Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Scientology: an ongoing, scary cult Previous entry: Chronicling the abuses

Putting my money on paranoid hysteria

It’ll be interesting seeing how this battle plays out.  As Tom Tomorrow’s cartoon today suggests, the only real consistent line throughout conservative reaction to the Egyptian protests has been a need to be loud and insistent that this is all about America without doing anything so quaint as educating yourself about the issues, but beyond that it’s been a struggle between the natural conservative inclination to support oppressive dictators and the occasional pro-democracy pose conservatives take to justify themselves to themselves (and their desire to wear tricorn hats).  Plus, there’s the ugly fact of the matter that we don’t actually have any real idea how this is going to turn out, and that loss of control is somehting that’s hard for most Americans to accept, but especially for conservatives. 

Egypt may be unpredictable, but I feel somewhat assured I can predict who is going to win in the battle between Team Beckian Paranoids and Team Let’s Not Sound Like We’re Stark Raving Mad, M’kay? My money’s on Beck, definitely.  Sure, his theory that the protesters are in league with liberal America and the mainstream media to promote a sort of socialist hedonistic fundamentalist theocracy that features free abortions and orgies in the streets but also mandatory burquas and prayer five times a day sounds like the sort of thing that shouldn’t really catch on in the marketplace of ideas.  But is it really more crazy than a lot of the crap that Beck and the rest of the right wing noise machine pumps out day in and day out?  No, not really.  The people who are complaining about Beck now were and are only too happy to lie the vast majority of the time for political gain.  Bill Kristol, for instance, isn’t one to talk, since he backed every single paranoid lie imaginable to get us into war with Iraq.  Plus, as Media Matters demonstrates, even some people complaining about Beck, such as John Fund, are too in love with the “sharia law” paranoia to give it up completely.  They simply have the very silly, childish belief that they can lie and spread paranoia to keep their base fearful and voting as instructed, but that they can keep that paranoia under control once it’s been unleashed.  And I don’t think you can do that.

See, Glenn Beck gets it. And, to an extent, he has a different motivation than a lot of conservative pundits who see themselves mainly as shills for the GOP and the right wing agenda.  Beck’s down with that motivation, but making money and accumulating popularity matters more to him, and if the goals clash, he’ll pick money and popularity over shilling for the conservative agenda every time.  Plus, he can shape the conservative agenda to fit his goals at this point.  And he knows his audience isn’t interested in niceties like nuance or imagining that Egyptians are human beings who deserve to be listened to.  He understands on a gut level that the images of a bunch of Egyptians in the street looking angry inspires fear in his audience, regardless of the context, and he’s going to stoke it, because fearful followers spend more and are more obedient.  See, Kristol and Fund and company see racism as something that can be manipulated depending on their needs.  Beck grasps that racism doesn’t respond to that kind of nuance, and chooses instead to feed it on the assumption that it will pay dividends down the road.  Same story with paranoia.  Beck grasps that balls-out paranoia is much better for him than moderated paranoia.  Once you start telling people, “Hey, it’s cool to be paranoid, but don’t get all crazy about it,” you’ve already conceded that most of the shit you say is irrational.  But if you’re paranoid all the time, you can make a clean break with reality.  It ceases to be a reference point anymore, and the seed of an idea that one shouldn’t be a paranoid nut job won’t be planted.  And that’s where he needs his audience: completely disconnected, constantly fearful, with no relationship to the real world outside of their homes. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 11:21 AM • (61) Comments

I was just watching last night’s Maddow show and she had a great interview on there—evidently during the protests, the Muslims in Tahrir Square wanted to hold prayer and the Christians all formed a human barricade around the prayer service so that their Muslim friends could pray in peace, and then when the Christians wanted to hold a mass, the Muslims did the same for them.

In Beck’s worldview, I’m sure he saw only the former, and is inventing some bullshit about how the Muslims are enslaving the Christians to guard them while they pray to Allah. And that adorable picture of the newly-married couple in front of the tank? that’s your daughter! She’s been taken into white slavery by the caliphate to be the third wife of a swarthy Arab! This is not a drill, people!

Comment #1: Mighty Ponygirl  on  02/08  at  12:20 PM

Hard to know whether to feel satisfaction that the beast conservatives have been feeding for decades is now grown and strong and beaking its chains, about to devour them. Or, fear because that beast will devour me next.

Comment #2: atheist  on  02/08  at  12:22 PM

Raving paranoid without resources or a media following = mental illness patient

Raving paranoid able to keep people paranoid and in line through media manipulation = Hitler

Comment #3: Ms Kate  on  02/08  at  12:23 PM

@Comment #1: Mighty Ponygirl on 02/08 at 10:20 AM

Yeah the Muslim/Christian solidarity is Egypt has been quite sweet to behold and could make one feel somewhat optimistic about possible outcomes.

