I came across this quote today while reading Andrew Bacevich’s new book, Washington Rules.
…committing U.S. units to counterinsurgencies appears to be a very problematic proposition, difficult to conclude before domestic support erodes and costly enough to threaten the well-being of all America’s military forces (and hence the country’s national security), not just those involved in the actual counterinsurgency.
David Howell Petraeus, “The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A Study of Military Influence and the Use of Force in the Post-Vietnam Era” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1987), p. 305.
With all the bogus controversy surrounding the Park51 Community Center in lower Manhattan (also know as the Ground-Zero Mosque), the right-wing has boxed themselves into a corner. How does “common sense” dictate that Muslims should relocate their place of worship, but gun zealots get to carry cop-killing bullets? If the test is just a matter of diffusing trouble, then we should hold the NRA to the same standard.
Last night, Sarah Palin got to do her TV dress-up on Fox News. Her comments about Barack Obama somehow made me think of the great line in Mel Brooks’ “The History of the World, Pt. 1“:
We’ve flattened their fingers,
we’ve branded their buns.
Nothing is working,
SEND IN THE NUNS!
I got called a liberal yesterday. Again. And, as you might expect, it was pejorative. These things don’t matter much to me; the names are usually hurled at the losing end of an argument, but there is something important we all need to consider about contemporary political debate.
Let’s start with the definition, since this post is going to focus on the use of words, and how their meanings can change. My Compact Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition (1989) defines liberal in a number of ways. The relevant ones include:
Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy;
Free from narrow prejudice; open-minded, candid.
Judging from these statements, liberalism seems like a pretty positive philosophy. It was thought of in that way when, during the Enlightenment, political philosophers such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson conceived of returning liberty to individuals and limiting the power of monarchs. It is ironic that today, many of the ‘conservatives’ in America who claim dominion over the Founding Fathers refuse to recognize their liberal heritage.
Instead, Americans on the political left run from the word. George H.W. Bush – Bush I – used the term against Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential campaign, but I think it already had a negative connotation by then. Since that time, it has attracted so much detritus that Democrats are trying to replace it with the word ‘progressive’. While that may be a more accurate descriptor, it is nevertheless a response to civic ignorance.
Recently Timothy Ferris wrote an excellent piece on The Huffington Post entitled, “Conservative Is Not Opposite Liberal.” He makes the excellent point that, given our definition above, great conservative thinkers like Edmund Burke and John Adams were certainly liberal. That indeed, the opposite of liberal is not conservative, it is authoritarian. Since liberals tend to favor reforms that grant freedom, then the opposite would certainly remove freedoms. The question then becomes, what are liberals afraid of?
The American Right has been very effective creating memes since the days of Bush I and Lee Atwater. It is unabashedly visible today, with talk of ‘death panels’ in the Affordable Healthcare Reform for America Act, ‘bank bailouts’ in the financial reform bill, and socialism despite a quite different reality. Sadly, it demonstrates that the American electorate is sensitive to these marketing messages, regardless of their relationship to facts ‘on the ground’. That diverges greatly from the ultimate goal of incrementally improving society through science and reason as Jefferson had envisioned. Applying a skeptical eye to these messages is essential to returning the American electorate to a civil, intellectual debate.
When I hear the term ‘liberal’ used as a pejorative, I am confident in my presumption that the speaker is unaware of the history of political philosophy in the West. Which is a shame, because the American Right has strayed far from what was considered conservative. You know you have a problem when it’s important to characterize the philosophy as ‘paleo-conservative’ or ‘neo-conservative’, especially when movement icons like Russell Kirk and Barry Goldwater became disenfranchised from the contemporary ideology. I have already argued that the current Tea Party movement, and mouthpieces like Glenn Beck, bear much more resemblance to the French Jacobins than anything conservative. But the memes put forth by the marketing machine take hold, and the GOP propaganda operation that is Fox News has tremendous sway over those who do not question, and that bodes poorly for the future of honest debate in American politics.
