Monday, January 10, 2011

Winter Dawn, 2011: Rauschning's View - An Up Date


Niedersachsen in Winter

I was going to post this as a postscript to my last post, but considering the events of the past few days I think it better posted this way. "Up Date" fits the current politics much better.

America is attempting a rare period of introspection, but it isn't coming easy, nor with much chance of success. Already the local sheriff has been labeled "Leftist". The guy's over 70 and has been sheriff of this particular county since 1980, and he's a "Leftist"? If you are so "friendly", then why do you react this way?

Whatever "noise" there is on the "Left" is only a reaction, and basically only noise.

First lesson for all Americans should be: Basic definitions. "Conservative", "Radical" and whatever else including "Liberal", "Socialist" . . .

Imo the Radicals are winning and the Conservatives (as in "conserving and operating according to our oath to the Constitution and the values behind it") are in total retreat and confusion. What else exactly would "conservative" mean? The other labels aren't even in the game.

You really have to shake your head, how it's played out and displayed in the media. They're "fighting" so fierce since that is after all what they are about, what drew them together in the first place. No one expected a rational argument, but at least coherence. But not even that, I'm afraid.

Rather it was about power, and the moneybags and their lackeys were running scared a couple of years back, not that they couldn't have made a deal. Would it have really been so difficult, with this administration?

Truth is the elites now in the driver's seat gave up on democracy long ago. It wasn't really even much of a decision on their part. Rather instead, they'll now spin it was all the pitchfork talk and all. So they started themselves a "movement" and now we all see what sort of "movement" it is, and also for whom, in whose interest . . . by what means.

Agitation. Focus. Confrontation. Raw anger, "firing people up" . . . their dirty little "secret". Funny that, as well since it's been hanging out for all to see for sooooo long.

Angry? You bet, and I know I'm not the only one. This is what has become of the country we served? This is what has become of our shared legacy? Of what we were entrusted to pass on? What follows us?

Rauschning writes:

Direct action is defined as "direct integration by means of corporativism, militarism, and myth"; this is to replace democracy and parliamentarism. But the true significance of direct action lies in its assignment of the central place in its policy to violence, which it then surrounds with a special philosophical interpretation of reality. Briefly this philosophical system amounts to the belief that the use of violence in a supreme effort liberates creative moral forces in human society which lead to social and national renewal.

The Revolution of Nihilism, pp 27-28


Postscript:

What conclusions can we draw from Rauschning's work? How does he rate as a theorist?

First, these conclusions refer to Rauschning's work and to a lesser extent that of Hannah Arendt, who produced about the best book on Fascism/Totalitarianism imo.

Second, these refer to Rauschning's subject which was Nazi Germany around 1939. I leave it to the reader to draw any similarities between Rauschning's subject and what we are/have been experiencing in the US.

Conclusions:

1. What Rauschning describes is a radical right-wing movement which exhibits elements of left-wing attitudes as well. There is a significant "socialist" element to Nazi policy, such as government support for families, public housing, jobs on public works projects, etc. Mobilization of active public support for the goals of the movement is extensive.

2. There is a strong distinction between the movement and the state. The state, and even the nation, are seen as "instruments" for attaining the goals of the movement, or rather for the goals of the leadership of the movement. The movement/party works behind the facade of the state, and attempts over time to supplant it.

3. The movement/party's goals are irrational, based on a shared myth or notions which are not supported by reality. "Faith" in the movement/leadership is absolutely necessary and is consistently reinforced and promoted. Rhetoric appeals to instincts and myths, not to rational thought which is considered as "cowardice" and a lack of resolve.

4. What allows for the success of the radical right is conservative confusion, indecisiveness, lack of understanding of the nature of right extremism and cynical opportunism. Apolitical economic interests share certain attributes with the conservatives, but are not to be trusted to act in conservative interests, rather in their own which might be diametrically opposed. It does not seem that difficult to win over corporate/plutocratic interests over to this type of political system (as long as property is more or less guaranteed).

5. The radical right is the greatest enemy to conservativism. They use conservative symbols and rhetoric, but consistently undermine conservative values and ideals. They are radicals and destroying what is in place is necessary for the achievement of their radical goals.

6. Politicizing the military is one of the first goals of the radical right.

7. What made the Nazis a global threat was their radical goal of re-ordering the world along their notions of race. It did not matter that there was no scientific evidence supporting their views, rather what was decisive was holding and expanding power, the ability to organize a nation state along these lines. This achievement made it possible to do it elsewhere, in other words "Greater Germany" was not the goal, but the means.

8. There is a hierarchy of membership groups within the movement, with the fellow travelers at the bottom, followed by the rank and file members, elite organizations and finally the leadership cadre at the top. A high level of true belief is prevalent at the bottom levels, but becomes less and less as one rises, with cynicism replacing faith. At the top, the leadership has little respect for the masses, sees them as "herd animals" and expendable. This hierarchy of faith being replaced with cynicism explains the success of their irrational propaganda and "big lies".

9. The leadership have an unfailing belief in the power of human organization, anything is in fact "possible" no matter how fantastic in their eyes.

10. Violence is not only a means of achieving goals, but the primary means, the means of choice. Brutality is rewarded and the most brutal and ruthless rise quickly in the movement.

93 comments:

  1. The shooting has provoked an odd non-reaction in my neck of the woods. People just aren't interested in talking or thinking about it. Not sure what that means.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The shooting itself is by definition a political act as well as being a crime. The actual motive of the shooter is probably unknowable, a direct cause and effect explanation unlikely. What I find very interesting is the reaction on the radical Right . . . their immediate response was to go on the offensive and make it a political controversy, "us" versus "them" . . . so true to form.

    Maybe the folks in your neck of the woods are simply tired of it all Pluto.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Seydlitz,

    IMO both sides went on the offensive. Within an hour of the shooting several prominent pundits on the left were tweeting that Sarah Palin was to blame for this. They've been trying to explicitly pin this on the "right" ever since. It's pretty much been nothing but finger-pointing on both sides with a few notable exceptions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sadly, the past 10 years have seen all too many "leaders" express violent words and/or images to promote their political aims. GWB was the "Dead or Alive" Cowboy. Along with her "Crosshairs", Ms Palin had a slogan of "Don't Retreat, Reload". Guns have been glorified by elected officials on both sides of the aisle.

    Fact is, the US has the highest firearms homicide rate of any industrialized nation, by a wide margin. Whether or not this crap influenced this shooter, it is not healthy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Andy,

    I wanted to respond to you, but Ms. Swafford just...disappointed me.

    The issue is that average joe people have been worried that the Right's violent gun rhetoric was going to lead to a shooting sometime in the future...which, to be honest, this was being said back in 2008...so...two years prior to the trigger being pulled that brought us to this moment people in general were saying this was going to happen.
    And then voila, it happened, a social bag-out went kinetic and 20 people were shot, 6 dead, 14 wounded.
    The first responders were no the media, but people who had been saying this was going to happen, that some asshole will seize the pretext of their choice, not because it was coined fed to them, but because they already had those sentiments already...they just needed that last bit of encouragement to act.

    Which brings me to the law enforcement side of this...incitement to violence is a particularly tricky crime to enforce, but there comes a time when it becomes so blatant that to say there was no incitement is to be lying.
    The atmosphere of the United States is heavily political, and for the Right, they use dissembling to cover their true feelings...which is to say that though the many Republicans who use gun violence, also, dismiss their rhetoric as "political theater."

    But as you saw during the Presidential election campaign with Sarah Palin and her running mate she used violent imagery consistently, while her running mate, often looking shocked at the reaction of the audience, would try to back it down a notch.