Comment #4: atheist  on  02/08  at  12:24 PM

Note that the actual conservative response has been “don’t look over here while we erode the right to abortions for any and all women in all circumstances ...”.

Comment #5: Ms Kate  on  02/08  at  12:25 PM

Ms Kate, we’re “pregnant females” now, and no longer “women”. And hospitals shouldn’t have to keep us alive if they don’t want to, since we’re all icky and cootified.

Comment #6: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  02/08  at  12:40 PM

I think as this goes on Beck will have a very slightly more difficult time because he’s got to simultaneously push “scary brown people looking angry” and “US propping up scary brown dictator”. But he’ll manage.

Comment #7: paul  on  02/08  at  12:48 PM

I’ve always been amused by the conservatives who make their bones on paranoia, complaining that the folks who are pushing the envelope are doing the exact the same things they did twenty years ago.

Comment #8: Punditus Maximus  on  02/08  at  12:49 PM

Beck is a living, breathing exception to Godwin’s Law.  Online discussions involving him start from the beginning with Nazi comparisons, because without them there is no way to approach a proper description of what he’s doing.

He may be all about the money at the moment, but just like with Limbaugh, the deliciousness of all that tasty power becomes its own justification.  Look out then…

Comment #9: MikeEss  on  02/08  at  12:54 PM

OMG!! Scary brown MOOSLIM people are RIOTING in the STREETS! (quick - redifine rape while nobody is looking ...)

Comment #10: Ms Kate  on  02/08  at  01:10 PM

The Republican establishment has created three monsters that are going to bring about their own downfall, namely Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party.

The biggest insurance policies President Obama has for his own re-election next year are Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Even though neither of them will be on the ballot against Obama, they’ll both have a ton of influence on who is on that ballot, and they’ll also force the eventual nominee to run the campaign they want him (let’s not kid ourselves, it’s going to be a him) to run. It’s gonna be the same thing that happened in August 2008 when McCain’s campaign people ran with racism and fear as their last ditch effort and made Palin his running mate instead of Joe Lieberman, whom he had wanted. McCain would have lost either way, and the ultimate responsibility for foisting Sarah Palin on America rests with him, even though he clearly does not like the woman. I see the announcement of Sarah Palin as the 2008 Republican VP nominee as the starting point for the current batch of completely over the top racist lunacy on the American Right. It’s always been there, but it kicked into overdrive in Dayton, Ohio on August 29, 2008, and it hasn’t let up since.

My biggest fear right now is not whether or not the completely detached from reality Beck/Palin teabagger crowd can take back the White House, it’s how they will react when President Obama is declared the winner at around 11PM ET on November 6, 2012. If you think these people went off the deep end when they had to swallow the pill that a black man had actually been elected President of the United States, I fear what they may do when they must accept that this same black man has been re-elected to the presidency. Right now, because they won big during the midterms, they actually think they’re going to take back the White House in 2012, so I think that’s keeping them at least somewhat at bay. I’m genuinely worried about what they will do when they must face the fact that Obama will be a two-term president.

Comment #11: DTGslu2K  on  02/08  at  01:41 PM

And Beck’s paranoia also has the serious taint of bullying to it. He can whip up a frenzy against the brown people believing in a god that’s different from jesus, ruin non-profit organizations that are trying to help poor people vote, and put out death threats against aging hippies who haven’t written a radical word in over 40 years.

But has Beck ever really gone balls out against a group as powerful or even almost as powerful as he is? I don’t follow him that closely as his ignorance and hate hurts my brain. But I haven’t noticed him jumping on the “Planned Parenthood is the work of the devil” bandwagon. Please correct me if I’m wrong. But being a bully, he knows better than to pick a fight with an opponent who could potentially kick his ass. There is a lot of money to be made screaming about abortion so I’m sure Beck has done that at some point in time. It’s just interesting that he hasn’t targeted a powerful organization like Planned Parenthood, to whip his mindless minions into a frenzy where they’ll be outside of every clinic with guns.

Comment #12: serious bette  on  02/08  at  01:47 PM

We keep on talking about the likes of Beck, Palin, and the wackiness is something new.  For longer than I’ve been personally aware of politics (which started in the 80s), conservatives have always sold their political soul to the demon of cheap and easy rhetoric.

Bush Sr said “No new taxes.”  Reagan talked about wellfare queens in pink convertables.  Bush Jr described every bit of opposition to him as “giving comfort to the enemy” and said that, if what he wanted didn’t come to pass, no matter what it was “the terrorists have won.”

