In my earlier diary, "A Centrist Ideologue Takes Aim At Growing Awareness Of Sedition on the Right", I criticized Brendan Nyhan's slanted attack on critics of the GOP's tendency towards seditious attacks on President Obama. As I indicated, there are several very legitimate concerns involved. False charges of sedition are one of them. But so is sedition itself, and there are very clear signs of seditious tendencies on the right in response to Obama's election--including rhetoric and actions from the highest levels of the Republican Party.
Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama struggled to overcome widespread and persistent myths about their proposals to reform the American health care system. Their difficulties highlight the influence of factual misinformation in national politics and the extent to which it correlates with citizens' political views. In this essay, I explain how greater elite polarization and the growth in media choice have reinforced the partisan divide in factual beliefs. To illustrate these points, I analyze debates over health care reform in 1993-1994 and 2009-2010, tracing the spread of false claims about reform proposals from Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and analyzing the prevalence of misinformation in public opinion. Since false beliefs are extremely difficult to correct, I conclude by arguing that increasing the reputational costs for dishonest elites might be a more effective approach to improving democratic discourse.
And here's the 2000 words that says it all:
While I agree wholeheartedly with Nyhan's conclusion "that increasing the reputational costs for dishonest elites might be a more effective approach to improving democratic discourse", and I think the two charts above are certainly instructional, that doesn't mean I agree with everything else in his paper, especially when he starts comparing the Birther myth with belief in 9-11 conspiracies, and asserting a left-right symmetry in unjustified conspiracist beliefs as a foundation for his later arguments. It looks superficially plausible if you look at a chart like this:
Birtherism wears its crazy on its sleeve. For one thing, the demand that Barack Obama produce his birth certificate did not reach anything close to its crescendo until months after Obama had already posted his birth certificate to the internet. And, of course, there's the crazy incarnate of Orly Taitz. So you can be forgiven for not knowing of the craziness embodied in the actual lawsuit that was thrown of of court in Orange County at the end of October. Fortunately, that craziness is captured in the 30-page decision (pdf) itself, perhaps the calmest document you might ever chance to read that is written in response to batshit insanity.
But you don't have to read the entire 30-page document. Just a few paragraphs from the very end should suffice quite nicely. The sad fact is (sad for comedians, at least), the judge threw the case out on procedural grounds, so there was no full bore circus with phony birth certificates and the like. And in the end the judge addresses the plaintiff's impatience with him for actually following the law and respecting constitutional separation of powers-as opposed tobuying into their free-flowing interpretation of the law as always serving their immediate needs.
But if you do skip to the end (as you can by jumping to the section "The Grand Finale"), then you'll miss half the fun (yeah, I'm a non-lawyer who thinks reading judicial decisions can be fun), such as when the Judge, David O. Carter, explains that the plaintiffs "seek a complete shutdown of the government by enjoining it from acting while holding a new presidential election," that "Plaintiffs have inappropriately requested that this Court interfere with internal military affairs," that they seek "to emasculate the military." Hmmm. Trying to make the country ungovernable and bring it to the point of total collapse, leaving it utterly defenseless. Sound like any political party you know?
According to PPP, 35% of the country thinks either that President Obama was not born in America (23%), and / or that George W. Bush had something to do with the 9/11 attacks (14%). My favorite line in their press release is "a very troubled 2% of the population buys into both of those conspiracy theories." Ha!
On the bipartisan front, 25% of Democrats think that Bush was involved in the 9/11 attacks, while 42% of Republicans think that Obama was not born in the United States.
This is the first of two diaries spinning off of that poll, and issues it's raising about the nature of political narratives and worldviews. In this diary, I want to stress some important differences between the two types of "fringe" thinking that are being conflated here. First off, Chris makes a good point that a better comparison might well be the belief that the 2004 election was stolen. Still, the pollsters are correct to note that both beliefs represent profound distrust of political leadership, and thus there's a legitimate basis for comparison, even though the comparison is not as exact as the alternative Chris proposes. My intention in this diary is to underscore deeper ways in which the two beliefs differ from one another, and should not be facily equated with one another.
But before doing so, I want to make it quite clear that I am not offering an apologia for the 9/11 Truthers, or any other form of leftwing conspiracy theories. I'm an implacable foe of conspiracism--the mindset behind conspiracy theories--for the simply reason that it gets things fundamentally wrong, and stands in the way clear understanding and effective action. Conspiracism originates from the political right, and when taken up by the political left it inevitably distorts thinking in ways that are both subtle and gross.
