Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

[Lemur]

For November of 1964 this is a very valid article. Today however is October of 2009. Things have changed, and in this particular regard they have changed for the better.

Oh, I dunno, read this passage from Louis' link:

The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms—he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date for the apocalypse.

And tell me that doesn't describe what we see with Glenn Beck and the Tea Partiers. Could have been written yesterday.

[Tribesman]

And tell me that doesn't describe what we see with Glenn Beck and the Tea Partiers. Could have been written yesterday.

You are wrong , that was written in the 60's and we know that those wingnuts must have been crazy because it is now 40 years later and those conspiracy things didn't come to pass.
Nowadays we have the conspiracies for a new century, which is why they are nothing at all like the conspiracies of the 60s, because if they was like those conspiracies that would mean that todays wingnuts are crazy too.

[rvg]

And tell me that doesn't describe what we see with Glenn Beck and the Tea Partiers. Could have been written yesterday.

Tea partiers do not bother me. They elect their congressmen, that means they own their congressmen. If they want their congressmen to crow like roosters, that's their prerogative. I personally find tea parties to be a waste of time and IQ, but they do not bother me on any deep level. As for Glenn Beck, with this guy around I no longer need to watch Comedy Central. He is absolutely hilarious, in many ways like Jon Stewart, except that Jon knows it's just a comedy gig, while Glenn really believes his own nonsense. That makes Glenn far more entertaining.

[Louis VI the Fat]

There's Glenn Beck and the Teaparties.

And the homeschooling.
And the 'liberal bias' of the press.
And anti-intellectualism.
And racism.
And fear of being 'undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers'.
And 'the foreign agent' trying to bring down America. (whether they be, in rough historical order, Jews, communists, UN, terrorists).
And their helpers, 'not merely outsiders and foreigners as of old but major statesmen who are at the very centers of American power'.
And the aggresive posturising against all of this.
And the paranoia.

Hofstadter doesn't trace it back to 1964. He traces it back to the 19th century, to the beginning of America. That's the beauty of it.
To paraphrase Hofstadter - it has been thought since the beginning. So if it were true, then America has been undermined since the beginning. So why did it come to be such a large, succesful, autonomous, capitalist country?

The language of the rightwing resistance to Obama has deep roots. And these roots cross over between the paranoid hardright and the mainstream right.
The fruitcakes are a fringe. A rather large fringe, but fringe nonetheless. The crossover with the mainstream right is what is troublesome.

Then again, I suppose here too Hofstadter applies - if it has been crossing over all this time, then apparantly the mainstream right is resilient to being taken over completely by complete paranoia.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000908
Here's an essay about Hofstadter's essay. Not by a leftwinger, by an author who detests big government himself. And who rightfully points out that Hofstadter describes not merely a rightwing peculiarity:

Hofstadter is very clear that the “paranoid style” is something with deep roots in American culture. Something almost universal, in fact. In Hofstadter’s view this “paranoid style” was not necessarily right-wing, or the province of the G.O.P. Moreover the G.O.P. had arisen and been nurtured as a counter-movement to one of the earliest manifestations of the paranoid style, a political movement derided by Abraham Lincoln

Here's the chilling part:

And finally we come to what was certainly the most stunning, indeed, shocking aspect of Hofstadter’s study, namely, the process of psychological projection. The paranoid political advocate crafts a villainous enemy and imbues the enemy with horrendous traits. And to counter this, he crafts an organization which mimics the enemy and copies its traits.


It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of pedantry. Secret organizations set up to combat secret organizations give the same flattery. The Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy. The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through “front” groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy. Spokesmen of the various fundamentalist anti-Communist “crusades” openly express their admiration for the dedication and discipline the Communist cause calls forth.

If only everybody involved in the War on Terror had read Hofstadter...

And what is Fox - 'fair and balanced' - but a perverse mirror image of the rightist perception of the 'biased mainstream media'? To counter what was perceived as unremitting liberal bias, a mirror image to it was build, with an unremmiting rightwing bias.

