if it's seen as the last gasp of the right's pretense of commitment to political freedom. Rather than self-destructing or imploding, it's quite possible that many conservatives are on the verge of moving from the covert to the overt rejection of this ideal. (emphasis added)
The first opinion piece aside from discussion forum OPs that I ever posted to the Internet was an essay carried by the then-brand-new website, Democratic Underground back in 2002. My piece was about American liberals and moderates hopefully opining (and let me emphasize -- this was eleven years ago.) that the right was “imploding.” As I observed back then, “This often takes place after some spectacularly insane statement from the right, like a Bush administration spokesman claiming that toxic sludge is good for the environment or a right-wing pundit suggesting that we invade France… Many liberals mistakenly believe that the right wing has an emotional investment in the logic of its own claims and, as a result, is due any day now to simply die of embarrassment.”
And that, I think, has been the core of the problem – a naïve refusal by many in politics and the media to focus on the serious agenda underlying all that ridiculous right-wing rhetoric. For three decades these extremists have been dismissed as irrelevant by moderate liberals and tolerated as “useful” by moderate conservatives. Now they have amassed enough influence to set into motion their dream of what amounts to a political monopoly. Voter suppression and gerrymandering are there to short-circuit the power of demographically liberal voters, and the very ability of a presidential administration to implement a law it has passed has come under attack. Merely enacting important legislation with which the right disagrees is presented as an outrageous act, even an impeachable offense.
And yes, the fact that our president is an African American does give a boost to this attack on political diversity. One of the oldest tricks in the racist book is portraying acts considered normal when done by a white man as criminal when done by a black man. The Republican Party, always willing to exploit racism, is happy to use that assumption as leverage.
I don’t know where this will end. Salon has a piece up saying the Republicans are just likely to get even more right wing. How much further can the GOP go to the right without openly declaring themselves the party of racism and religious dominionism and embracing violence as a tactic?
*
no subject
To believe that he was courting racists in coded language would mean that he is intentionally nuking the rest of his week's campaign schedule.
Or injecting plausible deniability. Which ever comes first.
Think about how illogical that is, from a campaigning standpoint and from a personal standpoint. It doesn't make sense, logically or otherwise.
That's kinda the point of campaign strategies. They don't have to "make sense;" they only have to work. And, lets remember, it did. GWB's decision to suggest that John McCain's daughter might be his natural child in South Carolina? Despicable, but it worked.
I am amazed that something so blatant can be denied by you so blithely. But, please, don't let me stop you. Continue to insist that mentioning a favorable position on States' Rights in a region so emotionally charged by our fairly recent history is simply to discuss "economics." I leave it to others to judge who here has the more solid argument.
Since I mentioned wells earlier, keep digging. The well you're poisoning is the rhetorical hole you're digging for yourself right now!
no subject
This is not actually any position I've ever taken, so...
Or injecting plausible deniability. Which ever comes first.
That's a lot of money for plausible deniability that no one cares to buy anyway, is it not?
GWB's decision to suggest that John McCain's daughter might be his natural child in South Carolina? Despicable, but it worked.
Assuming it actually came from Rove. A claim never substantiated, and one I don't buy for a second.
I am amazed that something so blatant can be denied by you so blithely. But, please, don't let me stop you. Continue to insist that mentioning a favorable position on States' Rights in a region so emotionally charged by our fairly recent history is simply to discuss "economics." I leave it to others to judge who here has the more solid argument.
This is the problem - you call it blatant, but you have no supporting evidence outside of the "dog whistle politics" canard and the location of the speech. That's incredibly weak evidence, if we even want to call it that, and it makes no logical sense, does not hold up to even basic scrutiny.
The question is not about any holes being dug, but rather why you're clinging to a point that can't be supported.