    In my honest, and heart felt opinion...Sarah Palin, and all the rest of the Republicans who used gun language, and image of gun violence for political purposes...all of them have blood on their hands.

    As I said on Jay's site...if this were a reverse scenario...and it was the Dem's using violent gun language...there would be hearings locking down the Democratic party for the next forty years.

    We're a nation of laws...supposedly, I would like to see those laws enforced. Ms. Palin and the rest of that gun violent crew need to either be keel-hauled into hearings to answer questions, or paid a visit by the Justice Department dropping the Riot Act on their laps to remind them that incitement can get them involved in something they don't want to be ever associated with.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "incitement-to-violence" is a pretty strong phrase. Have any cases ever been prosecuted? I'm not a lawyer, but I do not recall any such cases. As much as I think that Palin, Beck, and the Fat Man are anti-American, I would be leery of trying to prosecute in this case. Jared Loughner is a long way off from political 'death squads'.

    BTW Seydlitz, thanks for the tip on Walter Goerlitz's 'History of the German General Staff'. I finally got a copy from the library and am 3/4 of the way through. A great read! Although my copy at 500 pages, published in 53 by Praeger, is supposedly a condensation of the original, I still find it fascinating. Was not our own adoption of the staff method of organization instituted by Secretary of War Root over a hundred years ago based somewhat on the German model?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mike,
    Eugene Volokh says no, that as vile and crazy as Ms. Palin's, Beck's, Limbaugh's, and all the other Republican drones calls for pseudo murder of political opponents is...it's still protected free speech.
    Another said that they only way incitement could be proven is if they had said, "We need to target and terminate [so and so], and their home address is (paraphrased) 5555 Killemall, Crazy County, Az."

    So...there it is...I guess I'll have to suffer through the violent stupidity of the Right Wing even more, now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I thought Jon Stewart's reaction was well stated IRT to the politics, but I am a little put off by his comments of "read about the great things the Congresswoman and the deceased did with their lives":

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction

    So far, I have been very numb to this whole event (a sad commentary, I know). Previous threads we dispassionately discussed the death of 9 US servicemen in Afg in a valley that most haven't heard about and don't care about (replace Afg with country X here, this has happened so many times).

    I remember distinctly being very upset back in Jan '03, sitting in a chow hall in Jordan, waiting to cross into Iraq. The Space Shuttle Atlantis burned in, and there were public memorials, moments of silence, high schools renamed etc. But just a few days before, a Chinook with 9 soldiers from the 160th crashed in (country X). Barely a news story.

    I asked myself, what is the difference (then and now)?

    Why the outcry about this event? Why the political theater of national moments of silence lead by the President? Because it happened here? Because they were non-combatants? Because they were Americans? Or because there was a political statement that could be made?

    I am surprised no one has brought up any similarities or differences between this event and Fort Hood 13 months ago. Lot of politics in that one. There have been a lot of mass shootings over the past 13 months, but few with media or national political attention. I guess we reserve that sympathy for soldiers at home killed by muslims and national politicians.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting this type of reaction should be achieved with every soldier loss overseas, but I suspect that a significant part of the political theater is because it was a national politician. Had it been a border enforcement official, policeman, or any local politicians, would we have this type of reaction?

    So why was I put off by Jon Stewart? Great concept, let's take a hard look at the lives of those affected by the tragedy so that we feel a personal connection with the event. Let's try that with fallen soldiers as well, why just confine ourselves to victims of this crazy guys shooting spree? We won't do i because we want to stay numb.

    (Speaking of fallen soldiers, off topic, but RIP Dick Winters, Currahee! A truly remarkable citizen soldier in every respect).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Fuck it. I had a nice comment going and now it's digesting in the belly of some internet gremlin. The bastard.

    Here's the TLDR version:

    BG:

    Think about the problem of mindsets. Here's something about mindsets that relates to a bit to Jon Stewart and my conversation with Sheera. Jon Stewart has his own mindset, like we all do. He lives in a bubble, like we all do. Unlike most, however, he endeavors to look at things as they are and break out of that bubble. He's one of the good guys, you should cut him some slack.

    Sheera,

    I've already said if roles were reversed the right would be doing the exploiting. As far as criminalizing speech goes - and that's exactly what you are advocating - that question has already been answered.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ok, my comments are disappearing for some reason. I had a nice comment going orignally and now it's digesting in the belly of some internet gremlin. The bastard.

    Here's try #3 shorted to the TLDR version:

    BG:

    Think about the problem of mindsets. Here's something about mindsets that relates to a bit to Jon Stewart and my conversation with Sheera. Jon Stewart has his own mindset, like we all do. He lives in a bubble, like we all do. Unlike most, however, he endeavors to look at things as they are and break out of that bubble. He's one of the good guys, you should cut him some slack.

    Sheera,

    I've already said if roles were reversed the right would be doing the exploiting. As far as criminalizing speech goes - and that appears to be exactly what you are advocating - that question has already been answered.

    ReplyDelete
  11. bg-

    Well stated. I doubt people are intentionally slighting the contributions and sacrifices of servicemembers. For many, as Stewart says, it's just trying to make sense out of senseless violence, and in cases such as this shooting, the violence is less generalized, less "routine", less capable of any kind of rationalization.

    What is most disturbing is we almost trivialize much of the violence around us. Soldier deaths do not result in a general pause and questioning of "what the hell are we doing?" Afghan and Iraqi civilian deaths at our hands become daily "parts of life". Politicians and pundits use violent terms and we accept it as "political theater". The violence on our roads due to alcohol and texting change the behavior of so few people.

    Back in the day, we were taught about "Command Climate", the collective mindset and values that arise in a unit as a result of the actions of the leadership. I wrote on numerous occasions that the dehumanizing of Iraqi "enemies" by the very top leadership of our country contributed to Abu Ghraib as much as any individual soldier. If POTUS, SecDef, and heavens knows who else openly held the humanity of Iraqis in contempt, is it hard to imagine the troops doing the same?

    One has to ask oneself why a 33 round Glock is necessary for me to enjoy "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". One has to ask what is the benefit to the population at large when candidates for and occupants of the highest leadership positions speak regularly with terms that are violent or allude to violence, against not just our so called "foreign enemies", but our fellow countrymen as well.

    I agree that the scooting was the act of a sadly deranged man. I hope that his mental illness does not become an excuse to continue the violent nature of our national discourse. To me, the trend line has been toward more and more violence, both actual and implied.

    I remember a PBS show featuring former President and Mrs Clinton along with Senator and Mrs Dole. It was a warm and interesting session. Early on, in response to a comment by the interviewer that they seemed to get along well, Dole said, "President Clinton and I were simply opponents for a political office. We were not and are not enemies. The former should never necessitate the latter." Even if he did not totally mean those words, his contribution to be national well being by saying them marked him, in my view, as a worthy leader. In the case of several of today's luminaries, while there is no way to know what is truly "in someone's heart", one has to wonder when they write or speak in terms of "targets, "Reload" and "Haters". If they actually embrace such sentiment, they are not worthy of leadership. If they think such sentiment is mere "theater", they are unworthy of leadership.

    In terms of "Command Climate", WASF.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ok, this site ate three comments. I'm going to take that as a sign.

    Sheera,

    Here's something for you to consider.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Andy,
    Yep, I know...I posted that already...well, not thet link...anyway, it's sandwiched between Mike's and Bg's posts.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sheera,

    Ok, I see that now. I've been having some issues with this site recently for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks for the comments gentlemen.

    Let me give you a bit of background on why I posted my Rauschning up date instead of a postscript to my last post.

