That post "Newt Gingrich Is A Bigot--and the face of conservatism & the GOP", was motivated by the jarring juxtaposition of Taranto denialism with Newtie's acting out. But it's probably even more jarring to consider the entirety of the racist rightwing attack on Obama over the past couple of years and the sudden anti-Islamic eruption of the past couple of weeks.
You see, the racist attack on Obama not only involved denialism, but projection: It was, Glenn Beck assured us, Obama who was the racist--a theme that Beck has taken so seriously that he's organizing his very own white conservatives' march on Washington this weekend to mug Martin Luther King's memory and steal his dream. It's a very carefully crafted argument that's been worked on for decades, though in Beck's incarnation it's rather slipshod. Still, projecting conservatives' racism onto blacks and liberals is a central aspect of this sort of racist crusade.
In contrast, the anti-Muslim furor raised over the Park51 Cultural Center has none of that careful craftmanship behind it. It's raw, unfiltered racial bigotry, complete with threats and even acts of violence. It totally gives the game away.
Still, this does raise the question of what it would like if there were a conservatism free from racism. In one sense, theoretically at least, it's quite possible. Different researchers have repeatedly found that political conservatism correlates with racist attitudes or with attitudes--such as Social Dominance Orienation and Rightwing Authoritarianism--that in turn correlate with a broad range of group prejudice: racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry, etc. But even as these correlations show that actually existing conservatism is inextricably bound up with prejudicial attitudes, they also indicate that there is an identifiable set of beliefs separate from prejudicial attitudes that at least in theory could constitute a non-racist, non-sexist, totally non-bigoted form of conservatism.
So what would it take to bring such a form of conservatism into being? To be honest, I'm extremely doubtful that it could be done, but I'm willing to give it a shot. And to do so, I want to go back to two of the terms I've already referred to: denialism and projection.
Last weekend, I wrote a 6-part series exhaustively going through Gerard Alexander's WaPo commissioned editorial, "Why are liberals so condescending". I called it "Conservative condescension: Projection and conservative victomology on parade". There's a brief reminder of what was in each part on the flip. You'd think I had enough already. But there's some very good reasons why this is not the case.
First of all, a very good point was raised by Oaktown Girl last weekend about the need to come up with the exact opposite of what I had provided--a short--very short--response to Alexander that could be widely disseminated to counter the potential power of his narrative. We're talking one-liners here, folks--elevator speeches at most.
I'll be running a diary on that--soliciting your suggestions--later today, currently scheduled for 3:30 PM EST.
Second, I wanted to do up a systematic shredding of his touting of "welfare reform" as an example of something that conservatives got right and liberals got wrong because of their "condescension." I'll be doing a diary on that sometime tomorrow.
Third there were a couple of stunning rebukes of Alexander in the news this week. The first is relative simple to deal with--turns out that 80% of Americans are condescending liberals!Yikes! But the second takes up the vast bulk of this diary: a delving into the weirdness of CPAC. I'll just say this flat-out, you don't get much more condescending than the way conservatives talk about President Obama. But there's something much uglier and more primitive going on here, and I'm not talking racism, though that's certainly part of the mix. I'm talking primitive psychological processes that I've written about before that need to be looked at again.
I started this during the week, and it now seems like ancient history... Except, of course, we all know how things just keep popping up again, like you was playing whack-a-mole....
Last Saturday, over at TPM, Josh called attention to yet another example of ABC being in the tank for McCain. First, he cited the fact that McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds called Obama "recklessly dishonest" for directly quoting McCain's own words. Then he noted that ABC News had picked up the Tucker Bounds claim and written a story around it. Now, compared to the mega-travesty of the presidential debate a few days earlier, this was certainly small beer. On the other hand, considering how much criticism ABC got for that sorry outing, you might think they'd want to keep their noses clean for a least a millisecond or so.
But noooooo!
In fact, as you'll see below the fold, the sequence followed this simple pattern:
(1) John "Straight Talk Express" McCain makes a contradictory set of statements, both acknowledging that Americans are hurting economically (which is true), and claiming that the country has made "great progress economically," under Bush (do you have to ask?)
(2) Media doesn't say diddley.
(3) Obama picks up on the absurd lie, and uses it to attack McCain as out of touch.
(4) McCain spokesperson attacks Obama as "recklessly dishonest."
(5) ABC News writes story, "Obama Twists McCain on Economy," with the lede:
Who says Barack Obama doesn't know how to "twist the knife"?
This sort of sequence is so incredibly commonplace that we barely even notice it sometimes. But it's worthwhile to stop and take a closer look at it, dissect it a bit, in order to better understand how ABC is helping John McCain.
Ontology (from the Greek nominative ?n: being, genitive ?ntoV: of being (participle of e?nai: to be) and -log?a: science, study, theory) is a study of conceptions of reality and the nature of being. In philosophy, ontology is the study of being or existence and forms the basic subject matter of metaphysics. It seeks to describe or posit the basic categories and relationships of being or existence to define entities and types of entities within its framework. It is the science of what is, of the kinds and structures of the objects, properties and relations in every area of reality. [1]
What could be more fun than a true ontology of snark--a dissection of the many forms it takes, a metaphysical dissertation on the many forms it can and cannot take in any number of possible worlds--what could be more fun than that?
But, alas, such fun will have to wait. This post is a mere prelude, devoted to the ontological status of snark as a whole. Where does snark fit in the grand scheme of things? What is its place in the universe?
My thesis in beginning this inquiry is simple: The characteristic response of rightwing blogs to those on the left is projection, demonization and ad hominem attack. The characteristic response of leftwing blogs to those on the right is snark. I wish to explore the relationship between the two by illuminating a larger framework of which these are a part. That framework is primarily composed of Freudian ego defense mechanisms, with a smidgeon of more primative processes that actually preceed the creation of the ego. And, of course, it applies to much more than just what happens on the blogs.
In Freudian psychoanalytic theory, defence mechanisms are psychological strategies brought into play by individuals, groups, and even nations to cope with reality and to maintain self-image. Healthy persons normally use different defences throughout life. An ego defence mechanism becomes pathological only when its persistent use leads to maladaptive behavior such that the physical and/or mental health of the individual is adversely affected. The purpose of the Ego Defence Mechanisms is to protect the mind/self/ego from anxiety, social sanctions or to provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope.[1]
They are more accurately referred to as ego defence mechanisms, and can thus be categorized as occurring when the id impulses are in conflict with each other, when the id impulses conflict with super-ego values and beliefs, and when an external threat is posed to the ego.
The term "defence mechanism" is often thought to refer to a definitive singular term for personality traits which arise due to loss or traumatic experiences, but more accurately refers to several types of reactions which were identified during and after daughter Anna Freud's time.
Ego defense mechanisms range from primative to sohpisticated. Wikipedia notes:
In George Eman Vaillant's (1977) categorization defences form a continuum regarding to their psychoanalytical developmental level [7]. Levels are:
Level I - psychotic defences (i.e. psychotic denial, delusional projection)
STATE BLOGS
