I don't see any evidence that the particular apocalyptic "my enemies are totalitarian madmen" strain of Birch/Beck/Goldberg conservatism has helped anyone win any elections.
Tristero's piece is very good, very thoroush, and very worth reading. But it proceeds by basically saying, "Okay, even if that were true:"
Let's ignore all the obvious contradictory examples, like Bachmann and Coburn and Tancredo and DeLay and so on and so on and - solely for the sake of argument - go so far as to entirely concede Matt's point: no one gets elected by being a rightwing loon.
I want to take the opposite approach. I want to basically argue that movement conservatives would be nowhere without this sort of rhetoric. It's not always their dominant form of rhetoric--particularly in its crudest, most blatant form, but it's always somewhere in the mix. As I explained back in May, 2008, in "Fox's Faux Populism vs A Shadow Elite--Pt. 1", conservative elites have been playing this game for centuries now:
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".
This is a very old game, and it's way past time we got a better handle on it. Before getting into any sort of messy details, it's important to note--ala my diary two weeks ago, "The Ontology of Snark: A Prelude"--that there's a common ego defense mechanism in play here:
Displacement: Defence mechanism that shifts sexual or aggressive impulses to a more acceptable or less threatening target; redirecting emotion to a safer outlet; separation of emotion from its real object and redirection of the intense emotion toward someone or something that is less offensive or threatening in order to avoid dealing directly with what is frightening or threatening. For example, a mother may yell at her child because she is angry with her husband.
Real, actual conservative elites have been using displacement as a stock in trade for millenia, creating ghost elites for unwitting populists to misdirect their anger at. It was virtually inevitable that Obama's "new politics" of "change" would be targetted with this ancient charge....
Elites Create Their Demon Others It's relatively easy for an elite to create a "shadow" elite, meaning something akin "shadow" in the Jungian sense of the unacknowledged dark side of the self. The mass of people resent the elite for things the elite cannot admit or accept about itself--above all, the arbitrariness and injustice of its position in the world--and so it projects its shadow onto another group. Because this involves disowning something fundamental of itself, the mechanism involved for the elite is more projective identification than projection, per se:
Projective identification is used to project the bad object into (not onto) another person so it becomes a part of that person.
The person then identifies with that other person, and hence has means to control them.
The person projected into may consequently be pressured to behave congruently with the projective phantasy.
This description captures quite well the enormous investment of time, energy and money we see on behalf of conservatives pushing the meme of "liberal elites", and devising various ways of getting "liberals" to act out their appointed roles.
The more extreme forms of demonizing liberals work very well for conservatives, in large part because they resonate with this broader narrative framework that they have repeated and reinforced countless times over the centuries. Of course, that's not all there is to it. There are cognitive motivations and biases that predispose conservatives to see the world this way. And what Matt is doing is invoking a counter set of cognitive motivations and biases--ones that are generally much sounder and saner, but that totally mislead when one is trying to understand and respond effectively to conservative attacks.
Those biases are the foundations of the dominant 18th Century Enlightenment model of disembodied reason. And late 20th and early 21st century cognitive science has definitively shown those biases to be false. Facts do not persuade people apart from narrative frameworks. When the facts contradict the framework, the facts are rejected, not the frame. Indeed, that's why folks like Matt stubbornly hold onto their false models of reason.
Of course this is all very high-level stuff I'm arguing here. But it dovetails very well with the specific history of movement conservatism, particularly since the New Deal and WWII, as it consistently failed to develop any sort of positive, pragmatic framework for dealing with America's realworld problems, and only managed to win elections by promoting paranoid us-vs-them narratives of seemingly limitless scope--McCarthyism in the early 50s (based on Nixon's smear campaigns that first won him a seat in Congress), racial backlash and the culture wars beginning with Goldwater 1964 and Nixon in 1968, honed to perfection by Reagan in 1980, and systematized by Gingrich in 1994--but never, ever actually solving any of the problems that it promised to.
And yet, when it comes down to it, Yglesias is basically trying to argue that nothing conservatives have done along these lines has been politically successful.
Which is utterly, downright delusional.
Am I twising his argument beyond his meaning? First off, I'd say that if I am, then his argument doesn't hold much punch. But here's what he said in complete context:
I tend to think that this is one of the areas where progressives aren't just doing the right thing, but have a smarter tactical approach to politics. There are scenarios in which tagging your political opponents with smears can be effective, but I don't see any evidence that the particular apocalyptic "my enemies are totalitarian madmen" strain of Birch/Beck/Goldberg conservatism has helped anyone win any elections. This should be differentiated from the occasional lapse into rhetorical excess that everyone does now and again. I'm talking specifically about the kind of sustained effort to seriously persuade people that Elana Kagan favors sharia or Dwight Eisenhower is a Communist that you see among loons of all stripes but that seems to be granted more respectability on the right.
So, progressives "have a smarter tactical approach to politics"??? Really? Looking back at the past 42 years, since 1968, you can actually say that with a straight face? Particularly after the trainwreck of the last 20 months? That's a whole separate count of delusional thinking in my book.
But back to getting a fix on what Matt's saying here. I haven't seen Kos's book, but I don't have to to respond to this. If his execution's flawed, then it's flawed, and he can be criticized for that. But the claim that his argument is inherently flawed could only hold water if, for example the inverse of the wild-eyed conservative claims were equally absurd. And this simply is not the case. For example, the inverse of claiming that Elana Kagan favors sharia law is claiming that top Republicans favor turning American into a theoocracy.
Which, of course, they do!. The influence of R. J. Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism on the conservative movement seems to be something that Matt is utterly ignorant of, so he's just a brief quote from one of many relevant posts at Talk2Action.org to give some idea:
David Barton, who recently has been tapped as an alleged "expert" on American history featured on the Glenn Beck show, has built a career upon his claim that United States government was founded on Biblical precepts. This creates a major problem - if America was founded as a Christian nation, how can we account for slavery? Barton's articles on slavery on his Wallbuilders web site stress that many of the Founding Fathers were strongly opposed to the institution of slavery (which is true) but then he refers readers to a Wallbuilders article by Barton's close colleague Stephen McDowell, which explains that although Southern Slavery was wrong, it was wrong because it wasn't Biblical slavery as defined by Christian Reconstructionist theologian R.J. Rushdoony, whose basic approach was simple - what was permissible according to Biblical scripture is permissible now: including slavery.
McDowell's article cites R.J. Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law six times in its footnotes and that's notable given that the book was Rushdoony's master work on how to implement Biblical law in the American legal system. R.J. Rushdoony's scheme included establishing stoning and burning at the stake for adultery, homosexuality, and idolatry, and the legalization of Biblical slavery. Leaders in the Christian Reconstructionism movement Rushdoony founded have for several decades now been trying to make it so.
This is what's been building beneath the surface on the right for several generations now, and it's beginning to come right out into the open with the likes of Beck and Tea Party candeidates like Sharon Angle.
It's not a delusion to talk about it. It's a delusion to deny that it exists.