I found myself on YouTube the other day, viewing the new RNC web ad, which assumes their audience has a mental age of about 8. So far, the leadership of the Republican Party has yet to approach an issue with maturity, and I couldn’t help but post a comment to the page, asking if anyone didn’t feel offended by the aforesaid assumption. My question was: “I’m stunned by how many people can be swayed by this kind of trash, even in the face of the Arizona legislation, the GOP refusing to work on financial reform, and the plain lack of substance to many of the falsehoods being circulated. Do you really believe Michelle Bachmann when she talks about internment camps? Do you believe Sarah Palin when she threatens you with ‘Death Panels’? When does their credibility suffer?”
The response was swift. I was told that all would be made clear if I read the “Founding Documents” and stopped drinking Kool-Aid (no offense to the KraftFoods Corporation.) As justification for their paranoia, I was referred to FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. It was asserted that the Department of Labor – responsible for the census – gave Roosevelt the information he needed to find people. Now we have to worry about Obama, because anyone who disagrees with the need for healthcare reform should be shipped off to central Nevada and be placed in holding pens.
Of course, I pointed out that there have been six decennial censuses since 1942, so why freak out now? Because our freedom is threatened: the government owns 96% of home mortgages, it has taken over student loans, and will force everyone to buy health insurance. After a couple of back-and-forths, this is how the argument lined up:
The new Arizona “Papers, Please” law is okay even though it presumes you are breaking the law;
Warrantless wiretapping is okay because it made us safe;
Holding Jose Padilla (a U.S. citizen) without charge for years was okay because he was obviously a terrorist;
But insuring (not owning) home mortgage securities so that banks will offer them at lower interest rates is tyranny.
These assertions seem nonsensical; they certainly don’t adhere to a consistent policy platform. How is this possible? Back in the 1980s, a Canadian psychologist named Bob Altemeyer did ground-breaking research to find an answer. Altemeyer studies authoritarianism, and has identified the ‘right-wing authoritarian’ (RWA) personality type.
Briefly, since this information rightly occupies multiple volumes, the RWA is characterized as being submissive to [proper] authority, or following established authorities without question; will aggressively support their established authority, even to the point of violence; can be described as conventional and reject moral relativism; separate into homogenous groups and hold prejudices against minorities; tend to lack skepticism and rely on information provided by their authorities; construct a moral standard and reject everything outside of it; and view the world as a dangerous place, with society on the brink of destruction. There is more, but I think the point is made. An RWA personality is capable of accepting an authority like the Bush Administration violating Constitutional tenets while claiming that last year’s stimulus package is ‘big government’, because Glenn Beck told them so.
Which brings us to the end of this post. Altemeyer would define figures like Beck, Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney as social dominators, those who score high on a Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale. While RWAs tend to be submissive by nature, SDOs are in control. They believe in a social Darwinism, will discriminate against minority groups, identify threats everywhere in the world, and are Machiavellian (sorry for the disrespect, Niccolo) in their approach to enemies. Interestingly, while they use morality as a talking point, their own behavior demonstrates little of it. If the RWAs are the wind, then SDOs are the sail.
There’s much more, so I’d like to just cite a couple of books, in case you want to keep going (I’m off for a tasty falafel sandwich.) While much of our media makes the Tea Party movement out to be something significant in contemporary politics, I see it differently: it is an incoherent fringe that has always existed, but is now being prodded by a major political party that’s out of power and willing to play hardball. Which was the point of my question on YouTube: if directly confronted with shameless manipulation by the Republican Party, the RWAs will happily lap up their milk and proceed as directed.
“Conservatives Without Conscience,” John W. Dean, Penguin Books, 2007
“The Authoritarians,” Bob Altemeyer, Self-Published, 2007
“The Authoritarian Specter,” Bob Altemeyer, Harvard University Press, 1996
At the risk of being called curmudgeonly, I feel that this is a good week to nominate another super-huge douchebag. A lot has happened, and it’s only Wednesday morning.