Before that, we had the “return to normalcy”, we had McArthy and his list of card carrying Communists, etc.

Conservatism, by and large, has always relied upon bigotry and paranoia to attain its ends and always been shocked, shocked I say, when a nutcase on the conservative side took the paranoia being spouted to its logical ends.

Comment #13: WingedBeast  on  02/08  at  01:53 PM

I realized how crazy things had gotten down south when some friends and I were trying to explain the LaRouchies to people.  We went on wiki and starting going through LaRouchie ideas, but anything since ~2008 is indistinguishable from mainstream right-wing talking points.

That was sort of a scary moment.

Comment #14: Sivi  on  02/08  at  02:10 PM

I can’t believe anyone on this blog actually thinks that “cognitive dissonance” means anything anymore.

Comment #15: felagund  on  02/08  at  02:18 PM

And, to an extent, he has a different motivation than a lot of conservative pundits who see themselves mainly as shills for the GOP and the right wing agenda.

Exactly. Beck genuinely does not care whether the GOP is in power or not; either situation is good for him.  In fact, it may even be slightly better when they’re not—the sense of victimhood and oppression is stronger when they’re out of power, so they’re more likely to flock to him. (I seem to recall that Rush’s ratings dipped during the Bush years, undoubtedly because he no longer had a big boogeyman in the White House to stir him up.)

Comment #16: Cris  on  02/08  at  02:31 PM

Cognitive dissonance has the same meaning it always has had, it is just that that is a normalized state for a larger segment of the population now.

Comment #17: helen w. h.  on  02/08  at  02:38 PM

felagund, why do you think so?  Or was that snark?  /me turns on sarcasm detector…

Anyways, co-sign on post.

My addition and concern is that reality is about to hit us very hard.  What do you think that Cult of Beck is going to do, other than make us pay to keep their irrational fantasies alive, because, well, they are the elect?  Of course, this is going to complicate the efforts of the “elect” who follow Leo Strauss’ sensibilities, like Kristoff, to manage “the situation” to “their satisfaction”.  The chief issue is that a functioning semblance of a democracy that soothes the frustration of the hoi polloi is not possible if the usual choices between crazy and corrupt become ever more stark.

Comment #18: shah8  on  02/08  at  02:39 PM

Note that the actual conservative response has been “don’t look over here while we erode the right to abortions for any and all women in all circumstances ...”.

I’ve always considered abortion to be the distracting issue while the real work of looting the middle and working classes went on.  Satsifying as bashing sluts for having sex might be, it won’t pay for that seventh house in the Hamptons.

Comment #19: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/08  at  02:55 PM

Piotr, the laws the GOP are trying to pass are truly Gilead-ian.

Never ever dismiss the satisfaction of slut-shaming.

I wo det if our coerrporate overlords actually want Palin and Beck around as circuses for the masses.  They continue to move the conversation so far to the right that any actual FDR-like proven solutions are completely off the table.  They’re happy enough with a center-right leader like Obama, especially when their minions call him the leftyist left that ever lefted, facts be damned.

Comment #20: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  02/08  at  03:08 PM

I’m not joking with Ms. Kate up there.  All previous abortion restriction legislation refers to women as ‘women’; i.e., human beings.  The latest bills refer to us as ‘pregnant females’ and try to make it legal for hospitals to refuse life-saving medicine if it terminates a pregnancy.  Never mind if the fetus dies, too.  It’s always better for a woman to die trying to save even an already dead fetus than to end a pregnancy medically.

I am positive the US Catholic bishops were involved in crafting this legislation, because this has their ‘morality’ written all over it.

Comment #21: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  02/08  at  03:14 PM

@Comment #19: Phoenician in a time of Romans on 02/08 at 12:55 PM

I’ve always considered abortion to be the distracting issue while the real work of looting the middle and working classes went on.

What if both things (shaming sluts, making dough) are actual goals of conservatives. What if conservatives fight culture wars partly because they actually want to change culture, just like liberals do? You’re trying to make sense of conservative actions in the context of your own world-picture. Their world-picture could be totally different.

Comment #22: atheist  on  02/08  at  03:15 PM

Piotr, the laws the GOP are trying to pass are truly Gilead-ian.

And the financial reforms they’re trying to pass are non-existent.  strange how that works…

Comment #23: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/08  at  03:19 PM

What if both things (shaming sluts, making dough) are actual goals of conservatives. What if conservatives fight culture wars partly because they actually want to change culture, just like liberals do?

