(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: 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)
Date: 19/10/13 23:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/10/13 23:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/10/13 01:10 (UTC)"And yet again, you 'argue' by misrepresenting my views,"
but are too timid to expand on it.
(no subject)
Date: 21/10/13 17:33 (UTC)Yes I did. As I recall, I said that during his time in Chicago he acted as mid-level hustler that displayed a talent for playing both sides against the middle for his own gain.
ETA:
And yet again, you "argue" by misrepresenting my views.
Pot, kettle, black
See my earlier comment about holding people to standards that you yourself do not adhere to.
(no subject)
Date: 21/10/13 21:16 (UTC)You mean he actually compromised, negotiated, and worked with other people, like any successful politician? For this you invoke the image of some street-wise "hustler?"
Where have I misrepresented you?