Listening in on the radical right
When I first started studying politics in the 1980s, the radical right did most of its business under radar.
Extreme conservatives — and I’ll define that term in a minute — winked and nudged at their agenda when talking to mainstream reporters and rank-and-file voters.
They saved their vitriol and poison for more private channels of communication: backwoods rallies, mimeographed newsletters, and the still-unnoticed world of AM talk radio.
But these days, the hounds of hate are unleashed and they’ve gone mainstream.
Rush Limbaugh is a broadcast powerhouse; and Glenn Beck is one of the most listened to men in media.
The likes of Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Malkin are top-bill pundits and entertainers.
Prominent RedState blogger Erick Erickson once called Supreme Court Justice David Souter a “goat-f%@*ing child molester” and blasted Michelle Obama as a “Marxist harpy wife.”
Now CNN has hired him to sit on one of its regular talk show panels. Doesn’t get much more mainstream than that.
But while their audiences have gotten bigger, the crazy viciousness has stayed just as toxic.
On Rush Limbaugh’s program yesterday, he repeatedly aired a snippet of tape of a young black man, apparently crowing over all the free goodies he’s about to get from the health care bill.
The message was clear:
Health care reform is a give-away for Americans — especially Americans of color — too lazy to take care of their own needs.
As I’ve written here before, there are plenty of things to argue about and condemn in this health reform plan.
But the idea that it targets poor black people with its aid is a plain and simple lie.
Programs already exist to help most poor and unemployed people get basic health care.
This legislation is aimed primarily at the growing number of America’s working families that can’t afford health insurance.
The vast majority of the people who benefit will be required to pay substantially for their own private insurance coverage. (They may receive government subsidies.)
So here’s my working definition of an extremist conservative.
It is someone who is so radicalized that they are willing to lie about the actual and provable facts of a debate, in order to sway public opinion.
What’s more, they are willing to embrace racist, Willie Horton-style tactics in order to mobilize their followers.
I’m convinced that the institution suffering the most from this nastiness is the Republican Party itself.
For the second time this week, I want to quote former Bush speechwriter David Frum, who put it succinctly:
[The GOP] followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped.
Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible.
How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother?
Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
Buffet,I cried foul at a couple of those things (the ones which were actually true and which I didn't agree with, like the Hillary airplane story; the GOP actually did want to "privatize" social security by putting it all into the stock market, which would have been tantamount to taking it away in the 2008 crash, by the way).I just didn't throw a brick through anyone's window or cut the propane line in a congressman's brother's house where five kids lived.
Tell me fact Checker- did you bomb any buildings like Bill Ayers, did you spread vicious rumors of incest about anyone, did you give a "wink and nod" to the video games, books or movies endorsing the assassination of a President, did you make death threats to any right side Congressmen or Senators or hang the President in effigy? Or was that just your kind hearted, open minded liberal friends?
dear buffet,first and foremost, let's compare thisYou and Mr. Mann and all the other Gestapo around here want to silence any dissentwith this (emphasis mine):Godwin's LawA term that originated on Usenet, Godwin's Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted [sic] the argument.so unless you're intentionally trying to embarrass yourself and your political allies, i think you might want to rethink using that kind of rhetoric in the future.that aside, you've left me in a genuine pickle.on the one hand, despite my attempt to steer the conversation back to where we started, all you seem to be interested in now is smearing me as some kind of hypocrite. let me assure you, you have no idea what i actually think! and normally i'd be strongly inclined to defend my name against ridiculous smears like that and reveal how truly little you know.but on the other hand, i think your deportment in this thread indicates that you're not so much interested in a rational, good-faith discussion as in something akin to throwing a tantrum.so how about this: drop the gestapo/persecution complex nonsense, show me you're willing to engage in good faith, and then i'll be happy to chat. otherwise i don't really see any point.