[rvg]

So tell me then, how come even though the rightwingers have been so powerful in America since day one, they haven't been able to pervert the American society into their way of thinking, completely taken over the government and turned America into a totalitarian police state? Surely, they've had plenty of time and resources, but yet somehow they always fail.

[Aemilius Paulus]

So tell me then, how come even though the rightwingers have been so powerful in America since day one, they haven't been able to pervert the American society into their way of thinking, completely taken over the government and turned America into a totalitarian police state? Surely, they've had plenty of time and resources, but yet somehow they always fail.

Because they are so inept . Just as they are so inept that they are in such a deep electoral hole right now. White, Southern, older/middle-aged, Christian males are not exactly a gargantuan demographic...

Some of the loopiest stuff is no longer fringe. Depending on which poll you believe, between 42% and 58% of Republicans now believe that President Obama was not born in the United States. That's half of all Republicans believing that the last election was a fraud that put a foreigner in control of the executive branch.

If that's not paranoid, then I'm the Queen of Norway.

Sadly true. If at the start of the Obama elections I still identified more with Republicans despite my centrism, then now I do not wish to even associate myself with anything Republican. Conservatism is a splendid philosophy when applied to fiscal and purely political matters, although I most certainly do not support social conservatism.

[rvg]

So, they are powerful and dangerous yet inept and helpless all at once.

[Aemilius Paulus]

So, they are powerful and dangerous yet inept and helpless all at once.

They are not "powerful", well, depending on the definition. There are only two major political parties in US, thus every party is powerful - because they are only two. Democrats, at this point, are much stronger. Quite importantly, most celebrities and most of the media is liberal.

In general, in most educated group of people, it seems that Republicans are unpopular. And considering I live in Northwest Florida - Alabama-like countryside and typical Floridian beach resort cities, that is saying much. Or so my impression is. But I cannot associate Democrats with being unpopular as Republicans are. Hell, just saying that that almsot all the intelectuals support Democrats already indicates grim thoughts... If America was not made primarily of well, you know..., then Democrats would win every election.

Republicans are a party of religious zeal and anti-intellectualism. Their candidates reflect that. Obama vs McCain. Bush vs Kerry. Bush vs. Gore. Always a man not noted for his sharpness of thought, or a war hero, against the ever-unchanging intellectual. If you do not believe me, why do you think on February 18th, 2004, sixty two scientists, including forty-two Nobel laureates released that report? Bush is making a joke of science, twisting and manipulating it when not entirely ignoring science?

[Banquo's Ghost]

So tell me then, how come even though the rightwingers have been so powerful in America since day one, they haven't been able to pervert the American society into their way of thinking, completely taken over the government and turned America into a totalitarian police state? Surely, they've had plenty of time and resources, but yet somehow they always fail.

I don't they have failed at all. They have perverted American society into just what you say.

Tell me, which party likely to have real influence does someone of Jeffersonian aspiration nowadays vote for?

One that stands for (and would actually deliver) fiscal responsibility, freedom of choice for the individual, freedom from federal control, tolerance and equality of opportunity, pro-States' rights, effective checks and balances between the arms of government, avoidance of foreign entanglements and the upholding of the inalienable rights of Man?

[Tribesman]

They have perverted American society into just what you say.

Yep , where they burn books and dispute science in favour of myth, get so hung up over anything to do with sex...and of course think some brainless idiot from alaska is a good candidate because she is just like them.

anti intellectualism, the pride in being as thick as pig excrement

[rvg]

Yep , where they burn books and dispute science in favour of myth, get so hung up over anything to do with sex...and of course think some brainless idiot from alaska is a good candidate because she is just like them.

anti intellectualism, the pride in being as thick as pig excrement

There's nothing wrong with burning books as long as you buy them first. Nobody is required to like any given book, and if they bought a book, they are free to read it or ignore it, worship it or burn it. It is a valid form of protest.
As for the Intelligent Design, it is a fine philosophical theory but has no place in the science classroom because it isn't science. I don't know about other states but in Michigan specifically, it is not apart of public school curriculum.
As for the brainless idiot, that brainless idiot was smart enough to become governor, so I'd hesitate to call her brainless. She *will* sink any republican presidential aspiration if nominated, but then again if republicans nominate her, they deserve to lose.

