News

Whither Wingnuttery?

An era of cooperation is upon us, but we can't forget those who cheered Bush's disdain for the Constitution.

Comments (11)
Thursday, November 13, 2008

John McCain played with fire. Sarah Palin stoked the flames of the far right with abandon. We even saw McCain, with tight-lipped resignation, forced to tell a wild-haired supporter Obama was not a Muslim. The Republican duo tapped into the ugliest part of the conservative base, whipping up xenophobia and belligerence, and, largely on the basis of one ill-timed Obama utterance, labelled Obama a socialist.

The Obama tax plan says this: "The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990s levels of 36 percent and 39.6 percent. All other tax brackets would remain as they are today." The top two brackets are now 33 percent and 35 percent. A difference of 4.6 percent in the top tax bracket, my friends, has convinced certain of our fellow citizens we'll all be donning mink hats and goose-stepping through Red Square come January.

I remember the numbness that set in just before George W. Bush took the oath of office in 2001. I wrote about it, saying that I thought he would do his best, limited though he might be. I was willing to give the guy a chance, even though he seemed like a testy frat boy. By the day after Bush's return for a second term, my tune had changed: "Those who... have grown incapable of seeing and believing the reality of their president's easily verifiable dishonesty and small-mindedness, those who refuse to see that military action creates more terrorism, that unprecedented national debt is bad, that killing Iraqis harms our security more than gay marriage, have spoken."

Last Wednesday, I perused some right wing sites to see what was brewing. The farthest right among us are not just bummed. They are red-eyed, twitchy, convinced that America stands on the brink of death, destruction, or worse. That is their starting point, and the filter through which they will see the Obama administration.

I get that, because I was bummed and afraid in November of 2004. But that was because of the four years which preceded that day, four years in which my every low expectation of Bush had been surpassed with breathtaking audacity, and I had seen the notion of civil rights blow right out the window, replaced, by the time 2006 arrived, with idiotic blather like Senator Pat Roberts' (R-Kansas) brilliant "I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties, but you have no civil liberties if you are dead."

The far right, on the other hand, is stockpiling Dinty Moore in advance. Not the mere conservatives—there are plenty of reasonable voices among the more moderate of Republicans, those who are embarrassed by their wild-eyed fellow travellers. Even Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher said on Fox News, "He's what the people chose, so now I got to get behind him and support him." It is only the most extreme who believe President-elect Obama will transform the country into a Kenyan/Indonesian/Marxist/hippie socialist/communist/totalitarian state, pretty much January 21. They're still checking the kerning on Obama's birth certificate, hoping to reveal proof of Kenyan citizenship.

Here are a few examples, collected from the comments on the very conservative Townhall.com and a few other right wing sites on Nov. 5:

1) "Get used to it.

The United States of America is DEAD.

Don't blame Obama, he is just the symptom and was in the right place at the right time. Blame the selfish, greedy socialists who supported and voted for him. They are your neighbors, coworkers, and possibly family members. These are the cold, hard facts."

2) "American, you have just elected a Muslim Marxist. Congratulations. I doubt in six months that you will still be happy with your BDS hissy fit."

3) "And now, with NOBama as President, be Afraid. BE VERY AFRAID. Of Everything."

4) "The liberals now control every sector of our society. The storm troopers' uniforms are dreadlocks, hemp skirts, and Birkenstocks. They are violent, they are dangerous, and they are serious. We have much to fear."

There was also, of course, the just plain racist: "Free fried chicken in every home." And this racist wannabe statement that means heaven knows what: "Mr. Obama is not Jackie Robinson. He's Mr. T with a law degree."

Somehow, even through the Bush years, the far right maintained an unmistakable sense of persecution and victimhood. Somehow they thought Republican domination and simpering "opposition" from Democrats still didn't mean they were in power. But my favorite right wing nutjob statement of the campaign season was "Americans aren't ready to give up their freedom yet." The last eight years argue otherwise, what with domestic spying, warrantless wiretapping, and a full-out assault on habeas corpus, the very cornerstone of Western democracy. Somehow, in the right wing mind, those things don't equal giving up freedom. And peaceful ganja smokers are violent and dangerous.

I say all this not simply to bash the calcified far right. On the heels of an impressive Obama victory, we have a real opportunity to seize the moment, to work for common good. It's beautiful stuff. But we cannot forget that these extremists are going to remain extreme. Their time in power was the result of long planning; they gained power and started the process of pulling up the ladder, knowing a minority couldn't hang on forever without manipulating the mechanisms that put them there. It took eight years of abuse of power before enough of the rest of us woke up to reality to change things.

We should embrace the spectrum of political thought, and try to gain a sense of unity after Bush's widening of divisions with endless fearmongering. We cannot forget, though, that some of our fellow Americans, that small but absolutist minority, will not join us. They cheered as Bush removed civil liberties, calling the result freedom. They cheered as we invaded a country that had nothing to do with Sept. 11 and called us traitors for opposing it. When Palin said Obama "palled around with terrorists," they embraced her as a new figurehead.