Gestapo is as good a descriptor as any other. Would you prefer paranoid ninny? It works too when you claim the left is violence free but the right is obviously about to burn Washington. How about left wing nut job? How about unAmerican Socialist? I'd call you and your friends open minded or fair but I prefer not to lie. A rose by another other name, right? They all fit any of the crowd that wishes to silence, by law at that, anyone who speaks out against the Democrat god Obama or his Socialist policies. I've watched this place for several weeks now. There's a very standard ploy you and the other wanna be progressives here use any time anyone argues with you- first, accuse them of using a "straw man" or of lying. Then accuse them of being fear mongering tools of right wing hate groups that follow Rush Limbaugh and of claiming to be victims. The latest ploy is to call polls they use worthless, while Mr Manns polls are irrefutable evidence of the true feelings of the masses. It never fails, you do it every time. I've argued with friends that showed me this place that tried to be reasonable, but there's no use trying to be reasonable with mind numbed socialists. Sweet dreams Mr Hermit.
it's the buffet comedy hour! (emphasis mine):They all fit any of the crowd that wishes to silence, by law at that, anyone who speaks out against the Democrat god Obama or his Socialist policies.i mean, huh? and just two sentences later s/he complains about being accused of making straw man arguments! it defies parody.i still think you might be a left-wing plant out to make conservatives look bad, buffet, but i guess it is hard to fake that kind of anger.
and by the way, how do you know it's not ms. thrush?
The personal attacks are a waste of time and prove nothing. Let's stick to the issues and facts.
Actually Chris Mathews broached the idea of holding the Republican leadership criminally liable for any dissent just the other day. This is the first link I found on Google-http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/03/24/chris-matthews-accuses-republicans-criminal-incitementSo yes, "by law at that" seems to be the next step.
that's certainly a fair point to raise, anon 5:06. but you make one mischaracterization that i think is really crucial, and i can only gather that a lot of other folks hanging out here make are making it too. it's the claim that matthews is suggesting holding "any dissent" criminally liable. no! all he's talking about is holding the fomenting of violence liable. here's what he actually said, from your own link:Would you say that this incitement, from the Republican leadership is criminal? I mean seriously. If people are gonna have windows thrown bricks at, if they're gonna get their lives threatened, if we're getting criminal behavior resulting from their incitement, is the incitement itself criminal?i'm no lawyer, but personally, this strikes me as a completely ridiculous thing for him to suggest. but nevertheless, he's in no way talking about criminalizing all dissent. it's an important distinction.
Okay, I watched the Chris Matthews clip. Yes, he did say that as a question and maybe he believes it. Since he is well known as a highly opinionated talking head and not a goverment official of any sort, it is a giant leap to say or fear this is becoming a law. Calm down!
Anon 5:06 here, Charlie actually. If Mathews is talking about it, you can be sure it's been discussed elsewhere. He's far more than just a talking head.While I used "dissent" in my post, fomenting violence is a rather subjective phrase. I would think anyone could see the dangerous road such a move would lead to, regardless of how active the dissent was.
Anon 5:33 here, Joshua actually. You are right. A lot of people are talking about this issue. We are talking about it and I would think it is a hot topic on the internet tonight. The SCOTUS has ruled on this issue many times. I think everybody is aware of the "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" explaination of the parameters of free speech.Let take this for an example. I think Mrs. Palin's use of firearm anologies in political speech is inappropriate but illegal? No way. Mr. Matthews may not like what some people are saying but if it came to real censorship, he has to much invested in free speech to be for it. I also think you are over estimating his influence. The health care bill, for example, was much more moderate than what he wanted.
"did you bomb any buildings like Bill Ayers, did you spread vicious rumors of incest about anyone, did you give a "wink and nod" to the video games, books or movies endorsing the assassination of a President, did you make death threats to any right side Congressmen or Senators or hang the President in effigy?"Umm. No. But that's a well-though-out, well-sourced comment. Thank you.
Fact Checker, I've looked around a bit and kind find no proof the GOP wanted to put all the Social Security funds in the stock market, in fact no proof at all. So I have to say that's a straw man argument. What did happen was that a proposal for VOLUNTARY participation with a small amount of the individuals SS funds (up to 5% IIRC) could be used in certain stable market areas.
Thanks, Harold.I stand corrected on "all."They only wanted to privatize 700 billion the first five years of the program by putting that into the stock market. Over time, it would have turned SS into something more like a welfare program, making it less popular and easier to shrink.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701865_2.html