    As with many of you, I too am a regular reader of Colonel Lang's SST. I consider it one of the best blogs on the net and I agree with much of what the Colonel says and I usually find his insights very valuable. But I did not agree with his take on this one, and my response you see before you now. Imo we are in the middle of a very serious political crisis and this event is just another flashing red light that is even now receeding in our collective rearview mirror . . .

    As to the "both sides went on the offensive" argument, I would offer Andrew Sullivan's latest post, which mirrors my view well . . .

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/palins-test.html

    bg-

    Greatly appreciate your comments as always. I think you will agree that our handling of the strategic issues in the past on this blog has shown our support of and for the US military and especially that their use/sacrifices not be abused, taken lightly or in vain.

    "why just confine ourselves to victims of this crazy guys shooting spree? We won't do i because we want to stay numb"

    Is that all the events in Arizona come down to?

    ReplyDelete
  16. seydlitz -

    I agree that we are in a serious political crisis. But I do think we have weathered worse in my lifetime and historically also.

    Palin, Beck, and the Oxycontin king will end up being minor footnotes in history that only a professor or two can even name. I for one do not see this as the start of absolutism or totalitarianism. Although I am concerned that an over-reaction to this by Congress in trying to protect themselves could lead to a rupture between us and our representatives.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The thing I find so violently repulsive about this is that I was a "moderate Republican" until about twenty-five years ago.

    Where is that breed now?

    We're branded "RINOs" because we don't think that borrowing-and-spending is any better than taxing and spending. We were hounded out of the party that reveres people who write things like "How to talk to a liberal - if you have to." Of COURSE you have to, you daft woman - they're your fellow citizens!

    Since the Gingrich years the Right has gone further and further into this sort of muscular patriot-Christianism sort of thing, the "don't retreat, reload", "the only thing a liberal understands is a punch in the face" kind of insular extremeism. It's resulted in a kind of magical thinking we keep seeing in the "discussions" of almost anything.

    The Left is a mess. Its lost whatever faith it had in the New Deal and the UN and has nothing to replace them. Its been running on fumes since the Sixties and the Civil Rights movement tore it apart.

    But the Right...I have to agree with seydlitz here. The Right is becoming dangerously delusional. Obama a secret muslim? Health care reform a socialist plot? Dissent = treason? Secret prisons, global imperial war = "making us safer"?

    What fucking Cloudcuckooland does this stuff come from? With this sort of background, is it surprising that everyone to the left of Mitt Romney is bringing up connections between rightist eliminationist/violent rhetoric and this shooting? Is it indicative that the Right, in turn, rather than look at itself, has ludicrously termed this connection a "blood libel" and refused to even consider that their "we only talk to liberals as we beat them down" and magical thinking might be a part of the problem?

    The GOP I grew up with has changed all out of recognition. I'm sorry for that, I miss the party of my youth, but I can't pretend that there's nothing wrong with the GOP as presently constituted.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Andrew Sullivan (being paid to do this and all) expresses my saddened sickness with the standardbearer of the GOP better than I can: "It (the "blood libel" defensive crouch and refusal to contemplate, much less acknowledge any problem with the rhetoric - FDChief) is, of course, also her strategy. She can only win in a hugely polarized country. She has as little support outside the Republican base as she has a cult following within it. And she has decided that this occasion for introspection is actually an opportunity to double down.

    There is something menacing about that."

    That's just it. There IS something menacing about that. No, mike, I don't think this is 1933. But we've got a serious political dysfunction in this country, and instead of helping out the GOP is willing to go full-on crazy.

    Menacing or not, that can't be good for a Republic.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Seydlitz,

    I think you and Sullivan are making a cognitive error, which is this: You are assuming that Palin, right-wing political rhetoric, or even partisan politics writ large was responsible, either directly or indirectly, for this crime. As it stands, there's no evidence this man was aware of the instances of rhetoric Sullivan details, much less that he acted on them.

    The fact is that you, me and Sullivan live in a world of elites and we follow the "inside baseball" of politics, the media and who-said-what-and-when pretty closely. Most people don't know who Michelle Bachmann or Sharon Angle are, much less the specific comments they made or the context they made them in. Even with all the current event's reading I do everyday I wasn't aware of Palin's "crosshair" map until after the shootings when it got posted on just about every liberal blog I read.

    The point is that we are exceptions who are more aware of these things because we spend a lot of time reading about them. For Sullivan, it's a full-time, paid job. The problem is that most people don't live in that world. Most people watch hardly any news at all, much less spend time debating on blogs. Did Jared Loughner live our world? So far, based only on what people who knew him have said in interviews, the answer is no, but it's still a very open question at this point.

    Evidence about this man, his life, his condition, his actions, and his mental state is slowly trickling in and, in time, we should have some idea of his true motivations. In the end it may be that you and Sullivan are right, but to declare it to be so at this point is, at best, premature.

    Secondly, my "both sides went on the offensive" comment was specifically talking about what's occurred since the murders. Within moments of the shootings being reported, Kos and other prominent liberal pundits were explicitly stating that Palin was to blame. The GoP and Palin's defenders acted predictably and what we've seen in the past few days is the umpteenth iteration of the partisan political blame game, albeit more vicious than most. Everyone is all too happy to excoriate enemies over their political rhetoric, very few seem to have the introspective capacity or courage to moderate their own tone much less condemn or at least caution those engaging in excesses on their own side. It's all very typical, very predictable and very depressing. I think Jon Stewart said it best: “It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn’t in any way resemble how we actually talk to each other on TV.”

    ReplyDelete
  20. Andy: What I think is that you, and John Stewart, and the rest of the U.S. public need to get past getting past the blame game.

    The GOP did act predictably, but not because they were "just part of the partisan political blame game", but because the GOP has made political money by putting this sort of political chip on their shoulders and winning when either the Libs/Dems knock it off (and allow the GOP to claim that they were just "excoriating enemies" and not REALLY saying that Republicans need to find "Second Amendment solutions" to Obamacare and financial regulation and peace protests) or don't (in which case the GOP steps forward and dares the Left to knock the chip off...again).

    What's dapressing is that the U.S. NEEDS a sane conservative party. What's REALLY depressing is that, having dragged the racist CHUDs over from the Democratic South after Civil Rights, and having not objected to the rebirth of the John Birch Society right in the person of the Becks and Malkins and Limbaughs and Coulters and the Teapartiers they astroturfed into the House of Representatives, the GOP circa 2010 has no - no - chance of being that party.

    Roy Edroso puts it better than I can, so I'll just quote him from here: "The "eliminationist" tropes we've been hearing about recently are part of the problem, but so are the less violent notions we see them parroting every day: That Obama is a Muslim, an alien, a psychopath, and consciously trying to destroy the United States; that Teddy Roosevelt was a dangerous radical; that America's scientists are engaged in a deliberate conspiracy to bankrupt the nation via global warming fraud; that deficits, which were harmless and even kinda fun under Reagan, are under Obama a menace to the future of our famous statues; etc. etc. etc.

    The cumulative impact of this kind of magical thinking may or may not lead to assassinations, but it certainly weakens the sufferer's ability to respond to even obvious problems in any reasonable way. And in the long run this is more dangerous to the Republic than the grrr-lookit-me-I'm-a-Minuteman blood-lust we're currently focused on. The wingnut looks, for example, upon millions of citizens financially unable to visit a doctor when they're sick, and the first thing he asks himself is, "How can we defend these people from socialism?" He sees the stock market doing great while ordinary people can't find jobs, and surmises, "This Administration is anti-business." Etc.

    Even if you embarrass them (fond hope!) into talking less about guns and revolution, you aren't touching the real problem. I'm not confident that it's curable. The best we can do is keep them away from sharp objects and the levers of power."