Open-mindedness is just weakness in their estimation. We forget this at our peril.

I look forward to letting down my guard some, to discovering how our new president will deliver. I look forward to debating policy instead of incredulously discovering that it's somehow necessary to craft an argument against, say, torture. Much is possible that has not been since before the new millenium. It's a beautiful day.

While the vast majority of the country is basking in that glow, those who have openly opposed the most basic tenets of how a democratic society conducts itself are planning. Already, Impeach Obama groups are forming on the Web. We nearly lost our democracy, and it's a long way from healthy still. George Bush is not gone; he's busy with his executive orders and signing statements, sending us careening even farther rightward before Obama inherits his office. We can forgive, but we should not forget—eternal vigilance really is the price of freedom. We have seen that it can happen here. It's up to us to see that it never happens again.

Comments (11)
Post a Comment
We nearly lost our democracy. when, precisely, did that occur?
Posted by david drake on 11.11.08 at 16:08
All the Right has to rely on is fear, threats, lies and hatred. What real solution do they have? I just love to watch the new depths that they sink to, almost daily.
Posted by Michael Foley on 11.11.08 at 18:54
I agree with all you have to say here. I wake up with a fresh batch of disappointment every day. I am not sure if these people are just louder, or what but it is sickening to me.
Posted by Terra Sears on 11.11.08 at 23:08
Thanks for the response James. I'm playing devil's advocate with you. I don't see how the Patriot Act has decreased or lessened anything in the Constitution. If you have specific examples, I would be happy to hear of them. Habeas Corpus - I don't know of any removal of it as it pertains to any American. If you mean that Habeas Corpus didn't apply to detainee or suspected terrorists or enemy combatants in Gitmo, my take is they are not entitled to Habeas Corpus. I don't know what you mean by voter "purging." I am not aware of any where this has been proven. If you have instances, I would be happy to look them. Ari Fleischer...not a big deal. Who puts a lot of credence in to what Ari said? No different that me making hyperbolic statements of Obama in Berlin talking about a "New World Order." Illegal domestic wiretapping: yeah, I suppose, if one was in the U.S. and was communicating with known, identified or suspected terrorists overseas. I sure hope they were wire tapped. Suspects are often wiretapped - many with after-the-fact permission - such as in organized crime, etc. Presidents going prior to JFK wiretapped. RFK as Atty General wiretapped Martin Luther King, Jr. 800-signing statements: again, so what? This is what presidents do, especially if you're talking about Exec Orders. That's what presidents do. The Attorney General firings; another item hyped by many on the Left. They serve at the pleasure of the president, who can fire them at any time. Bush fired what...9 of them while Clinton fired 90-some? The only thing that raised eyebrows is the timing of when they were fired under Bush. The Left made a mountain out of a molehill. "Bush largely succeeded at operating well outside the bounds of his Constitutional role." I couldn't disagree with you more. There's plenty of areas to be upset with the Bush Administration; failing miserably on illegal immigration, failing to articulate to the public some of the things of which you criticize him for, failing to do more for alternative energy over the past 8 years (also a failure of Clinton) and his spending over the past 8 years should make Liberals drool with envy. By no means would I identify myself as a Republican. Indie-Conservative and small "L" Libertarian, yes. Considering the choices in 2000 and 2004 of presidential candidates, I am thankful that we got Bush and not Gore or Kerry. We didn't almost lose our democracy. I realize writers need to hook their audience and heck, I'm as guilty of hyperbole on my blog as anyone else, but when I use hyperbole I combine it with humor so that it's obvious. I didn't "get that" from your writing. Could be my bad if I missed any sublte humor or sarcasm you have have intended. I am pleased to ready that you plan treating Obama no differently than Bush. If you hold him to the same standards and level of accountability that you held Bush, you will be most fair and objective. (I don't spell check when I do comments, just an fyi in the event typos etc appear.)
Posted by david drake on 11.12.08 at 13:23
From the NY Times, circa 1998: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E1D9153EF936A35754C0A96E958260 "With some of his closest advisers deeply pessimistic about the chances of getting major legislation passed during the rest of the year, Mr. Clinton plans to issue a series of executive orders to demonstrate that he can still be effective. '"Stroke of the pen,'" Paul Begala, an aide to Mr. Clinton, said in summarizing the approach. '"Law of the land. Kind of cool.'" Yeah, if you're a Democrat. Otherwise, it sucks.
Posted by Eric on 11.13.08 at 9:46
Nope: wrong anyway. Abuse of power is abuse of power. It's principle, not party.
Posted by James Heflin on 11.13.08 at 11:44