IMHO, the conservatives fighting culture wars are either dupes, or seeking to distract by using dupes.  It’s not a monolithic entity.  The real powers are concentrating on ensuring that the shuddering body of the US economy is thoroughly looted before it finally turns into a corpse.  I suspect they don’t actually care about abortion personally - they and theirs are always above any such laws.

Comment #24: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/08  at  03:33 PM

Sorry, but proposing legislation that allows a *hospital* to deny life-saving medical procedures just because goes much further than the continuing financial shenanigans.

They seriously are proposing that <strike>women</strike> pregnant females be allowed to die rather than have a hospital provide medical care that can save their lives.

They just want to rob the middle class.

Comment #25: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  02/08  at  03:34 PM

They seriously are proposing that women pregnant females be allowed to die rather than have a hospital provide medical care that can save their lives.

Got you agitated, did it?  Made you want to jump up on the barricades to defend the rights of women, opposing those jumping up on the other barricades to defend the lives of the poor little innocent babies?  An important issue to you, is it?

Any idea what’s happenng to regulate Wall Street to prevent further stupid speculation that will require trillions in government money to bail it out in the next collapse, Caren?

I’m not saying that women’s rights are not important - obviously they are, or they wouldn’t be so good as a distraction.  I’m saying that, to the real powers of teh conservative movement, culture issues such as abortion are a tactical exercise when the strategy is to make as much money as possible by tilting the law their way and get out before the collapse.

Comment #26: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/08  at  03:40 PM

@Comment #26: Phoenician in a time of Romans on 02/08 at 01:40 PM

I’m saying that, to the real powers of teh conservative movement, culture issues such as abortion are a tactical exercise when the strategy is to make as much money as possible by tilting the law their way and get out before the collapse.

That is certainly occurring. However, in a way you’re making the same error that economic elites have made before and will make again: believing that economics always trump culture. Not always the case.

Comment #27: atheist  on  02/08  at  03:49 PM

Until now, I would say that this kind of legislation was purely posturing, because it would be sure to die in the senate or be struck down by a court. Lately, not so sure.

But this is a both/and blog, so I’m going to suggest that wingnuttistan isn’t so monolithic as that. There are “conservatives” who truly are interested in shaming and killing women who have sex, and there are other conservatives who really couldn’t care less about women, or men, or anyone whose personhood isn’t directly representable in terms of wealth. And others who just want a nice hereditary aristocracy where the peons know their place and tug their forelocks. The first group is incredibly useful to the rest, because they act as a distraction and because they allow the other groups to appear “moderate”.

Think of the culture warriors as the special teams of politics.

Comment #28: paul  on  02/08  at  03:54 PM

The better word, Paul, is “Ghazis”.

Comment #29: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/08  at  03:57 PM

PiatoR, it is more that they are mucking up congress with bullshit and lies and anti-woman “legislation”, and they want us not to notice that it is 1) horrifyingly hateful and 2) preventing any real meaningful business from being done.

Comment #30: Ms Kate  on  02/08  at  04:05 PM

@Comment #28: paul on 02/08 at 01:54 PM

Think of the culture warriors as the special teams of politics.

Good one paul. Yes, culture warriors are the special teams. And judges/legal scholars are the artillery of the culture wars.

Comment #31: atheist  on  02/08  at  04:06 PM

Do want to point out that US elites are funding religious reactionaries in several countries, such as Brazil and Canada, for pretty much the same benefits such supported malice does here.  It makes it hard to form coalitions that can oppose national and international elites.

Comment #32: shah8  on  02/08  at  04:08 PM

Look, there’s a certain unconscious belief that western liberals often seem to have, which is that economics is for smart people, while culture is for stupid people. And while I won’t try to argue that Christian Fundamentalists are all secretly geniuses, I think that they can often be smarter than we give them credit for… even with their mental blind spots. I think this unconscious belief is actually corrosive to progressive causes. I really, really wish that western liberals would consider that culture is actually extremely valuable in its own right… the fact that we spend so much time fighting over it should at least clue us into that.

Comment #33: atheist  on  02/08  at  04:17 PM

I think the baseline assumption is that culture follows economics, and it definitely is true that the arrow in that feedback loop which goes from economics to culture is stronger than the one which goes the other direction.

The mistake we often make is in terms of how we view aggregates.  We think that we’re all citizens of the same country (and planet), and that policies which help everyone are obvious goods.  But if you have a different view of how the world works, policies which benefit out-group members aren’t just meaningless, they’re actively bad.

Comment #34: Punditus Maximus  on  02/08  at  04:24 PM

@Comment #34: Punditus Maximus on 02/08 at 02:24 PM

But if you have a different view of how the world works, policies which benefit out-group members aren’t just meaningless, they’re actively bad.