    I used to try and vote for the saner candidates in my GOP primaries. I got out of the party when it stopped nominating saner candidates. I have to agree with seydlitz, Sullivan, Edroso and the rest, here; the reaction to this incident shows that the GOP is no longer a "serious" party, and should be treated as such by Americans who would like to see their country governed by adults.

    ReplyDelete
  21. At the risk of derailing the discussion, I think there is a general lack of sanity and not just in the political arena.

    After all, would a sane justice system send someone to federal prison for defending human rights?

    ReplyDelete
  22. And it's worth noting that this sort of thing didn't just pop into the conservative mind:

    "Waving the bloody shirt: it would become the standard retort, the standard expression of dismissive Southern contempt whenever a Northern politician mentioned any of the thousands upon thousands of murders, whippings, mutilations, and rapes that were perpetrated against freedmen and women and white Republicans in the South in those years. The phrase was used over and over during the Reconstruction era. It was a staple of the furious and sarcastic editorials that filled Southern newspapers in those days, of the indignant orations by Southern white political leaders who protested that no people had suffered more, been humiliated more, been punished more than they had. The phrase has since entered the standard American political lexicon, a synonym for any rabble-rousing demagoguery, any below-the-belt appeal aimed at stirring old enmities."

    (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/books/chapters/1st-chapter-the-bloody-shirt.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print)

    At least the Southern "conservatives" had the excuse that they had been deprived of their "rights" by an invading army. But this is not anything like the case now; it's a cynical refusal to give up a tactic - demonizing the domestic political opponants - that has and is working. It IS insane - for the long term political health of the country - but some political movements would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Chief,

    My point is pretty simple: The notion that the GoP has, in large part, gone bat-shit crazy (and I agree with you on that) does not mean that they had anything to do with the actions of Jared Loughner. People are simply assuming that the two are connected.

    If you want me to condemn these statements by various GoP functionaries, then I will condemn them as I will condemn all grossly intemperate rhetoric. That I challenge the notion that intemperate rhetoric was a factor in these killings does not mean I don't condemn it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 33 was before my time Chief, and wasn't that more of an economic crisis rather than a political one? I was thinking more of the 60s.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Andy-

    As to the motive of the shooter being unknowable or thereabouts, I agree, as in my first comment above:

    "The actual motive of the shooter is probably unknowable, a direct cause and effect explanation unlikely. What I find very interesting is the reaction on the radical Right . . . their immediate response was to go on the offensive and make it a political controversy, "us" versus "them" . . . so true to form."

    So the Radical Right's reaction . . . The "Left's" reaction on the other hand was understandable as Sullivan points out:

    "Now recall what actually happened, which is that a congresswoman was shot through the head after being subjected to extraordinary levels of hatred and demonization and threats. Because that very congresswoman had herself complained at the time of the "consequences" of Palin's metaphorical use of cross-hairs, reporters, bloggers and regular human beings on Facebook made that obvious connection.

    There was nothing "manufactured" about this. It was the most obvious set of observations to be made in the immediate aftermath."

    --

    FDChief sees my point. What happens when you no longer have a conservative political grouping that is actually conservative? When radicals take on that label and present themselves as the upkeepers of tradition while at the same time they trash those traditions? Stir up the masses with their calls of hate?

    Conservativism means the belief in an intellectual and ethical order which provides the moral foundation of the nation's institutions, that believes in duty to those institutions in the performance of their necessary activities. This duty is both an honor and an obligation for those who take on the responsibility. Men like Dick Winters understood that clearly.

    Do Conservatives make mistakes, bad calls? Yes, of course, and some of our traditions/practices have needed changing or amending over the years, something for which Progressives can be obviously proud. But the nation needs Conservatives, just as surely as it needs Progressives. Today it seems that we have too few of both, but as a conservative, I see the greatest danger coming from the Radical Right . . .

    ReplyDelete
  26. seydlitz,

    I said: "why just confine ourselves to victims of this crazy guy's shooting spree.......We won't do i because we want to stay numb"

    you said: "Is that all the events in Arizona come down to?"

    Two separate comments, not sure if you are asking about the my feelings on the event, or my feelings on why people don't want to learn more about those who are killed.

    IRT to the event, Yes, that is how i sum up the events for now. We have no clue what this guy's motive was, we assume it was political and we assume it was related to the toxic politics today, but that is an assumption. Until we have a better understanding of his motive, an act of crazy is all I see here. But even if we find out it was motivated by politics, I still put this in the act of crazy category and am not ready to blame this guy's psychosis on the political environment, surely there are a lot of factors in play here.

    IRT people not wanting to learn about the cost of our foreign policy, I do think people want to be numb to the situation. They don't want to be burdened with any feelings of guilt or empathy, who would?

    ReplyDelete
  27. mike-

    Came across this in connection to Elihu Root and the general staff reforms of 1902, from his statement to Congress . . .

    "Neither our political nor our military system makes it suitable that we should have a general staff organized like the German general staff or like the French general staff; but the common experience of mankind is that the things which those general staffs do, have to be done in every well-managed and well-directed army, and they have to be done by a body of men especially assigned to do them. We should have such a body of men selected and organized in our own way and in accordance with our own system to do those essential things. The most intelligible way to describe such a body of men, however selected and organized, is by calling it a general staff, because its duties are staff duties and are general in their character. . . "

    http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/RootGS.html

    Glad you like Görlitz.

    bg-

    I can't help but see the context, but then I am a strategic theorist . . .

    ReplyDelete
  28. Seydlitz,

    The word you seem to be focusing on is "manufactured." I would agree the outrage wasn't manufactured, at least not widely so. I suspect there are a few who were savvy enough to understand there was no direct link between this guy and the right and chose to exploit the opportunity anyway. I can't prove that, but that kind of cynicism seems to be SOP among die-hard partisans these days. Call me cynical. It will be interesting to see how Sullivan and other professional pundits react if it becomes apparent that right-wing rhetoric was not a factor in these murders....

    I still don't understand why you single out the right with charge that they went on the "offensive" with the "manufactured" charge. Palin's little video came out last night I believe - several days after the incident itself? Look at the twitter feeds of any of the prominent liberal pundits and I think it would be hard to argue they weren't "on the offensive" too from the moment they heard the news.

    I also agree there aren't many "conservatives" around anymore - that's a term that doesn't really mean what it used to in an American context.

    BG,

    I had a pretty long response to you earlier that somehow got deleted twice. I'll try again albeit in an abbreviated version.

    IMO the problem is one of mindsets, which I mentioned earlier. Yes, he's got a different standard for this outrage because it's closer to him. That is true of all of us though to some extent. Some are worse than others, of course - one that bothers me is the different track the media takes when one of its own is kidnapped. The NYT managed to keep David Rohde's kidnapping a secret for 7 months "for his safety" but doesn't grant that privilege to others, much less soldiers.

    In short, I think you should cut Stewart some slack. Unlike most of his contemporaries he's often able to break out of his bubble and consider things from a different perspective. That's why he usually so good at cleaving through the bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  29. mike:

    whilst pondering the subject of inflammatory speech; consider: One Lee Ermey (Phoney Baloney weapons expert, Raconteur, Master of ceremonies, Grade D movie Star, and all around corporate shill....Have I left anything out?)

    Well, seems the Old Boy was speechifyin' at the end of December, and someone took a vidi of same. See if you can spot an Hortatory cri-de-coeur, with malediction in mind for certain state actors, .......or not.

    Now I'm wondering, if Janeane Garofalo were to agitate peasants at 1/100th the intensity of our above mentioned protagonist, what might occur?
    Let a thousand flowers Bloom?

