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.
On Friday, Max Blumenthal was on Democracy Now! to talk about his new book, Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party. I haven't seen a copy, much less read his book, but at first listen, it sounds like he has done an excellent job of hitting the bulls-eye of target that others--in books that were already excellent in their own rights--have only clipped before, without quite realizing that the bull's-eye even existed.
This passage from the publisher's description (link above) describes that bull's-eye:
more that just an expose, Republican Gomorrah shows that many of the movement's leading figures have more in common than just the power they command within conservative ranks. Their personal lives have been stained by crisis and scandal: depression, mental illness, extra-marital affairs, struggles with homosexual urges, heavy medication, addiction to pornography, serial domestic abuse, and even murder. Inspired by the work of psychologists Erich Fromm, who asserted that the fear of freedom propels anxiety-ridden people into authoritarian settings, Blumenthal explains in a compelling narrative how a culture of personal crisis has defined the radical right, transforming the nature of the Republican Party for the next generation and setting the stage for the future of American politics.
Numerous other writers have noted how frequently religious right figures get into trouble with sex scandals. I mean, you've got to work pretty damn hard not to notice it. And in Great American Hypocrites, Glenn Greenwald went one step further, describing how conservative political heroes, not specifically religious figures, have repeatedly turned out to be the polar opposite of the images of the rectitude that they project, but here, Blumenthal is examining this phenomena not simply as hypocrisy on a grand scale, or a grand deception, but as the inexorable workings of natural laws, taking Fromm's insights and applying them systematically to a history that has been staring us in the face now for decades.
What's more, when Blumenthal includes James Dobson in this pattern, he (perhaps inadvertently) outflanks George Lakoff as well. In Moral Politics, Lakoff discussed Dobson's work in Dare To Discipline as exemplifying what he called the "Strict Father" model of childrearing on which American conservatism is based. However, in retrospect Blumenthal's approach reveals how Lakoff seemingly downplayed the more disturbing implications of what he had uncovered.
Some excerpts from the interview, and further explanation of what I mean on the flip.
"It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he [William Ayers] had led a fugitive life years earlier." -- former Illinois state Republican Rep. Diana Nelson.
"Now we're all sons of bitches." -- Ken Bainbridge, test director, first atomic bomb test, Los Alamos, New Mexico, July 16, 1945.
It may seem like a minor point at best, a moral abomination at worst, but it bears saying, nonetheless: The labeling of William Ayers as "a domestic terrorist" in the 1970s is a debatable point at best. This is not to defend his choices at the time. It is, rather, to insist, ala George Orwell, on the importance of preserving accurate language, for without it, our collective capacity to tell and know the truth disappears.
Furthermore, one could just as well argue that John McCain was "a state terrorist" for his role in the Vietnam War. But that, of course, is politically unthinkable. Making some things unthinkable, and other things unquestionable is what "democratic" authoritarianism is all about.
There is nothing new in this. In a democracy, the people are responsible for the actions of their government. When our government drops atomic bombs on large Japanese cities, we are all terrorists to some degree. So, too, when we drop napalm on small Vietnamese villages, or when our tax-supported allies kill nuns in El Salvador, or arm religious fanatics in Afghanistan. Terrorism, like suburbia, became a way of life during the Cold War. No wonder we need a scapegoat, into whom all our guilt and self-loathing can pass.
In Part 1, I took note of the reportage casting Fox News as "populist" highlighted by Kargo X, and wrote:
While the notion of Fox News as "populist" is a ludicrous rightwing perversion in one sense, it is quite accurate in another sense we dare not ignore--and that is, quite simply, that it reflects the truest test of elite power--the ability to define the essential contours of populist thought, and to cast someone else as the dreaded "elite".
In this diary, I want to dig back into history, and uncover some key turning points that brought us from the economic populist solidarity of the New Deal to the sorry state we find ourselves in today, where the Democratic Party is still virtually clueless about how to respond to such outrageous lies. A key figure in this story is the pivotal Republican President of the past 75 years--Richard Nixon.
While Barack Obama and legions of his supporters insist on seeing Reagan as his hagiographers have painted him--as a trascendental transformative figure--the simple reality is that he was nothing of the sort. He was the beneficiary of an enormous amount of high-power myth-making. But Nixon was the one who made it all possible.
I've argued elsewhere about why 1968 was a de-aligning election--ending the "New Deal" Fifth Party System, in which Democrats dominated Congress and the presidency as thoroughly as any party has ever dominated a party system, and ushering in the only party system in American history in which the dominant "party" is divided government. Now, in an excerpt from his new book, Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, Rick Perlstein provides a striking snapshot of how that deeply split 1968 election sent down much deeper splits into the bedrock of American politics. The excerpt, "Then No One Would Be a Democrat Anymore" (at American Prospect Online) describes the progression of blue-collar anti-anti-war violence, rioting, and eventual mass marching that thrilled Nixon with the prospect of a vast political realignment:
Nixon had tried to talk to the student demonstrators. He concluded he preferred the hard hats. "Thinks now the college demonstrators have overplayed their hands," Haldeman wrote in his diary, "evidence is the blue collar group rising against them, and [president] can mobilize them."
New York construction workers now took every lunch hour for boisterous patriotic demonstrations. So did hard hats in San Diego, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh. Some of the rallies were not entirely spontaneous: "Obviously more of these will be occurring throughout the nation," White House staffer Stephen Bull wrote in a memo to Chuck Colson, "perhaps partially as a result of your clandestine activity." Peter Brennan, the combative head of the Building Trades Council of Greater New York, accused of organizing the "hard hat riot," defiantly denied it -- then showed what he could do as an organizer: one hundred thousand marchers on May 20, complete with a cement mixer draped with a LINDSAY FOR MAYOR OF HANOI banner. Signs read GOD BLESS THE ESTABLISHMENT and WE SUPPORT NIXON AND AGNEW. Time called it "a kind of workers' Woodstock."
STATE BLOGS