As for the anti-intellectualism, it is not at all a universal trait in the American society.

[Strike For The South]

There's nothing wrong with burning books as long as you buy them first. Nobody is required to like any given book, and if they bought a book, they are free to read it or ignore it, worship it or burn it. It is a valid form of protest.
As for the Intelligent Design, it is a fine philosophical theory but has no place in the science classroom because it isn't science. I don't know about other states but in Michigan specifically, it is not apart of public school curriculum.
As for the brainless idiot, that brainless idiot was smart enough to become governor, so I'd hesitate to call her brainless. She *will* sink any republican presidential aspiration if nominated, but then again if republicans nominate her, they deserve to lose.

As for the anti-intellectualism, it is not at all a universal trait in the American society.

Even if you purchase it you must see the affront to enlightenment ideals thats is. Simply becuase you disagree with an idea does not mean you can burn it.

In the day of the printing press we have become callous to this but burning books used to be a very big deal.

IMO anyone who burns books is not protesting but killing America.

It's not even a good from of civil discourse. Instead of debate you simply burn, how is that ok?

[The Stranger]

There's nothing wrong with burning books as long as you buy them first. Nobody is required to like any given book, and if they bought a book, they are free to read it or ignore it, worship it or burn it. It is a valid form of protest.
As for the Intelligent Design, it is a fine philosophical theory but has no place in the science classroom because it isn't science. I don't know about other states but in Michigan specifically, it is not apart of public school curriculum.
As for the brainless idiot, that brainless idiot was smart enough to become governor, so I'd hesitate to call her brainless. She *will* sink any republican presidential aspiration if nominated, but then again if republicans nominate her, they deserve to lose.

As for the anti-intellectualism, it is not at all a universal trait in the American society.

books are way too powerful, most people tend to believe that anything that is written down is true, specially when it has been written down a few hundred years ago and no one knows for sure who wrote it. however the big sin of burning books is in the knowledge that is lost, to burn a harry potter book is an entirely different thing than burning the last harry potter book or any other last copy of a book. its beside the matter wether whats in it is considered true or not.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Tell me, which party likely to have real influence does someone of Jeffersonian aspiration nowadays vote for?

One that stands for (and would actually deliver) fiscal responsibility, freedom of choice for the individual, freedom from federal control, tolerance and equality of opportunity, pro-States' rights, effective checks and balances between the arms of government, avoidance of foreign entanglements and the upholding of the inalienable rights of Man?

I'm going to say none of them.

[Lemur]

The fruitcakes are a fringe. A rather large fringe, but fringe nonetheless. The crossover with the mainstream right is what is troublesome.

Some of the loopiest stuff is no longer fringe. Depending on which poll you believe, between 42% and 58% of Republicans now believe that President Obama was not born in the United States. That's half of all Republicans believing that the last election was a fraud that put a foreigner in control of the executive branch.

If that's not paranoid, then I'm the Queen of Norway.

[Xiahou]

Some of the loopiest stuff is no longer fringe. Depending on which poll you believe, between 42% and 58% of Republicans now believe that President Obama was not born in the United States. That's half of all Republicans believing that the last election was a fraud that put a foreigner in control of the executive branch.

If that's not paranoid, then I'm the Queen of Norway.

Maybe you better go look at your polls again and see what they actually say, because what you're claiming isn't in them. As a matter of fact, it looks like both your links reference the same poll.

[Beskar]

Republicans are only kicking off because Obama is black.

I mean, Mc Cain wasn't even born in the United States*

[Crazed Rabbit]

SNL makes fun of Obama's lack of accomplishments.

CR

[The Stranger]

Some of the loopiest stuff is no longer fringe. Depending on which poll you believe, between 42% and 58% of Republicans now believe that President Obama was not born in the United States. That's half of all Republicans believing that the last election was a fraud that put a foreigner in control of the executive branch.

If that's not paranoid, then I'm the Queen of Norway.

polls are never to be trusted anyway, untill you know how many people theyve polled and in which variety. and then still they shouldnt be trusted...