Yes. Your assessment of policy depends on your world-picture. And two people can have totally different world-pictures, yet both be quite intelligent.

Assuming your opponent’s an idiot is a weakness in the long run.

Comment #35: atheist  on  02/08  at  04:31 PM

I have to agree with atheist, here. Part of the western liberal mindset is the belief that ultimately we all have pretty consistent interest and that we are just looking at different paths to get there. Ultimately, however, liberal interests and movement conservatives’ interests are fundamentally incompatible—the interests of culture warriors are fundamentally opposed to liberal interests. The answer is either to change the culture or convince the culture warriors that the fights they want to fight are best not fought at the ballot box—but the truth is that their vision for what the country should look like is different than our vision. Trying to convince them that, “but you’ll be happier with your health care if you support us” isn’t going to be a convincing argument to them.

Comment #36: Tyro  on  02/08  at  04:55 PM

Ms Kate, we’re “pregnant females” now, and no longer “women”.

I believe that according to wingnut dogma, you’re now “fetal support units” (and I wish I was joking).

As to Beck vs. Kristol, I’m with Amanda: Beck’s gonna come out on top—batshit craziness is no longer a bug of movement conservatism, it’s a feature.

Comment #37: "Fair and Balanced" Dave  on  02/08  at  05:36 PM

@Tyro #36: they can be taught by example that they like living in enlightened socialist states, though. Give them one year in a European country, and they come back changed. There is also the example of policies which were way ahead of public opinion (abolition of the death penalty in many countries of Europe, when over 60% of the population was still in favor of it), and the sudden change in public opinion after the new policy became law. So reality can be a good teacher, if we’re willing to push it forward.

Comment #38: CassieC  on  02/08  at  05:43 PM

Am I the only one who looks at the Glenn Beck picture on the upper right of this thread and thinks he’d be happier dumping the flame graphics and using mushroom-cloud graphics instead?...

Comment #39: MikeEss  on  02/08  at  06:28 PM

I really, really wish that western liberals would consider that culture is actually extremely valuable in its own right… the fact that we spend so much time fighting over it should at least clue us into that.

IMHO, economics is more important than culture.  Get the economics right and you have the “space” for cultural wins - a country that feels secure and hopeful has the room for social progress.  Get the economics wrong, however, and you will lose any chance of social progress to people playing to fear and insecurity to obtain power.  In my opinion, you wouldn’t have had the Tea Baggers if Obama had been President over Clinton’s America.

However, the “New Deal” may serve as a counter-example to my comment.

Comment #40: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/08  at  06:54 PM

Both/and Piotr.  It’s possible to be disgusted by Obama’s reluctance to prosecute financial crimes, war crimes, and his willingness to concede the moral high ground before the debate starts AND find the hateful dehumanization of women appalling.

Jamie Dimon et. al. Belong in jail.  Doesn’t make the proposed denial of life-saving health care any better.

Abortion is barely legal here. This bill would kill women with wanted pregnancies that went FUBAR.  Sorry, but that’s not a distraction to me.

Comment #41: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  02/08  at  07:50 PM

Uh,

stop ranking economics, culture, whatever!  I’m not going to get into another spat that causes angry depression, but all things are all things in context.  Simplification is only valuable if you actually do the work of simplifying the picture to what matters.  Same with nature, nurture, and all the other crap people argue other people into identity camps about…

Comment #42: shah8  on  02/08  at  08:03 PM

stop ranking economics, culture, whatever!  I’m not going to get into another spat that causes angry depression, but all things are all things in context.  Simplification is only valuable if you actually do the work of simplifying the picture to what matters.

Uh-huh.  Does what you have just written actually mean anything?

And, yes, Caren, “both/and”.  But it’s a “both/and” like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Comment #43: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/08  at  08:14 PM

/me goggle-eyed…


No, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has quite little relevance to the topic at hand.  Also, it’s one of those old theories that, eh…has holes in it.  Epistemological issues, actually, in a way that does have relevance to the greater discussion in the thread.

More than this:

Are you quite cognizant of the term (and I mean the term), “necessary and sufficient”?  Both/and is a synonym.  Next…they do not include the concept of a hierarchy.  In fact, both/and is a rejection.  ?Comprende?

Comment #44: shah8  on  02/08  at  08:42 PM

Yes,  both/and is not a perfect equivalence, but that phrase is typically used to reject a hierarchy of importance because it implies both necessary and sufficient.

Comment #45: shah8  on  02/08  at  08:46 PM

No, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has quite little relevance to the topic at hand.