    PS Seems that our good Ole' Boy was in Southeast Nausea, a fightin' them Commie Zip rat-fuckers through the auspices of Marine Wing Support Group 17.... Gee, that sounds like a lo-speed High drag Kommando outfit, you know, the kind that has all of your activities expunged from your SRB (Shit, your SRB is expunged). Seriously, I cannot see him as an Avionics Tech. Maybe he was burning Shitters.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I am of the mind that this kid was deranged and selected his targets and actions on his own. While his actions may not have been caused by Rightwing rhetoric, sadly it is consistent with the nature of such rhetoric. Causation and correlation are two totally different relationships, but they still address a relationship.

    I remember one of my law profs (we took several law courses in the Political Economy grad program) discuss the adversarial nature of our legal system, and how it was a reflection of our society. He said that the courts were intended to keep adversarial encounters "civilized" and non-violent.

    The fact of the matter is that far too much political discourse is no longer civilized. "Winning isn't everything... It's the only thing" is a common credo. Honesty and integrity are the first casualties of political contests, within and across party lines, to wit the carefully spread rumors about a McCain illegitimate child by the Bush camp during the SC primaries.

    While I can see emotion leading some to confuse correlation with causation in a tragic affair such as this, I have great difficulty with Palin et. al. jumping up to defend their constant use of violent images by saying that this instance is no more than meaningless correlation. In short, it would appear that they think that their imagery and rhetoric of violence is justified and will continue. If such is the case, there is no hope of a brighter tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mike-

    The "Root Reforms" arose from the lessons learned in the Spanish-American War, when the Army was organized as a group of semi-autonomous "Bureaus", with no notion of a coordinated "Staff". For example, the troops were issued wool uniforms for hot climates simply because the Quartermaster General had a lot of those to get rid of.

    ReplyDelete
  32. A well-known proverb comes to mind:

    "You can't know a person/situation until you walk the mile in his shoes/spend time in his situation."

    I caught the tail end of Lawrence O'Donnell's show last night, as he showed us something of what our Congressional representative are facing these days.

    Look at it:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/#41050066

    and tell me what you would do in that room with your family just yards away.

    What would you do if you discovered your home was under crosshairs/surveyors marks, death threats in your email and in your phone message center, as Giffords reported before she was shot?

    What would you do if your office or party's office was shot, vandalized, bricks thrown through the windows?

    What would you do if prominent "intellectuals" from your opposition wrote books about how you are destroying the country, are anti-American, and preached from major media in print and broadcast on a regular basis that you are a danger to society, want to take guns away, confiscate money and property for the new world order, kill babies, hack and distort everything you say or write to paint you in the worst light possible?

    Add to the mix of hyper-political partisanship a healthy dose of religious extremism.

    Could each of us stand up to that on a regular basis, and go out among the people to do what Congresscritters need to do?

    Some of the GOP are so freaked, King wants a 1,000 yard gun free zone around him, Burton wants a Plexiglass bubble around Congress, Gohmert wants to Congressmen to bring weapons wherever they go.

    In this atmosphere, could you stand up to all that and stand for Congress?

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  33. As for violent and character-ripping speech leading to someone's death . . . .

    Bernie Goldberg writes about the 100 people who are screwing America, and James Adkisson enters a Tennessee church and guns down parishioners. He wrote earlier about reading Bernie's book and acting upon what was written there.

    Bill O'Reilly regularly refers to Dr. Tiller in Wichita KS as a baby-killer and operation rescue's Randall Terry spew their venom, wanted posters go out, and doctors are killed, clinics bombed, vandalized, and a poor woman in Florida can't die in peace.

    A kid in Pittsburg finds out that the newly elected Obama plans to confiscate his guns and lures 3 police officers to the barrel of his gun before he loses his rights and guns.

    And it's just been days that our military establishment officially stops harassing their gay members.

    About the "vast majority" of US citizens. A survey recently shows us that

    We try so hard to give the American People the benefit of the doubt, but they keep making it harder: Two in three Americans now favor defaulting on the U.S. debt and sending the global economy into a tailspin, throwing millions out of work. Reuters: "The U.S. public overwhelmingly opposes raising the country's debt limit even though failure to do so could hurt America's international standing and push up borrowing costs, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday. Some 71 percent of those surveyed oppose increasing the borrowing authority, the focus of a brewing political battle over federal spending. Only 18 percent support an increase... Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner last week warned that a failure to raise the borrowing limit in the coming months could lead to 'catastrophic economic consequences.'" Survey respondents had much less appetite, though, for cutting spending. Their budgets suggestions? "Some 73 percent support scaling back foreign aid and 65 percent support cutting back on tax collection -- two very small lines in the massive federal budget ledger." Yes, cutting back on tax collections will do wonders for the deficit.

    http://reut.rs/hO0zco

    We allow our airwaves and media to be filled with lies, distortions, propaganda, trivial trashy entertainment, and call those who are trying to point out the truth of things shrill and just like everybody else.

    We live in a world of Bull Shit.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  34. To Andy:

    A bit of advice. This place does nasty things to excellent thought.

    I put my stuff on a text or word document, then C&P into here.

    About 10 seconds of extra work, but very much worth it.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  35. Al-

    Well put.

    Andy-

    Context once again. Rep Giffords's office had been attacked, she had received threats by phone and emails, she complained about Palin, and said there could be "consequences" . . . all the while the "journalists" attempted to downplay what had happened . . .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4

    A clear sequence of thought from the Demos upon hearing the news, whereas the Radical Right's response? Instinct followed by self-interested calculation?

    --

    Here's an interesting article from Harper's about politics in Arizona, and Silverstein argues that the Tea Party is arguably the majority party in the state . . .

    http://harpers.org/archive/2010/07/0083023

    This is the context that Giffords was operating in and what the sheriff was describing for which he was widely denounced by the Radicals . . . Reading the article, one gets the impression that their rhetoric is an essential part of their whole approach and at the same time precludes critical thought regarding the results of their policies. We should be taking a good look at Arizona and what is being done there by the Radicals and perhaps get a better idea of what could happen should they gain the presidency in 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Some must be asking why I of all people are beating this particular drum. After all I'm the one who consistently paints a rather bleak picture of undemocratic elites manipulating both parties and always coming out on top, not to mention the methodical construction of a police state, endless wars waged for private gain, the destruction of our traditional virtues . . . all true imo.

    But, if there is a chance at all of regaining control of our government it must start at some point. Successfully countering the Radical Right (which is simply another instrument of tyranny, a nihilist movement) would be a positive first step. Followed by a new conservative/progressive alliance party of renewal . . . "pie in the sky"? Perhaps, but many basil's rubbling off on me. ;-)>

    ReplyDelete
  37. Test. The site is not posting comments again, either in IE or firefox.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Seydlitz,

    I think I get the context and I can see how people will make the connection even if one doesn't actually exist (although there might be a connection - we don't know for sure yet). It's only natural. I do think you give the liberal side too much credit, though, for acting honorably in this. Do you think there is no "self-interested calculation" going on here?

    I also read this morning that death threats against Palin are at an all time high. I remember reading several months ago that her daughter, of all things, got death threats for being on that "Dancing with the Stars" show. Animosity (not death threats) toward Palin is understandable, but her family? Do you think the liberal reaction to this incident in particular and the Palin's in general is appropriate and justified?

    In short, I think you have to take the whole context into account, not just part of it. I don't think it's possible to isolate "right wing" rhetoric by itself. Escalating rhetoric often works on a feedback loop and though I agree the right-wing rhetoric over the last couple of years has been much worse, the left side of the spectrum is not blameless for the current conditions. That they are less irresponsible than the right wing doesn't excuse them from culpability for the present political situation.

    After all I'm the one who consistently paints a rather bleak picture of undemocratic elites manipulating both parties and always coming out on top, not to mention the methodical construction of a police state, endless wars waged for private gain, the destruction of our traditional virtues . . . all true imo.

