(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 21:46 (UTC)How have you gotten this far in life and not learned what "behind closed doors" actually means???
According to you, it is NOT POSSIBLE for someone to behave racist, behind closed doors.
But fuckit, why not just ask:
What do you mean, when you say "behind closed doors"?
When I say it, I mean "in private". That is, a racist who is racist "behind closed doors" is a racist "in private" which means he will not publicly discuss his racism, but that does not mean he will not act upon racism.
Fuck man. Why the hell do you think the KKK wear hoods? Anonymity, because they are PUBLICLY different people than they are PRIVATELY.
What the hell.
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 21:48 (UTC)Right. If he's now acting on his racism, it's not quiet and in private anymore.
Fuck man. Why the hell do you think the KKK wear hoods? Anonymity, because they are PUBLICLY different people than they are PRIVATELY.
So tell me this: if there's a guy who owns the shop down the street, and he's a member of the KKK, but he hires minorities and serves everyone, what does that result in?
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:20 (UTC)WHAT DO YOU THINK RACISM IS?
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:37 (UTC)He could.
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:42 (UTC)The more you avoid this question, the more obvious it becomes.
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:48 (UTC)Come on, Jeff, what are you afraid of?
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 23:00 (UTC)At the very least, it shows a gross disrespect for voting as a right. And I'm not sure how anyone who said that could justify it without racism. Care to give it a shot?
j: Saying black people are too stupid to vote probably is.
PROBABLY??!!! Under what circumstances would such a statement not be racist?
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 23:08 (UTC)Not at all. He's saying he doesn't want them to, not that they shouldn't. And why? Because he wants his side to win.
And I'm not sure how anyone who said that could justify it without racism. Care to give it a shot?
Already done (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1779442.html?thread=142076914#t142076914).
PROBABLY??!!! Under what circumstances would such a statement not be racist?
If the person doesn't know what they're implying, if it lacks that vicious intent. It probably wouldn't happen that way, but it could.
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 23:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 23:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/10/13 00:28 (UTC)I guarantee that there are a lot of honest, caring people who legitimately believe racist things because they don't know any better. Doesn't make them not racist.
The only things that require a 'racist intent' check are jokes.
(no subject)
Date: 13/10/13 16:13 (UTC)In short, he doesn't want them exercizing a right unless it's to his side's benefit. "His side" does not include the American system of selecting leaders.
How does linking back to my OP qualify as an example of justifying that statement without racism?
bdj: If the person doesn't know what they're implying, if it lacks that vicious intent.
I see nothing in the defintion of racism -- "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" -- about "vicious intent."
(no subject)
Date: 13/10/13 17:27 (UTC)You need to leave your biases at the door here. You're assuming something that's not evident.
How does linking back to my OP qualify as an example of justifying that statement without racism?
I linked to a specific comment thread that answers your question.
(no subject)
Date: 14/10/13 19:59 (UTC)Given that you'd accept nothing as valid evidence for what I'm saying, your above statement is meaningless.
What specific comment in that thread answers my question?
(no subject)
Date: 12/10/13 22:20 (UTC)