Hi James. Well, I'm not trying to soft pedal anything, only explain where I - and many others - are coming from. Jose Padilla was convicted, so the intuition of Bush, or any law enforcement officials or agencies involved with Padilla apparently had their ducks in a row. His intent was killing as many people as he should. If that temporarily suspended his right to habeas corpus, he can look in a mirror for the only person responsible for that. RE: What you claim--the notion that the government was only listening in when the other end of the line connected to a suspected terrorist, is what Bush claimed. The problem is that we do not know if that's really true... You're right, we do not know, we may never know. I'm not convinced we should know. There were plans, codes, strategy that the government kept secret and withheld from the citizens during World War I and II and other wars or conflicts that still today are confidential. Any democracy that gives away or makes public it's strategy is asking for defeat or to be severly compromised. I think we have a right to know... Well, I can only repeat the above, there are certain things that should not be made public to ensure our own survival, safety and protection. There are national emergency powers available to the president - any president - and Bush exercised them. John Locke said these powers are not limited to wars, disasters or national or international crises. Locke included that a good enough reason to exercise the emergency powers can simply be 'public good.' I'm not going to argue with John Locke, I agree with him fully on these points. For the record, I have no problem with any president, Dem or Repub - exercising the same powers as did Bush.
Posted by david drake on 11.13.08 at 13:02
Oh, I fully agree it's a mistake to trust any president 100%. Absolutely. I couldn't agree with your more. The key is repartee. It is. I've found common ground with some very, um, "confirmed" Liberals on the blogosphere, and I think they were as surprised as I was that - after hashing through so many point-counterpoints via comments that we found areas on which to agree. I don't know where you stand on the bailout(s), but who could have predicted that all it would take is a $700 billion dollar-plus bailout of which many on the Right and the Left would find common ground being against it? If the Bush critics (and I have many areas where I disagree with him) hold Obama responsible and accountable in the same manner they did with Bush, I will have no complaints with them on that. I think that many will never express their buyer's remorse, though, simply because of political allegiance. (Note: am not saying this about you at all, just fyi).
Posted by david drake on 11.13.08 at 18:16
Interesting discussion. My two cents on one part of it: I'm surprised when anyone, in this case david drake, says he's not sure we (the citizens) should know what the government is doing covertly, that the government does emergency stuff that dictates keeping us in the dark for our own good. This is the national security argument that Nixon and Reagan used to hide criminal behavior and that has become accepted by many. Not me. I believe we would be safer with complete disclosure, so that no one person gets to decide, "oh, this is innocuous economic policy, so I better run it by Congress (the people). Oh, this is crazy dangerous stuff, good I can keep it to myself." Conservatives and liberals have more in common than they admit. Both are paranoid about what government might do if not strongly checked and balanced. Conservatives fear big taxing, spending, regulating--regulating being perhaps the worst, because it meddles with the market AND with law enforcement/military latitude. American conservatives don't like government in the main, but they oddly worship police. And liberals fear THAT: government intrusion in the market is A-OK, but not the bedroom or abortion clinic. Like many who write here, I have a philosophy but I am not a partisan. I distrust the political personality. As one who votes left, I will say that I don't trust Democrats (in general) much more than I trust Republicans) to keep police and police-state thinking in check. I think both parties are inherently corrupt, and will bend facts and law to suit their own interests. Politicians are rarely righteous (though they want to think they are) and should never be trusted to do the right thing, particularly if they are acting in secret. I think people of the left and the right would be better off getting together on this point: We have a right to know ANYTHING done in "the national interest." Matters of state are public matters. No exceptions. No cops and robbers bullshit smoke screens. Spies? CIA? Sure, but only intelligence gathered in a legal manner and then subject to public disclosure. Any other way, and we perpetuate what we have: a government that is partially hidden, its true agenda unclear, that EVERYONE can justifiably mistrust.
Posted by Vannah on 11.14.08 at 5:27
Response to Vannah: Not trying to argue with you, only perhaps explain my point more clearly. The is such an issue of National Security. No country, especially a democracy or republic, will survive for any length of time without it. If you can name a free country that always, completely discloses everything to its people I would be interested to know which country it is. Should a country - any country - that is at war make public it's military plans? Should it disclose it's codes in how it communicates with the troops? Should FDR have made public the codes used during World War II? Doing so likely means defeat for any country that does. On the intell gathering, your wrote "intelligence gathered in a legal manner." What is that? Please explain? Intel gathering runs the spectrum from being acquired legally to any other means, as long as that info is verified. Saying that intel gathering can only be obtained through legal means pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of any type of whistleblower, doesn't it? Sometimes intel has to be gathered from however it can. Certainly you're away that law agencies often get info from people on the inside or - for lack of a better words - stool pigeons. Is this info you would discount?
Posted by david drake on 11.14.08 at 12:51
2nd to the last sentence- should read: "Certainly you're aware" not 'away." 'Certainly you're away'
Posted by david drake on 11.14.08 at 12:53
Comment:

Name:

Password:

New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
keyword:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
Print Email RSS feed

What Ails Them
Town Meetings across Franklin County express worries about hospital services.
CD Shorts
Wayne Shorter Quartet, Hospital Ships, Paula Poundstone
Between the Lines: Obama in Plunderland
Down the corporate rabbit hole
From Our Readers
EOPSS Spin Fails Sniff Test; Different Strokes; Props for O’Malley
News Briefs
Westfield Power Plant: How Green?
Inspiration In The Classroom
National Hockey League Partnership