Of course, Monday was Tea Party/Lionize Timothy McVeigh/Celebrate Sedition Day, and that provided enough material to fill this post. Straight to the juicy parts!
Let’s start with our perennial favorite, Rush Limbaugh (via Media Matters). Yesterday, on his radio show, he blamed Bill Clinton for the Oklahoma City bombing, claiming that McVeigh was motivated by the tyranny of Waco. That’s funny, because what I remember about The Branch Davidian incident was that a couple of U.S. Marshals were shot and killed when they showed up to investigate a suspected illegal weapons cache at the compound of the alleged child sex offender David Koresh.
Next is Representative Paul Broun of Georgia. So, just to reiterate, this guy is a fucking U.S. Congressman. At an armed gun rally in Virginia on Monday, he claimed there are enemies of the state planning to plunge the country into tyranny. But that’s not incitement to violence. The clip is from last night’s Rachel Maddow show, which I’ve included in its entirety because it is worth watching. Broun’s cheerleading begins at 1:50.
And lastly is our friend and moderate Republican, Orrin Hatch. This measured “analysis” on Fox News left my jaw dragging the floor, whether it was his claim that he wanted to work with Democrats on the healthcare bill (he actually fought against many of the provisions he had authored in the ’90′s), or that he strongly supports financial reform (as long as it doesn’t include any consumer protection or financial transparency.) But he gets nominated for his comment at 4:25, when he suggests that the Goldman-Sachs investigation by the SEC was launched in order to give the Democrats momentum for their financial reform bill. Thank you Orrin Hatch, the man who fought against re-importation of American pharmaceuticals from Canada while deregulating cheap, ineffective drugs from India and other countries.
Want to nominate someone? Drop me a note. I’m off to have a fun day.
What a fabulous town this is! I landed yesterday (Saturday) at cocktail hour and grabbed the first vodka-rocks I could find. After unpacking my materials for this week’s trade show, I dined at Cochon, a cajun restaurant in the Warehouse District. Everything on the menu is fresh, and all the meats are cured in-house. The vibe is upbeat and the interior design has a contemporary, urban feel.
It was a meat fest! I started off with the paneed pork cheeks, garnished with pickled anise and peanuts. The combination sounds bizarre but it was quite delicious; the peanuts were not overpowering. The pork was dreamy, but I would have liked a bit more vinegar flavor to the marinade/sauce. My salad was fresh mushrooms with fried beef jerky, and it had a touch of cilantro tossed with it. A great combination of flavors and texture. Finally, I had the smoked brisket and horseradish potato salad for my main course. That’s a hard dish to fuck up, and this was no exception. Delicious! Cochon definitely gets snaps for the overall dining experience.
The Southern Republican Leadership Council is meeting in New Orleans this week. Sadly (cue the sarcasm), I did not run into Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin last night. But they got to do their speechy thing! And despite their rockstar celebrity, both of them finished way down in the straw poll, losing to Mitt Romney (who didn’t even show up) and Ron Paul. So the GOP hasn’t changed:
Obama is a socialist;
Stimulus spending wrecked our country;
We need to cut taxes, because that won’t add to the budget deficit;
We need to bomb Iran, because that will fix the Middle East;
Homosexuals will prevent God-fearing Christians from breeding;
Let’s forget about the War Of Northern Aggression and worship the 10th Amendment.
So, it looks like we’re going to have an elevated, intellectual debate about public policy as the midterm elections approach.