    I don't think anything has changed personally. Everyone is saying they want less vitriolic rhetoric as long as it’s in the context of the other guy reducing theirs. Where is the introspection? Where are the pundits and politicians who are willing to take a positive step rather than just point fingers at the evil “other?”

    If anything, I think this incident is making political rhetoric worse. And since it doesn't look like the economy or the job picture is going to get better soon, that will only add fuel to the fire.


    Al,

    While his actions may not have been caused by Rightwing rhetoric, sadly it is consistent with the nature of such rhetoric.

    I think that's what Jon Stewart was saying in the passage I quoted.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Basil,

    What would you do if prominent "intellectuals" from your opposition wrote books about how you are destroying the country, are anti-American, and preached from major media in print and broadcast on a regular basis that you are a danger to society

    I don't read such books as I think they have pretty much zero value unless you've drunk the kool-aid. You might enjoy this however - as I noted in the comments, I'm betting he can't finish. And such books aren't an exclusive feature of the right. Levin, Kos, O'reilly, Olbermann, Hannity, etc. are all dirt-bags in my book.

    Also, thanks for the tip. I used to do that (copy posts in notepad or whatever), but I've been using a firefox plugin called Lazarus for a while. It automatically saves everything you type in webforms into a database. It's handy for keeping posts from disappearing into the ether as well as providing an archive of what you've written. Unfortunately it's a little buggy and crashed, so it wasn't saving. Then the site decided, at that moment, not to post anything, hence my complaint about internet gremlins :)

    ReplyDelete
  40. Well, I've exchanged emails with a law professor, and I'm now convinced that...Legally speaking...Ms. Palin, Glenn Beck, Bill O'reily, and the other GOP talking heads who pandered this violent gun rhetoric are...so far...safe from prosecution for either Incitement or Collusion, and are currently safe from civil prosecution under the Due Care law.

    However, morally, they're all damned, and morally, they all have blood on their hands.

    But what is worse...the damn Genie is out of the bottle, and goodfuckingluck stuffing it back in.

    Our nation was founded in blood, and I was hoping G-d would be merciful enough to allow us to forgo the Law of Unintended Consequences of our nations birth and somehow move us to a place where we can reasonably argue our way to clear to national solutions.
    Apparently, G-d may have been merciful enough to allow us the opportunity, but I forgotten who gets to decide if we're going to take advantage of that mercy or not.
    Fools we all are, and more fool I for thinking of our better nature would bring us to a moment of clarity and maturity.

    Blood is what these fools want, blood is what these fools will get...and pity those of us who are caught in the middle of their stupidity.

    So now my prayer is this...

    "G-d, save me from the pretenders, and save me from those who follow you. Save my family, save my friends, and save those who would rather sit and chat, heatedly and with conviction, but chat nonetheless about what is right and wrong.
    But most of all G-d, when the pretenders and your followers are done killing each other and those they hate more than their own lives...please, please, please see yourself clear in bringing me, mine, and those of us who just want to have a moments peace through that coming mayhem and bloodshed. In your son's name, Y'shua, I pray this, Amen."

    ReplyDelete
  41. Andy-

    Yes, after I hit "post" I realized I was paraphrasing Stewart. I plead guilty to conceptual plagiarism.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Sheerah., from your lips to God's ears express post.

    :)

    seydlitz:

    Perhaps, but many basil's rubbling off on me

    Maybe I would if you are cuddly enough, but the black cat behind my nom de internet might do that if he liked you.

    Basil, our nearly 17-year old cat that I lured out of a cathedral drainpipe and named after a fellow who blessed him and is now a bishop, passed away a week ago last Sunday.

    Here's a video in happier times.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I493Av4zNqY

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  43. my correction:

    "would have done that"

    :)

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  44. Second attempt at posting
    mike:

    whilst pondering the subject of inflammatory speech I came upon an example to consider. One Lee Ermey (Phoney Baloney weapons expert, Raconteur, Master of ceremonies, Grade D movie Star, and all around corporate shill....Have I left anything out?). Well, seems the Old Boy was speechifyin' at the end of December, and someone took a vidi of same. See if you can spot an Hortatory cri-de-coeur, with malediction in mind for certain state actors, .......or not.

    Now I'm wondering, if Janeane Garofalo were to attempt a fey, leftist agitation of peasants at 1/100th the intensity of our above mentioned protagonist, what might occur? what would the various media outlets shout? Let a thousand flowers Bloom?

    PS Seems that our good Ole' Boy was in Southeast Nausea, a fightin' them Commie, Zip rat-fuckers through the auspices of Marine Wing Support Group 17....a low-speed High drag Kommando outfit (the kind that has all of your activities expunged from your SRB (Shit, your SRB is expunged). Seriously, I cannot see him as an Avionics Tech. Perhaps he was the Obersturmführer tasked with giving the shitters' contents a Viking Funeral.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I missed these examples of violent speech directing violent action:

    If half of what the Republicans say about the president and the Democrats were true, we should rise up and kill them all as a minimum down payment on proving our love of country. So, I don't give a crap whether the guy in Arizona was motivated listening to Sarah Palin or Sharron Angle. The problem is so much bigger than one incident, even if that incident had a lot of casualties. Glenn Beck alone has inspired three thwarted assassination attempts, including the planned attack on the ACLU and Tides Foundation offices in San Francisco. That's just one shock-jock with a television program.

    From:

    http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2011/1/13/105659/011

    From that same site, Nancy Sinatra's music gives us insight to modern day American culture:

    http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2011/1/13/6582/56657

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  46. Third attempt at posting
    mike:

    whilst pondering the subject of inflammatory speech I came upon an example to consider. One Lee Ermey (Phoney Baloney weapons expert, Raconteur, Master of ceremonies, Grade D movie Star, and all around corporate shill....Have I left anything out?). Well, seems the Old Boy was speechifyin' at the end of December, and someone took a vidi of same. See if you can spot an Hortatory cri-de-coeur, with malediction in mind for certain state actors, .......or not.

    Now I'm wondering, if Janeane Garofalo were to attempt a fey, leftist agitation of peasants at 1/100th the intensity of our above mentioned protagonist, what might occur? what would the various media outlets shout? Let a thousand flowers Bloom?

    PS Seems that our good Ole' Boy was in Southeast Nausea, a fightin' them Commie, Zip, rat-fuckers through the auspices of Marine Wing Support Group 17....a low-speed High drag Kommando outfit? (the kind that has all of your activities expunged from your SRB ... Shit, your entire SRB is expunged). Seriously, I cannot see him as an Avionics Tech. Perhaps he was the Obersturmführer tasked with giving the shitters' contents a Viking Funeral.
    END

    ReplyDelete
  47. Passing..........

    :)

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  48. Three posts down the drain

    these pissant testing messages seem to get through

    ReplyDelete
  49. Fast,

    Are these long messages? It used to be that if you tried to post a message over 4096 characters you'd get an error. I think what might be happening is that the site tells you the comment got posted, but it really didn't because it was over 4096 characters. I got mine to post above by breaking it into smaller bits. If you haven't already, see if that helps.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Fourth attempt at posting.

    Thanks Andy.
    whilst pondering the subject of inflammatory speech I came upon an example to consider. One Lee Ermey (Phoney Baloney weapons expert, Raconteur, Master of ceremonies, Grade D movie Star, and all around corporate shill....Have I left anything out?). Well, seems the Old Boy was speechifyin' at the end of December, and someone took a vidi of same. See if you can spot an Hortatory cri-de-coeur, with malediction in mind for certain state actors, .......or not.
    END

    ReplyDelete
  51. Andy-

    "I do think you give the liberal side too much credit, though, for acting honorably in this. Do you think there is no "self-interested calculation" going on here?"