*sigh* It was an analogy.  All the needs are important, but some are more fundamental.

Look, I’m rereading Cory Doctorow’s “For the Win” now (which I thoroughly recommend BTW - very entertaining).  There’s a scene where one of the major characters, a teenage girl in the slums of India, gets trapped walking home by a male would-be rapist.  She thoroughly kicks his ass - but then is required to take a pay loss to pay for his hospital costs.

She doesn’t have the economic leverage to do anything about this.  The blame is laid on her for the event (“you shouldn’t have put yourself alone with him” - sound familiar?), and her wages (supporting her entire family) depend on an employer who holds total power over her.  She has a skill, but the employer controls access to the marketplace and the tools to see that skill actually earn money.

Or consider the situation of women in abusive relationships, unable to leave due to control over money being held by the male.  Or, getting back to abortion, a de jure right to abortion denied de facto to girls and women unable to travel to increasingly rarer abortion providers.

Comment #46: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/08  at  08:58 PM

Get the economics right and you have the “space” for cultural wins - a country that feels secure and hopeful has the room for social progress.

Except, of course, for the fact that we’ve seen when the middle class is thriving and people feel “safe” and “secure”, it’s actually easy for the conservatives to win socially as well as get people to vote against their own economic interests, because the middle class starts believing they are the “elect” and start worrying about those other than them (melanin-challenged, uppity wimmins, strange freaks with “fetishes”) horning in on and stealing their property.

The 50s and 90s weren’t exactly hotspots of liberal cultural transformation. Nor were the 80s. And a lot had to do with liberal economic policy creating a strong middle class feeling secure enough to indulge in their racist, sexist control fetishes because “there are no real problems and you wouldn’t want to mess up this prosperity while we mess it up for greed and stupidity”.

As always, the divide is artificial. We need the economic liberalism to not die in the streets and we need the social liberalism to keep people from fucking it up the second they get the economic liberalism (and also for people not white, middle class, straight and male, it’s a matter of life and death. So sorry that “social politics” couldn’t just be a great game for the straight, white men of society, but to us little people, these “distractions” could very well be matters of life and death, so sorry we have to “abandon” your myopic vision of things just to selfishly save our own lives, but we’re just greedy that way).

Seriously, though, I’m getting really weary of the “politics is a game” view that’s gaining popularity at the moment. Both from the right that has turned “it pisses off liberals” as the main reason to do anything and from the white male, comfortable left that believes the only way to beat the conservatives is to copy the same game and treat politics as a chess board rather than something that actually matters.

Comment #47: Cerberus  on  02/08  at  09:04 PM

/me refuses to get out the Animal Farm quotes…

Comment #48: shah8  on  02/08  at  09:06 PM

Except, of course, for the fact that we’ve seen when the middle class is thriving and people feel “safe” and “secure”, it’s actually easy for the conservatives to win socially as well as get people to vote against their own economic interests, because the middle class starts believing they are the “elect” and start worrying about those other than them (melanin-challenged, uppity wimmins, strange freaks with “fetishes”) horning in on and stealing their property.

And yet the greatest leap towards progress was during the sixties.  I think you may be cherry-picking there rather than developing a systematic counter.

Seriously, though, I’m getting really weary of the “politics is a game” view that’s gaining popularity at the moment. Both from the right that has turned “it pisses off liberals” as the main reason to do anything and from the white male, comfortable left that believes the only way to beat the conservatives is to copy the same game and treat politics as a chess board rather than something that actually matters.

Fine.  Feel free to try to get anywhere by passion alone, devoid of actual thought.  It’s obviously more important to you to be ideologically pure and attack comfortable white males for their self-evident sins of being born white, male, and comfortable than it is to achieve anything.

It’s worked so well for the Tea Baggers…

I’ll be over here on my comfortable white male ass, helping people in my own country and watching yours slide further down hill.

Comment #49: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/08  at  09:20 PM

Oh look PIATOR, all of a sudden you adopt right-wing frames, like “we’re attacking white males” all of a sudden, when I point out social issues aren’t nothing.

Gosh, what a surprise.

I’m shocked, aghast, never before would I have suspected.

Yeah, I can’t keep up the illusion. Yes, okay, the same damn bullshit whenever say, a group who’s worried about issues of life and death, might be concerned about their life and death asks for that to be on the “important list” that is “achievable”.

I mean, it doesn’t really help “all of us”, if all we get is something that helps white males in middle class be slightly improved at everyone else’s expense. I mean, even economically, the biggest forces of focus are getting more money into the hands of poor women and poor people in general (who tend to be browner than the middle class). And well, the main opposition to that is straight up racism and sexism.