That doesn't mean that think conspiracies don't exist--there are conspiracies all over the place. But conspiracism as a mindset is something quite different from the simple recognition that conspiracies exist. Rather, it is an orientation that assumes a basically benign social order, facing destruction at the hands of a powerful outside force that deceptively seeks to insinuate itself into a position of total control. This is its rightwing core. This view fundamentally misunderstands the roles that conspiracies play in history and politics, obscuring the larger social and cultural contexts in which they occur. As a result, even when conspiracists are talking about real conspiracies, the result is reminiscent of racist LA cop Mark Furman investigating OJ Simpson--they're framing a guilty man, and making the truth more difficult to make out, not less so.
On Tuesday, Rachel Maddow had a program segment devoted to rightwing blogger Jon Henke's so-far unsuccessful attempts to get "conservative libertarian organizations" to renounce all support for World Net Daily for its wild-eyed conspiracy mongering.
While it's mildly amusing to see this later-day would-be William Buckley try to stand athwart the rampaging bull elephant of GOP dementia yelling "Stop!" the reason I bring this up is not because of the intramural battle Rachel sought to cover. Rather, what caught my attention was Rachel's framing of why she thought it was important--looking for an honest debating partner--and Henke's clear-as-day demonstration that he has absolutely zero intention of playing any such role, should he somehow manage to vanquish the birther hordes.
Explaining her interest, Maddow said:
MADDOW: I will say that as a liberal, I was interested in your critique. I will tell you honestly because I feel like it's really important for our country to have a good, solid, honest, left-right debate and a good, solid, honest partisan debate.
And I'm concerned about what I see as the devolution of the craft argument and adherence to the facts on the right. And that's why it resonated with me.
This is hardly a unique sentiment. Indeed, I'd say is probably the dominant view amongst liberals. I've certainly heard George McGovern say as much on several occasions. But I think that objectively it's utter hogwash. In international terms, the Republicans are a rightwing party and the Democrats are centrists. We have no leftwing party in America--no party that represents the vast majority of working people--and that's a huge part of what's wrong with this country. What America needs--at a minimum--is for the GOP to die, and the Democrats to split into two: a DLC/Blue Dog center-right party and a progressive/populist center-left party.
There is no part of the GOP or conservative establishment that is capable of playing a constructive role in our political future. They have not played a constructive role at least since Goldwater decided to throw in with the Southern racists in his 1964 campaign, despite himself being personally opposed to segregation. And Henke himself showed why in the course of this segment.
Earlie today, in "Van Jones Controversy: No There There", I explained why it was ridiculous to claim that Van Jones was a "911-Truther." Although the petition he signed was created by "9/11 Truthers", it was designed as a mainstreaming vehicle, made no factually false claims, and called for investigations and answers to questions that really ought to have been answered without anyone having to ask.
But it's really well worth taking a look at the underlying presumption behind this attack--the presumption of straight-forward equivalence between Birthers on the Right, and "9/11 Truthers" on the Left. As should be clear from the last section of my earlier diary, I hold no brief whatsoever for "9/11 Truthers", so nothing I'm about to say should be construed as defending them.
However, that said, I think there are very good reasons not to consider them as the mirror image of Birthers. Moreover, there is good reason to be critical of this entire narrative ploy, as a variation on the theme discussed by Glenn Greenwald in his post yesterday, "How one becomes "crazy" in Washington culture". But first, a quick review of three reasons why the mirror-image narrative is suspect. First, there are very good reasons to conclude that subtle (and not-so-subtle) forms of racism play a significant role in contributing to Birther beliefs. There is no obvious pernicious equivalence associated with "9/11 Truthers", certainly not one based on race. Second, the Birthers have a level of prominence that's unmatched by the "9/11 Truthers," and that's reflected in the widespread unwillingness of GOP congressmembers and Senators to openly reject their false beliefs--unlike Democrats and "9/11 Truthers." When, for example, did you ever see a Democratic Senator riff on "9/11 Truth" BS like this (from David Weigel at the Washington Independent):
This morning, at the "Freedom Summit" that kicked off three days of small government Tea Party protests, I broke from a conversation I'd been having with some attendees when one of them approached Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and asked about the feasibility of suing the government over unconstitutional legislation. Inhofe, seemingly out of nowhere, brought up the example of President Obama's citizenship.