On a happier note, I just finished my poached eggs and corned beef hash at Pierre Maspero’s, a favorite breakfast joint. It’s a lovely morning and I’m going to wander the Quarter a bit before I have to setup the trade show. More to come…
I find the recent rise of populist rhetoric in our civil discourse a bit troubling. Add a strong sense of entitlement within the Tea Party movement and other right-wing extremist groups, and the question, “Is the right wing conservative?” demands examination. I have spoken previously of why populism does not have conservative roots, so there’s no point covering that ground again. Instead, I would like to illustrate parallels between recent statements and the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the 18th-century French liberal whose work – according to many conservatives of the day – paved the way for the Jacobins to unleash The Reign of Terror.
Let’s start with a video that became much more interesting this week, with the sentencing of Scott Roeder, the man convicted of murdering Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas. It is an interview by Dave Leach, an anti-abortion zealot, from 1996, and they very quickly discriminate between God’s law and societal law. It starts getting good at 2:10.
Now, the assertion of Providential law certainly seems conservative, and, in fact, Edmund Burke considered the belief that Providential law must inform the laws of mankind to be a cornerstone of conservative thought (see Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind”.) Unfortunately, that is not what is being discussed in the interview. Instead, Leach and Roeder are dismissing societal law as invalid, in favor of something more fundamental: whereas conservative philosophy uses Providential law to inform statute and attempt to reflect God’s will, Roeder claims the existence of Providential law nullifies any attempts made by society to impose law. What he is actually claiming is the existence of a natural law that can only exist in the absence of government.
That is a pretty radical concept, but it isn’t new. Let’s step into the way-back machine and experience a bit of expository writing from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who took the French intellectual world by storm with his 1755 essay, “A Discourse Upon The Origin And Basis Of Inequality Among Men”.
“…when I see free-born animals through a natural abhorrence of captivity dash their brains out against the bars of their prison; when I see multitudes of naked savages despise European pleasures, and brave hunger, fire and sword, and death itself to preserve their independency; I feel that it belongs not to slaves to argue concerning liberty.”
Rousseau argued that increasing societal organization infringes upon man’s natural liberty. At best, we placed ourselves in a state of voluntary slavery in order to achieve security, shelter and food, things that existed without shortage in our savage – or natural – state. While conservatives asserted that societal inequality was God’s design, Rousseau blamed the underlying structures for inequality, and illustrated, in his essay, its development as savage man began to coalesce into small groups, clans and later societies. By claiming that driving a car is a right that is not linked to the responsibility of licensing, Scott Roeder is channeling Rousseau and asserting that liberty can only be achieved in the natural state.
Not surprisingly, genuine conservatives are pretty horrified by this philosophy. Again, from Kirk:
“Infatuation with natural right in the practical concerns of government must end in anarchy, in a fiery and intolerant individualism. Even parliaments cannot endure if the doctrinaires of natural rights are triumphant, for any form of representative government is in some degree an invasion of absolute liberty.”
I hear you saying, “Michael, not everyone on the right is as whacked as Scott Roeder.” And I agree. So let’s turn our attention to my new favorite source of amusement, the Tea Party. Despite my mocking tone (it’s a character flaw), extreme ideological movements like the Tea Party deserve serious attention for the simple matter that they create political gravity wells which influence the overall debate. Consider the open courting by GOP leadership, and Sarah Palin’s recent comment that the Tea Party is “…a beautiful grassroots movement that is putting government back on the side of the people,” and you begin to understand the magnitude of that influence.
Of course, we know the official party line mission statement from their website. But being for fiscal responsibility, limited government and free markets doesn’t tell us much. After all, I believe in those things, and most people who support the Tea Party consider me a Marxist. Instead, I look to their actions to determine their political philosophy and, again, we find it occupying a surprising space in the political spectrum.
