(no subject)
10/10/13 13:11![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsDemocratic 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)
Date: 12/10/13 16:24 (UTC)Do you understand the difference between saying "I don't want you to vote for my opponent" and saying "I don't want to you vote if you're going to vote for my opponent?" Yes or no?
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 16:27 (UTC)And this is where your biases are clouding your understanding. Even in strong districts, if you know a voter is probably going to vote your opponent, you're skipping that House.
So when you read this:
Do you understand the difference between saying "I don't want you to vote for my opponent" and saying "I don't want to you vote if you're going to vote for my opponent?" Yes or no?
Yes, with a caveat. If I have the opportunity to get 100 people out to vote, and 10 of them are black, and 9 of them will vote for my opponent, statistically speaking, and the question is posed about getting the black vote out, the correct answer is that I don't want them to vote at all. It is better for my campaign, better for my chances of winning, and correctly expresses my point of view. It's not a statement on whether they should vote, nor a statement on how we will keep them from voting.
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 16:35 (UTC)Which, again, is miles away from taking steps to hobble the ability of the voters in that house to actually cast a ballot.
paft: Do you understand the difference between saying "I don't want you to vote for my opponent" and saying "I don't want to you vote if you're going to vote for my opponent?" Yes or no?
bdj: Yes, with a caveat. If I have the opportunity to get 100 people out to vote, and 10 of them are black, and 9 of them will vote for my opponent, statistically speaking, and the question is posed about getting the black vote out, the correct answer is that I don't want them to vote at all.
And to prevent them from voting you would...?
See, I think what's happening is not that you don't understand reality. You do. You just don't want to come out and directly say what it is you and the right wing advocate.
I see this all the time from posters who will furiously deny that a given policy or statement is "racist", all the while using a definition of "racism" that they know is not in accordance with common usage. In short, they debate in bad faith.
That's what I suspect is happening, and why some people have begun suspecting your motives in posting here.
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 16:38 (UTC)Which isn't happening.
And to prevent them from voting you would...?
Not engage them in voter outreach. Essentially pretend they don't exist from an electoral standpoint.
That's what I suspect is happening, and why some people have begun suspecting your motives in posting here.
I can't stop people from being blithering idiots. Whatever conclusions people want to jump to, I can't stop. I'll just keep being honest and calling out racism-bait like this.
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 17:03 (UTC)As you know, it is.
bdj: Not engage them in voter outreach. Essentially pretend they don't exist from an electoral standpoint.
The GOP has gone beyond that, however. They've engaged in voter caging and attempted voter ID laws that they know will suppress the black vote.
bdj: I can't stop people from being blithering idiots. Whatever conclusions people want to jump to, I can't stop. I'll just keep being honest and calling out racism-bait like this.
Can you offer some examples of what you would consider bona-fide racism?
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 17:07 (UTC)No, it actually isn't. That's the problem - you believe something that isn't so.
The GOP has gone beyond that, however. They've engaged in voter caging and attempted voter ID laws that they know will suppress the black vote.
And again in the realm of fantasy.
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 17:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:11 (UTC)I have to stop talking politics one day,or it will give me a stroke. It's heart-breaking.
(no subject)
Date: 13/10/13 22:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/10/13 23:08 (UTC)Maybe.
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/13 00:20 (UTC)