You, as a citizen, can say "this is unconstitutional." File the lawsuit, go through the whole thing. Now, on the whole idea of the birth certificate for Obama, for example. You can do that. By the time you got a decision, it'd be ten years from now. And then the damage is already done.
That's fringe?
Third, both these beliefs are forms of conspiracism, and conspiracism has a long history of congruence with rightwing ideology, while it clashes with leftwing ideology, and is more reflective of ideological weakness and confusion on the left than it is reflective of strength.
Of course, one can expect such arguments--no matter how well-supported--to meet with all sorts of knee-jerk responses--in direct parallel to what Glenn discusses in the diary I linked to above. So I want to ground my critique of this false equivalence on cold hard numbers. The Birther-"9/11 Truther" equivalence was first promoted by Real Clear Politics, using a poll question that Media Matters pointed out was not at all comparable--"Did Bush Know About the 9/11 Attacks in Advance?"--which easily conflates "9/11 Truthers" with folks who were aware that BushCo had ignored a series of intelligence warnings ahead of the 9/11 attacks. But then a second poll was dug up by Brendan Nyhan, which he presented as showing a strong equivalence, as can be seen in the following charts:
However, a more critical look at the figures shows that the rough equivalence is a good deal rougher, and a good deal less equivalent than it first seems.
Reading through David Sirota's righteous entry, I was at once both encouraged by his passion for defending Van Jones and dismayed by the casual, utterly condescending Kos-like dismissals of those who seek the truth behind 9/11 as mere quacks. Most of these dismissals came from readers who posted comments, but even Mr. Sirota's entry contained at least one.
For the record, there is no single "9/11 Truther" movement of which I am aware. There are those who choose to engage in the worst forms of speculation, trying to bolster their ideas about what really happened with hypotheses that simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Yet there are those of us who believe that, if nothing else, criminal negligence was the main thing that allowed the attacks to occur on that terrible day eight years ago this Friday. The latter group deserves, if nothing else, serious consideration and support from the left if for no other reason than a a full and honest accounting of what allowed the attack may finally be put on the public record (as opposed to the whitewash we were saddled with).
Part of the reason the left is so weak against the far right is that it refuses to support its own - even when doing so has little or no political risk. Van Jones signed a petition by people who honestly seem to believe, if nothing else, that the Bush-Cheney regime had more than enough time and information with which to take some sort of preventive action to stop the attack from being carried out. It's part of a pattern of criminal negligence in the previous regime, one proven so disastrously in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. It's not such an extreme question for any sensible American to ask. Yet it is lumped in with the people who, for better or worse, think that there was more active involvement and who have chosen to subscribe to unprovable notions. As a result, a sane, progressive voice of reason in the White House has been forced to leave because he asked questions. It is only coincidence that those questions happened to be ones the powerful - in their zeal to protect their own at any cost (so long as the rest of us pay it) - would rather not be asked at all.
And so, for that reason, yet another lesson was reiterated about Obama and his inner circle: far right crazies will always be given deferential treatment, while progressives - no matter how rational, competent, effective, and passionate - are expendable. That is the larger hurt in all of this mess over Van Jones. Legitimate questions deserve legitimate answers, and the left is supposed to be about (among other things) welcoming both. When we don't do that, when we dismiss even the most rational of questions and treat the people asking them like pariahs, what do we gain? Nothing. But as Van Jones' dismissal from the White House demonstrates, we do have plenty to lose.
Next up: The off the kook end conspiracy theory that President Obama was secretly not born in the United States and, therefore, is secretly not really president, might be a more complicated off the kook end conspiracy theory than we originally thought. A new North Carolina poll by Public Policy Polling finds that the percentage of North Carolina voters who say President Obama wasn't born in the U.S. or they're not sure if he was, is 46 percent -- 46 percent of North Carolina voters think Obama might be secretly foreign, and he, therefore, might not really be president.
Among Republicans in North Carolina-it's worse. The percentage of Republican voters in North Carolina who say Barack Obama was not born in the U.S. or they're not sure, 76 percent. More than three-quarters of North Carolina Republicans think Obama might not really be president-more than three-quarters, more than three-quarters, more than three-quarters of them.
But here's the additional detail that might make your raised eyebrows turn into a furrowed brow. This huge majority of North Carolina Republicans say that Obama either wasn't born in the U.S. or they're not sure, right? The president, of course, was born in Hawaii. Well, whoever the genius is who put this poll together--I salute you because I never would have thought to ask this as the follow-up question--by the way, do you believe that Hawaii is part of the United States? They asked that question. And fully 12 percent of North Carolina self-identified conservatives said no, Hawaii is not part of the United States. Or they just don't know whether it is. I mean, how could that ever be known?