We’ve already discussed the idea that society is slavery, but it’s not necessary to go that far – the Tea Party has saved us the trouble. We can start with the notion that taxes are tyranny, or any other legislation with which they disagree. Next, consider that the possession of arms is not only a right, but there is a belief that these arms may be used for seditious purposes outside the scope of a state militia. You don’t have to dig very deeply into a group like the Oath Keepers before you discover that there is something extralegal being envisioned. Lastly is the belief that sometimes – despite the perfection and sanctity of our political process – it is okay to hit the reset button and throw everything away. Each of these points, while appearing conservative on the surface, shares an underlying belief in a natural state, an existence that supersedes societal structures, and is given priority even when it is done in the name of those societal structures. That is how an Oath Keeper or Tea Partyer can talk about upholding the Constitution by forcibly removing constitutionally-elected officials from office.
Well, I’ve kept you long enough; it is a blog, after all. I hope I have at least made a first effort at pointing out some of the absurdity of our far right politics in America, and demonstrating that their pedigree does not descend from the conservative movement that is their namesake. I am not a conservative, but I believe that it is important for liberals and progressives to deny the far right the use of that moniker, for it deceives many in this country with a false sense of credibility and tradition. Words matter.
As Russell Kirk noted, “The world is growing more enlightened, popular opinion asserts; and there is some truth in the belief that newspapers, magazines and circulating libraries have made mankind wiser; but with the pride that accompanies a little new learning comes the peril of popular vanity, the hazard that all old opinions may be discarded.”
In closing, I will leave you with the words of John Adams, one of America’s first conservatives. Sneering at Rousseau’s praise of natural savagery, Adams disagrees that,
“…knowledge is corruption; that arts, sciences and taste have deformed the beauty and destroyed the felicity of human nature, which appears only in perfection in the savage state – the children of nature.”
According to yesterday’s Chicago Tribune, Redeye edition, the South Carolina Senate is considering the repeal of a law that requires any group intent on overthrowing the government to apply for a permit and pay a $5 fee. No shit. The “Subversive Activities Registration Act” dates back to the 50′s and our paranoia of communists, and levies a $25,000 fine and 10 years in prison for its violation.
Do you know what this means? All we have to do is make this federal, and we’ve solved our terrorism problem. Al Qaeda – register and pay the fee. Instead of spending $3 trillion on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we could actually be making money on this one. It is elegant in its simplicity.
For some reason, lawmakers in South Carolina are embarrassed by this. I can’t imagine why.
I wasn’t even aware of any symptoms. But yesterday, while having a somewhat civil discussion with a tea-bagger about our totalitarian government, he presented the diagnosis. It must be true, because he claimed to have studied psychology, history and social science in some institution of learning. I went out on the Google machine and studied it.
Needless to say, I was somewhat disappointed to find that the APA has not seen fit to add this disorder into the DSM-IV, which would allow me reimbursement for treatment under a number of health insurance plans. However, I was successful in finding a list of symptoms on the website Conservative Pledge, which include:
You come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious;
You monopolize conversations;
You belittle and look down upon people you perceive as inferior;
You have a need of entitlement [their grammar, not mine];
You become very impatient and angry when you don’t receive the special treatment to which you feel entitled;
You have trouble handling anything that is perceived as criticism;
You have a sense of secret shame and humiliation;
You react with rage, contempt and belittle others, in order to make yourself feel better [again, I'm just repeating the words];
You attack the messenger when you don’t like the message;
You know that the only way you can look good is to make someone else look bad;
You feel you are entitled to your own facts as well as your own opinion.
I was also told that LPD is closely related to Narcissism, although my limited intelligence has prevented me from even beginning to figure out that connection. But my fellow conversationalist had studied psychology…
Actually, it sounds like a description of Sean Hannity, but that is obviously not the point. I’m sick and it’s going to take a lot of tough love to fix it, because I realize that health care is really not my right, and I can’t afford the buck-fifty an hour every week that it’s going to cost for therapy.
Support from my friends and [some] family has been overwhelming. It’s not like announcing that you have gonorrhea. Instead of keeping their distance, several have openly declared that they have LPD, too! I never really thought of them that way, but maybe we just need to keep an open mind and accept our weaknesses. Let the healing process begin.
