(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: 17/10/13 18:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/10/13 19:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/10/13 19:08 (UTC)No. As you are aware, a Democrat is telling you that the incorrect term, "Democrat Party" is used as an oblique insult by the right wing.
The very fact that you have to misrepresent this discussion indicates you know that the complaint is valid.
(no subject)
Date: 17/10/13 19:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/10/13 19:25 (UTC)And you know it.
(no subject)
Date: 17/10/13 19:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 00:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 18:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 18:47 (UTC)Your version of obfuscation can only go so far. After awhile, it becomes pretty obvious and therefore pretty useless as a tactic.
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 18:54 (UTC)Cheezy made it quite clear that Democrat is an insult only because you want to believe that it is. Which I would note, feeds the perception that you're in this for the joy of combat not any real objective.
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 19:05 (UTC)I'm reminded of the people who insist that The Bell Curve isn't racist -- it just posits an unchangeable and significant intellectual deficit among people of African descent.
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 20:42 (UTC)Replace race with sub-culture and you might have a point. But you don't.
That aspiring rap artists have an above average incidence of criminality and substance abuse is a seperate issue from the fact that the vast majority of aspiring rap artists are black. Aspiring rap artists congregate and pass these problems onto their offspring just as the Jewish religion's emphasis on scholarly accomplishment get's passed on to children raised in Jewish households.
You're just pissed of at the implication that there is anyone other than whitey to blame for all the worlds problems and thus you shout RACISM.
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 20:53 (UTC)Except, you see, The Bell Curve isn't about "subcultures." It's about race.
I'd forgotten your particular version of obfuscation when it comes to the term "racism" -- your belief that calling African Americans culturally inferior is somehow less racist than calling them genetically inferior. I
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 21:21 (UTC)I genuinely expect a Black person who graduates Harvard will have the intelligence, motivations, and generally act like a Harvard graduate.
Just as I expect that someone who grew up in the gutter to act like someone who grew up in the gutter.
The fact that you think that Blacks are incapable of succeeding without help from mighty whitey makes you, by definition, far more racist than I am.
Culture, after all, can be changed.
(no subject)
Date: 19/10/13 16:47 (UTC)Didn't you describe the black Harvard graduate now in the Oval Office as a "mid-level hustler?"
sw: The fact that you think that Blacks are incapable of succeeding without help from mighty whitey makes you, by definition, far more racist than I am.
And yet again, you "argue" by misrepresenting my views.
(no subject)
Date: 19/10/13 19:11 (UTC)LOL
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 17/10/13 19:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/10/13 19:31 (UTC)...you Dems say GOPers have a persecution complex. Sheesh
(no subject)
Date: 17/10/13 19:35 (UTC)You do not argue in good faith. That's why you rely so heavily on jargon.
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 18:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 18:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 18:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 18:57 (UTC)What agenda do you imagine I'm attempting to conceal?
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 03:14 (UTC)The Jew Party.
Do you see the aesthetic difference?
(no subject)
Date: 18/10/13 17:58 (UTC)That actually makes at least some sense even if I still think the whole controversy is stupid.