    Two reasons, first the liberal side was the target and supplied the victims to this (along with a conservative judge), so why not give them the benefit of the doubt? They have a right to be a bit testy. Second, when have the Liberals been very good at "self-interested calculation", is it not more like "unintentional self-destruction"?

    We talked about "violent rhetoric" in class tonight and I used SEK's post on "What is 'violent rhetoric'" as a reference. It's been getting a good bit of comment on the net and provides a good definition and there is a great tie-in with Jacques Ellul and Neil Postman which SEK does not mention . . . perhaps a post would be of interest.

    There's also the recent resignation of several Arizona Republican officials who saw a direct connection between the shootings and the Radical Right . . . Anthony Miller stated:

    "I wasn't going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday," Miller said. "I love the Republican Party but I don't want to take a bullet for anyone."

    http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/2011/01/11/20110111gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-resignations.html

    ReplyDelete
  52. To all-

    I'm not having any problem in posting or commenting, even going over the word limit at times . . . wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
  53. posted 4 times, excluding tests
    As Andy recommended, shortened
    msg by 2/3. Nada.

    color me gone
    OUT

    ReplyDelete
  54. fasteddiez-

    email me your comments and I will post . . .

    seydlitz89@web.de

    ReplyDelete
  55. fasteddiez comments . . .

    Whilst pondering the subject of inflammatory speech, I came upon an example to consider. One Lee Ermey (Phoney Baloney weapons expert, Raconteur, Master of ceremonies, Grade D movie Star, and all around corporate shill....Have I left anything out?). Well, seems the Old Boy was speechifyin' at the end of December, and someone took a vidi of same. SEE IF you can spot an Hortatory cri-de-coeur, with malediction in mind for certain state actors, .......or not.

    ReplyDelete
  56. fasteddiez's SEE IF link . . .

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/29/video-the-obligatory-r-lee-ermey-calls-obama-a-socialist-clip/

    ReplyDelete
  57. Ermey's already issued an apology . . .

    http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/01/05/r-lee-ermey-and-the-hazards-of-hero-worship/

    Watching too much Glenn Beck me thinks . . . bad for the brain.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Seydlitz:

    Yup, but he has influence and cult status with the young johnnies. His corporate sponsors no doubt read him the riot act. A one dimensional halfwit exhorts people to awaken and act.... is it merely bad judgment?

    ReplyDelete
  59. fasteddiez:

    A one dimensional halfwit exhorts people to awaken and act.... is it merely bad judgment?

    Unfortunately, it's in the category of socially acceptable. At least within the scope of certain social groups. I had reached the point where, when back in the US, I expected to hear at least one similar rantlike comment in any and all social encounters, wheter it was germane to the conversation or not. It is becoming a badge of membership. "The Ugly American" syndrome is not just acted out beyond America's borders. People confuse civility with "Political Correctness". The former is an act of simple consideration, while the latter has become a derogatory label for a wide variety of behaviors, to include civility. There is, at least to me, a huge difference between inadvertent offensive remarks and purposeful, gratuitous slurs. Sadly, offensive behavior has become more and more of the norm.

    I have an acquaintance from Israel on the island. Great guy. He did a few years as a licensed tour guide in Israel. Early on, he was asked if he would be willing to escort American conservative church groups. No further explanation was offered. He assumed it was an innocent question, and said he would. After his fourth group of these people, he joined the long list of guides at his booking agency who preferred not to work with these groups. One gets tired of people on the bus shouting, in the presence of an Israeli guide, "Hey, Bubba, great job of Jewing down that store keeper", or "Don't ya love the way some of those Hebes dress. No wonder the rag heads hate them."

    Is it any wonder Ermey would feel free to make totally inappropriate remarks? Is it a wonder Palin et. al. glorify violence in their comments and print material? I'm not calling for P.C. here. Just simple civility. If one bathes in a cesspoll long enough, it becomes almost natural to smell like shit and act like shit.

    ReplyDelete
  60. 1. General note to commentors (especially you, fasteddiez); When I comment here I usually find that I have to do one or more of the following;

    a. compose the comment
    b. hit "post comment". What usually happens is that the screen refreshes with the comment still in courier typeface - this tells me that the comment hasn't gone through. For anything more than a single sentence this is the usual case. As fasteddiez noted, short one word or single-sentence comments typically go through.
    c. hit "post comment" again. BUT - if the screen DOESN'T change appearance, wait - Bloggers tiny little brain is gearing frantically, and if you hit post again you'll double post.
    d. the screen refreshes again; if the comment box now shows my little icon I know I'm almost ready to post!
    c. hit "post comment" AGAIN. Often what will happen at this point is the screen will show a "request too large" error message. Don't worry about that - your comment has still gone through.
    d. Go back to the site, go to the post, look in the comments - the comment is usually there.
    e. if this doesn't work, curse me and wish a birth defect on all my progeny to the fourth generation.

    2. Re: the point of this discussion.

    I think that "civility" is overrated as a component of American politics.

    Not that I don't like it, not that I don't think we'd be better off if someone superglued Glenn Beck's lips shut. But I'm something of a historian and I suspect that the current level of political discourse is no worse than the kind of diatribes you would have heard between Jacksonians and Jeffersonians, between freesoilers and slavers, between Free Silver and Big Business partisans, between Wobblies and VFW types. Hell, I'm old enough to remember the fight over Civil Rights, and the language there could have soured milk.

    No, it's not that that worries me.

    It's what seydlitz pointed out; it's that the party that has traditionally represented "conservatism" in the U.S. appears to be in danger of being entirely subsumed by the least intelligent, most fantastical, least rational part of its constituency.

    At the very least, this coterie of flying monkeys has managed to move the GOP so far to the right that many of its positions make no sense anymore. Deficits don't matter? Government expenditures can only be regulated by cutting spending and cutting taxes? Health care is communism?

    This is cloudcuckooland. This is nuttery. This nation cannot long endure if the conservative portion of it is led about by its most moronic elements, eaten up with baseless rage about guns, gays, God, death panels, and tea parties.

    There MUST be a sane alternative to liberalism; because without it liberalism becomes paternalism, becomes the state doing good TO you because it thinks you can't or won't do it yourself. It goes from regulation to outright state capitalism.

    What I see happening is that the GOP is being - perhaps already has been - captured, from one side by its corporatist donors and from the other by its lunatic Bircher legions. Meanwhile the Democrats, frantic to find their own corporate sponsors, have become almost as corporatist as the Republicans.

    Where stands the party to fight for those of us not born to the Koch family, not birthers, not birchers, not Christian dominionists, not libertarian free-market corporatists?

    ReplyDelete
  61. And as a witness, let me bring out...Kathy Shaidle, the blogger of seydlitz's NewsRealBlog, the one that posted the Ermey retraction.

    So.

    First, Ermey called Obama a "socialist".

    This "socialist"...this would be the "socialist" with half of Goldman Sachs in his cabinet? The socialist that gave the GOP their tax-breaks-for-the-two-yacht-family without a whimper? The "socialist" that fought for the public health care option like a dead virgin fighting off a necrophiliac? The "socialist" that has continued to preside over the largest transfer of wealth to the top 1% since before the Great Depression?

    Um, yeah. That "socialist"

    So my first thought is that Mr. Ermey wouldn't know an actual socialist from a chancre.

    Second, Kathie had this to say about Ermey's little vacation to cloudcuckooland:

    "...Ermey’s admittedly stirring and entertaining rant."

    "I thought it was cool."




    WTF?????