Without addressing those attitudes, we have less power in what we can “pass” economically. I mean, it’s not like economic matters have no opposition. It does and the opposition consistently says “I’ll gladly suffer if the out-groups I don’t like suffer more”.  As such, it doesn’t help to “ignore social issues” and try and pass things economically, because passing things economically has social conservative as its main opposition.

Also most of what we consider 60s culture happened in the 70s.

Comment #50: Cerberus  on  02/08  at  09:33 PM

Also PIATOR, I’m a little tired of the instant-defense some liberals have taken to of assuming every single person who thinks that issues of minority group rights are important must somehow be a “I’m not voting out of protest against Obama”, the perfect must always be passed first time, I’ll cut off my nose to spite my face, idiot.

Shock of shocks, being a minority group, these things become important. We have to worry about them because unlike for privileged people, they matter to us. Doesn’t mean I don’t worry about the economy or the environment or insert issue dearer to your heart here. Many of these issues are crushingly important too and I often talk about them as often as I do “provincial” “cultural” issues.

Also, like most of the people you are eager to dismiss, I voted for Obama, I urged all those close to me to vote for Obama and Dems, for awhile now, and will again in 2012.

So, fuck you and the “only I can understand the grave weight of compromise” horse you and your fellow travelers love to ride in on.

Considering I know how you and others would react if there ever were an act that actually targeted white men in anything close to the level everyone else is targeted, I think it’s acceptable if we’re “distracted” by a “distraction campaign” targeting our basic personhood and lives.

Comment #51: Cerberus  on  02/08  at  09:41 PM

It goes without saying that I reject any analysis that speaks of ‘the economy’ as though it wasn’t itself part of ‘culture wars’. Sorry but there isn’t one The Economy. There is the economy for the rich and the economy for the rest of us. At the end of the day, classism is as much a part of the conservative culture war as sexism and racism, and that is where the culture war and the class war interconnect.

When you don’t understand this basic concept, it seems that culture wars still occur when ‘all is going well’ in the economy, when in reality the economy has been stagnant and in fact falling since pre-Reagan for the majority of us, even in times of so-called booms like under Clinton.

Comment #52: BlackBloc  on  02/08  at  09:48 PM

BlackBloc-

Also this.

Comment #53: Cerberus  on  02/08  at  10:01 PM

Seriously, though, I’m getting really weary of the “politics is a game” view that’s gaining popularity at the moment. Both from the right that has turned “it pisses off liberals” as the main reason to do anything and from the white male, comfortable left that believes the only way to beat the conservatives is to copy the same game and treat politics as a chess board rather than something that actually matters.

It is because politics affects the real, actual lives of people that you must be willing and able to “play the game” of winning elections rather than decoding you are “too virtuous” to win because you’re “too good” for politics. The people who recognize that they have to copy the conservative “game” are the ones who are on your side. The “privileged white males” are the ones arguing for “a spirit of apolitical bipartisanship in which we agree to compromise by selling out the less privileged.”

classism is as much a part of the conservative culture war as sexism and racism

I don’t often agree with you, Blackbloc, but this is right on. Part and parcel of the culture wars involves keeping certain groups/classes “in their place.” And those who are economically well off will many times resist cultural changes because they benefit from the insitutions that are in place.

Comment #54: Tyro  on  02/08  at  10:09 PM

“copy the conservative game” is wrong.  “subvert the conservative game” is pretty much what has to happen.  You can’t win by playing the by the rules of the other team.  You can only reassemble the logic and forms of the rules.  Much of what Obama does, is simply a game of position and movement—force the opposition to be coherent, when it doesn’t want to be, force the opposition to dissipate when it wants to be coherent, bargain the opposition into an excess of expression that draws down their power in futile displays, so forth and so on.  Of course, to do that, Obama has to speak in the terms of his privileged opposition. 

There are limits to this strategy, i.e. the bulk or the large minority of the elite are sufficiently detached (or responding to positional incentives) that they don’t feel that they have to respond to reality.  So oftentimes, this process of subversion is a matter of minimizing trauma long enough for the political base of the opposition to decohere, permanently.

Comment #55: shah8  on  02/08  at  10:32 PM

What does it even mean to get the economics right? Yeah, I know, everyone is bored by Kerala, and it’s suffered seriously from market incursions. But you can have universal public education and health care at income levels a tiny fraction of those in the US, and get life-expectancy numbers that are terrifyingly close to ours. You just have to get enough of the culture right to divide the pie up properly. The real reason you have to get the economics right (which means getting the culture at least partly right) is that otherwise the people at the top can (as we see) buy whatever damn cultural condition they want.

