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
Which doesn't change the fact that pretty much every "argument" you've used for the term "Democrat Party" not being offensive could be used for claiming "Jew boy" isn't offensive.
As you know, I cited the term "Moral Majority" as an example of a proper name that some people might consider an inaccurate description. In spite of the fact that most of its critics did not consider Falwell's group either "moral" or a "majority," those critics referred to it as the "Moral Majority." They did not announce that their dislike for the group entitled them to rename it -- as you are claiming about Republicans who "don't like saying that it's Democratic bill, idea or party."
It's interesting to look over these word clouds you keep emitting and attempt to pin down the actual argument. so far, it seems to be: "There's nothing insulting about saying 'Democrat Party' rather than 'Democratic Party' and Republicans are entitled to do this because Democrats don't deserve the adjective 'Democratic' and there's nothing insulting about saying that." Which, of course, makes zero sense.
The only question left is the extent to which you believe your own schtick. The level of obfuscation I see in your posts requires an effort, and that effort strongly implies an awareness that it's needed, so I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
no subject
Not a single argument I used would justify it. Why would someone not want to say Jewish? Why replace it with Jew?
As you know, I cited the term "Moral Majority" as an example of a proper name that some people might consider an inaccurate description.
I get it, but as I'm not as old as you, I can't remember how the media treated them. My guess though, they got called the Christian Right, the Party of Evangelicals, etc. all the time. Look at the Tea Party and all the thing they get called, some not offensive, others are.
"There's nothing insulting about saying 'Democrat Party' rather than 'Democratic Party' and Republicans are entitled to do this because Democrats don't deserve the adjective 'Democratic' and there's nothing insulting about saying that."
I guess I could repeat myself, but I'm fairly sure you posses the intellectual capacity to figure out what I'm saying. Go back, reread.
t effort strongly implies an awareness that it's needed, so I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
Oh thanks Paft!
no subject
"ch: But hey, using a noun instead of adjective. How rude is that?"
Ch: Why would someone not want to say Jewish? Why replace it with Jew?
To insult Jewish people. Just as replacing the word "Democratic" in "Democratic Party" with "Democrat" insults the members of that party.
Ch: I get it, but as I'm not as old as you, I can't remember how the media treated them. My guess though, they got called the Christian Right, the Party of Evangelicals, etc. all the time.
And you base this guess on... What? I mean aside from your silly attempts to somehow justify your claim an insult is not an insult.
Here's a little history lesson -- the Moral Majority was referred to as the "Moral Majority" in books and speeches by its opponents, in news stories, etc. because it was, like the Democratic Party, a formal organization with an established hierarchy and different formalized divisions. I have already posted to you quotes illustrating this. Did you not notice them? Do you imagine many of those highly critical people truly thought the "Moral Majority" was moral?
No, it was not called "the Christian Right" except as part of that larger Christian Right movement, and I never once heard it referred to as "the Party of Evangelicals" because, you see, "Party of Evangelicals" was not its name. As strange as may seem to you, in the era before Rush Limbaugh was a household name, this petty, spiteful business of renaming an organization because you dislike it did not have a lot of traction. Sure, there were individuals who referred to the MM as the "immoral minority" but those were one-off, not especially funny jokes, not a concerted effort to alter the name of an organization against its will.
Ch: Look at the Tea Party and all the thing they get called, some not offensive, others are.
And this means the term "Democrat Party" isn't an insult because.....?
Ch: I guess I could repeat myself,
That would not make your arguments any less silly or any more convincing.