Well, Maddow may think that's the ultimate, but I think that's barely the beginning. Especially whn you consider the cross-cutting question of secession. Should Hawaii be allowed to secede, even if it's not a state, for example? And if it did, would Obama turn into a pumpkin? Or a pumpernickel bagel?
Inquiring minds want to know, and I present my fully articulated ultimate Birth poll on the flip.
The intellectual godfather of the modern conservative movement was Russell Kirk, and Kirk's great hero was the political theorist Edmund Burke, who fervently supported King George and the other royalty of the late 1700s in their battle with the forces of democracy. Kirk, in his book The Conservative Mind, noted that Burke "was not ashamed to acknowledge the allegiance of humble men whose sureties are prejudice and prescription." No, indeed. In fact, the conservative movement has always been a happy mix of wealthy elites and angry bigots, working together to defend the status quo and the power of those elites. Today, this coalition rears its ugly head once again, as super-wealthy insurance executives supply angry right wingers the money to organize themselves to disrupt town hall meetings and physically intimidate Congresspeople.
Erudite elitist William Buckley was delighted to align himself with Southern segregationists, writing columns strongly defending them. Ronald Reagan raised most of his money from big business, but was pleased to go to the town in Mississippi where James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were murdered, and give a speech about states' rights. And John McCain said nothing while people in his crowds were yelling racial slurs and calling out in reference to Obama "Kill him."
Now insurance company execs are thrilled and excited to be sending money out to right wing groups to organize the Birthers and their ilk to shout down citizens coming to town hall meetings to discuss health care reform with their members of Congress.
It's time to take our democracy back from this combination of big money and their truly extreme allies. It's time to take this unholy alliance on, and beat it. If we let this coalition run our country, we are in deep trouble.
By now, you've probably seen at least part of the video of Delaware Congressman Mike Castle's town-hall encounter with the Birther base:
What struck me immediately on seeing it was how perfectly it epitomized something I wrote about roughly a year ago-the power of mythos as opposed to logos, a topic that has only grown more important over the past year, as all pretense of rightwing logos has crumbled into dust. As I explained, following directly in Karen Armstrong's footsteps from The Battle For God, logos is all about how things work, mythos is about what they mean. As I quoted from Armstrong in "Tales of the City IS Fiction-And Mythos":
Myth was regarded as primary; it was concerned with what was thought to be timeless and constant in our existence. Myth looked back to the origins of life, to the foundations of culture, and to the deepest levels of the human mind. Myth was not concerned with practical matters, but with meaning. Unless we find some significance in our lives, we mortal men and women fall very easily into despair. The mythos of a society provided people with a context that made sense of their day-to-day lives; it directed their attention to the eternal and the universal. It was also rooted in what we would call the unconscious mind. The various mythological stories, which were not intended to be taken literally, were an ancient form of psychology. When people told stories about heroes who descended into the underworld, struggled through labyrinths, or fought with monsters, they were bringing to light the obscure regions of the subconscious realm, which is not accessible to purely rational investigation, but which has a profound effect upon our experience and behavior. Because of the dearth of myth in our modern society, we have had to evolve the science of psychoanalysis to help us to deal with our inner world.
In the good old days, people were smart enough to keep the two separate most of the time, but this has become virtually impossible as logos has become so incredibly successful over the past thousand years or so. This is the deep irony underlying fundamentalism-rather than being a reassertion of traditional religion, as it takes itself to be, it is a total abdication of the power of mythos on which religion ultimately rests.
In my diary last weekend, "Racist Throw-Back Pat "Cry-Baby" Buchanan Is A National Disgrace", I started off asking in big bold letters: "So why does Rachel Maddow invite him onto her show? And why is she so uncharacteristically weak?" I was not pleased with Maddow's performance at all.
This week, however, she made up for it rather well, as HouseofProgress noted in a QuickHit--though there were others that didn't think so, most notably Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler. (Here and here.) On the flip I'll explain why he's wrong--and why there's another MSNBC segment this week that really did miss the mark: David Shuster on Countdown refusing to hear what Charlie Pierce was telling him about the GOP, the Birthers, the media, and the lessons of the Clinton-Gore years. Here's the clip of Maddow's segment from Monday:
STATE BLOGS