Comment #56: paul  on  02/08  at  10:37 PM

Tyro-

And am I arguing that I am “too good” for politics or am I merely saying that I’m tired of having my life treated like a game?

Hell, I’ve often in the last two years spoken up on behalf of Obama’s record. I’m just getting beaten down by the number of people who believe they can triangulate their way to victory by throwing my broken body to the wolves.

When we treat politics as a game, we lose the rhetorical war. The wingnuts are “allowed” to vote entirely because of tribal hates because “it’s not real”, it doesn’t “really matter”, it’s all a game, and everyone knows all politicians are cheats and so on.

So voting for “it pisses off liberals” or “I hate immigrants” makes sense because it’s just a horse race.

The only way to convert these fuckers for their own economic good is to yank back the chain and point out how it fucking matters, show them the bodies, where they are buried, make them smell the rotting corpses until their humanity overwhelms their hatreds.

Because if it’s just a game, and we can “out-triangulate” you, then what we win is pointless and easily undone.

Comment #57: Cerberus  on  02/08  at  10:39 PM

I missed where abortion somehow doesn’t count as an economic issue.

Comment #58: Dan  on  02/08  at  10:43 PM

Just thought of something, because I was thinking of the differences in tactics between Clinton and Obama.  Clinton’s doctrine, I think can use Napoleonic warfare as an analogue.  Clinton constantly moves and skirmishes along a line of rhetoric—gaining tons of territory, looting some of it, losing said territory, but mostly attempting to create the circumstances where he can defeat an allied opposition in detail, back when Republicans had real factions.  Obama is in a totally different world.  There is no faction to play off against another.  There is just one real faction, that has the support of Copperheads, and plenty of other potential allies far away.  Obama has to build multiple lines of trenches, constantly trade political territory for time (think ACA—Obama wins re-elect, Dems ultimately win a renewed constituency).  Obama has to negotiate with his “allies” over and over to maintain his numerical edge and get his people in place to take advantage of spouts of poor action by his opposition.  Less Clintonian dashing, more methodical and piecemeal seizure of political territory.  One thing people need to realize is that one of the substantial appeals of Obama to his elite backers is that he’s black, with no large national consituency he can rely on if he ever goes “off script”.  Building authority is what Obama has to do, far more than many presidents.

With all of this in mind, and thinking about copying versus subverting, I was thinking about Clintons moves on gay and abortion rights—“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and “Reducing the Need for Abortions”.  I think these two are two of the largest long-term failures of Clintonian messaging praxis, and they signal most clearly about the dangers of simply co-opting the language of the culture antagonists without redirection or subversion.

Comment #59: shah8  on  02/08  at  10:55 PM

I agree with Cerberus and BlackBloc.

1. A policy that can kill me is not trivial no matter what label you slap on it, and the culture war is an actual war at the point where it’s killing people. I’m starting to become legitimately terrified of getting pregnant in this country, and I imagine even when I’m ready to have children it’s not going to look appealing anymore if I have a high chance of mortality due to legalized medical negligence. If they get their way, it’s not only a question of not being able to get an elective abortion; it’s that plus pharmacists refusing to give out birth control pills or Plan B and doctors literally letting me die on the operating table along with the dead, unwanted product of a forced pregnancy. The difference between life or death could come down to a broken condom in their world.

2. The liberation of women is integrally tied to economic liberation. How, exactly, am I suppose to fight for leftist economic or political causes if I have a psychological breakdown from forced pregnancy, or if I’m dead? Why do you forget about the economic costs to women and to society of bringing a bunch of unwanted children whose parents can’t care for them into the world? Why should I fight for economic changes if it will be the same sexist shit from the a different asshole? What do higher wages get me if the pay gap deepens and keeps mine stagnant because I’m female? What does universal healthcare mean for me if I can’t get treatment for any medical issue involving my reproductive organs (because once women are dying of pregnancy and botched abortions, who knows what they’ll move onto next…maybe trying to kill us dirty sluts with untreated cervical cancer)?

By the way, I’m not convinced Glenn Beck is only in it for profit. He may not believe half the stuff he says, but he’s exaggerating what he does believe on purpose to move the discourse radically to the right. He wrote a book called the OVERTON WINDOW about how that is precisely his strategy!

Comment #60: reverie  on  02/09  at  02:32 AM

I just came across your blog and reading your beautiful words. I thought I would leave my first comment but I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Pass4sure 642-647 Pass4sure 352-001 Pass4sure 000-115

Comment #61: chemical engineering blog  on  02/10  at  09:12 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.