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
Do you think Nixon was racist? Just a calibration question.
no subject
From what I've read, it's probably very likely. Certainly anti-Semitic.
no subject
The Mulford act itself, and the fact that someone like Reagan signed it, is undeniably racially entangled. Not sure if you know but it was commonly known as the Panther Bill (http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_capitolmarch.html) at the time - before it was signed.
no subject
And Obama actually did "pal around with terrorists." I'm sure if we parsed your list of friends, you'd find some rough stuff there, too.
The Mulford act itself, and the fact that someone like Reagan signed it, is undeniably racially entangled. Not sure if you know but it was commonly known as the Panther Bill at the time - before it was signed.
Well, right. It was designed to keep the Panthers from interfering with police work. It's "racially entangled" because, well, they're the Black Panthers.
It's like calling the Patriot Act "racially entangled" because it's designed to help stop Al Queda terrorists from attacking us again.
no subject
Undoubtedly so, and you're correct list parsing, its distasteful itself.
Reagan courted Falwell, Robertson, and Buchanan, AND voted against civil rights act etc, so a certain amount of skepticism will haunt him.
To compare the Black Panthers with Al Qaeda would also beg the comparison between the Oakland Police dept with the US Military. Maybe there's a point there? The Black Panthers were a local pro gun response to very real police brutality and lack of civic representation (couldn't get a stop light etc). Racist cops in Oakland were committing drive by's in black neighborhoods. It wasn't so one sided.
no subject
That would be fair.
Again, I'm not defending the bill. I'm merely noting that it's exactly the type of bill the left would adore were the Black Panthers not the catalyst.
no subject
And, we're not talking about Reagan anymore. Okay, I guess the mirroring can be interpreted as a form of agreement.