    Some aging war groupie has a Prozac moment and confuses a machine politican from Chicago, a man who is a better friend to the banksters than Teddy Roosevelt and Warren Harding, with Emma Goldman and to this (apparently) sensible, mature Republican woman this is "entertaining, stirring, cool"?

    No.

    This is just sad.

    The Republican Party has produced some giants of American politics, from the true greats like Lincoln to the near-greats like Bob Taft to many, many decent men like Dwight Eisenhower and Bob Dole.

    And this is what it has come to; an organization that has no fucking idea what a socialist even IS.

    I weep for my former Party.

    ReplyDelete
  62. FDChief-

    Yes, their terminology doesn't really describe anything, but it is very useful in dividing people. Over at Chicagoboyz, they are constantly posting about "Leftism", "Radical Leftists", in fact anyone prominent disagreeing with their views is automatically labeled a "Leftist" as in the Pima County sheriff. This coming from UofChicago alumni, highly educated and intelligent people . . . But, as is common today so many are so caught up in the "tactics" they don't see where this "strategy" is leading them . . .

    To me though, a "Leftist" would be the same as a "Marxist-Leninist" or "Maoist", that is advocating the radical reordering (or maintenance of such a reordering) of society. Like you, this is based on history. Where were these people (many of whom are my age) during the 1970s and 80s?

    So you're a Leftist in their eyes if you are to the "Left" of Bill O'Reilly?

    I think Rauschning's quote, which is in the original post above, appropriate and useful to understand what is going on . . .

    "Direct action is defined as "direct integration by means of corporativism, militarism, and myth"; this is to replace democracy and parliamentarism. But the true significance of direct action lies in its assignment of the central place in its policy to violence, which it then surrounds with a special philosophical interpretation of reality. Briefly this philosophical system amounts to the belief that the use of violence in a supreme effort liberates creative moral forces in human society which lead to social and national renewal."

    ReplyDelete
  63. fasteddiez-

    Point taken,

    . . . but I must admit I was tempted by the 12 inch "motivational figure" of Ermey in USMC PT gear (comes with a full-size whistle!) for $49.99!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Al-

    In connection with your comment, have you seen this . . . ?

    http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/01/11/mark-demoss-shuts-down-his-effort-to-require-politicians-to-play-nice/

    ReplyDelete
  65. Demoss was on CountDown last night.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#41066421

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  66. seylitz-

    Interesting item. Just three? I wonder if they could get any to sign a humane treatment of animals pledge?

    Chief-

    I think what we are seeing is "coalition" in the parties, without the real benefits of what makes parliamentary coalitions work. The GOP must pander to, and thereby legitimize their whackazoid elements. Otherwise, they could not get elected. In a parliamentary form of government, whacko parties may get some folks elected, but they remain on the fringes of government. For a small party to gain any legitimate power, they need to coalesce with another party that needs them to form a majority. This requires cooperation, and when that cooperation fails, the coalition falls immediately out of power, not just at the next election. Second, especially in the House, with insanely short two year terms, they campaign circus is never really not in town. So the pandering to the fringe cannot abate. I personally think it's a Constitutional flaw, exacerbated by our culture.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Al-

    What you describe would be the worst of both systems . . .

    ReplyDelete
  68. seydlitz-

    I was not describing failing coalitions as a plus. Rather, what I meant is that to form a reasonable coalition, compromise, mainly by the smaller party, is required. If the compromise fails, the coalition fails, and both parties know they have to take moderate positions to hold together. Neither party loses it's general identity, and the coalition is an expression of reality. You will rarely find a center right, for example coalescing with a radical right party. Further, the voters can have fringe parties to express extreme views without the major parties having to embrace fringe policies to be elected.

    The GOP must pander to the fringe just to be elected as the GOP. The "Tea Party" isn't a "party" but just a fringe element of the GOP, and thus, GOP candidates need to pander to people of the "tea" persuasion to be elected as Republicans.

    Perhaps I should be addressing the flaws of a two party system. But then, it's a two pary system because there is no way to actually have a "coalition" government, and if the very form of government precludes the compromise of coalition, compromise is not a structural tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Al,

    I agree - it would be humorous if it weren't so sad to see candidates fall over each other to please "the base" during primaries, then suddenly become "centrists" to capture the independent vote in the election. Politicians are already born with an integrity deficit - this only incentivizes it.

    I would add gerrymandering as a second major problem.

    Fix those things and I think the worst of it would go away.

    ReplyDelete
  70. The problem being; who will fix it?

    The primaries have always been the province of the True Believers. The difference between the parties since 1980 has been that the Dems have ostracized their Left and the GOP has embraced its Right, thus moving the entire farrago to the right. The only way to "fix" this would be for the grownups to reclaim the GOP and the kids to be allowed to play with the adult Dems, thus moving everything back towards the center.

    Or, as Al suggests, to completely reorganize things with that the left and whackadoodles can play in their own respective sandboxes and only get invited in to talk to the adults when they agree to talk sense. But even this isn't a guarantee; look at the impact the religious parties have in Israel because of the willingness of the center-right to use them to get a majority in the Knesset. It's had the same effect as the teabaggers are having on the GOP through their primaries.

    I'm not sure how you DO fix this one.

    And the gerrymandering of electoral districts, especially in the House, benefits incumbents immensely. I forget the exact number, but I recall reading that the number of truly "up-for-grabs" House seats in a typical, non-landslide election year is something less than 20% (?). All the rest have been locked up as "safe" Democratic or GOP districts. Why should an incumbent Congress, one not motivated by the long-term health of the Republic but rather by the short-term good of their party, want to change this?

    So I know how you'd fix this, just convinced that short of a full overhaul that it ever WILL be fixed.

    One of the hallmarks of a senescent organization is where rules and regulations harden into unchangable law, and where the laws become the instruments of internal power struggle rather than organizing the outfit for external functionality. What I see when I look at our form of govenment is that an entire group of structural features, originally perhaps not optimum but not intrinsically harmful, either, have been through gradual misuse come to be harmful in effect. So the filibuster, never a particularly "democratic" convention (and used most memorably to fight civil rights legislation in the Sixties), has become a de facto supermajority requirement to get anything through the Senate.

    Holds, earmarks, amendments, districting, the neverending fundraising that the 2-year House electoral cycle demands...this stuff is becoming more debilitating all the time.

    And that's just one branch of government.

    And let's not even look to the poor states...

    Gah. What a mess. It's kind of incredible that we do as well as we do, when you think of it...

    ReplyDelete
  71. "...left and right whackadoodles..."

    ReplyDelete
  72. Chief,

    I don't claim to have any solutions - at least I don't claim to have any solutions that are politically possible at the present time. And those two political problems are interrelated to a lot of other big problems in this country. I don't see fundamental changes happening absent a crisis - something I think is inevitable given that current trends are clearly unsustainable.

    You're right, the states are even worse and the crisis will hit there first. I been following what's going on in Illinois thanks to Dave Schuler's blog and it's really bad. Spending is $26 billion a year and revenue is currently only $13 billion a year. 1/2 the state budget is pensions and health care for public employees (IOW an amount roughly equal to revenue). The former is written into the state constitution, making it neigh impossible for the legislature to reduce costs there even if it were inclined to. There's no conceivable way the state can double revenues. Health care and pension costs are expected to increase by 8-10% a year - 4-5 times the economy in general. It's going to get ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Chief,

    I don't claim to have any solutions - at least I don't claim to have any solutions that are politically possible at the present time. And those two political problems are interrelated to a lot of other big problems in this country. I don't see fundamental changes happening absent a crisis - something I think is inevitable given that current trends are clearly unsustainable.

    You're right, the states are even worse and the crisis will hit there first. I been following what's going on in Illinois thanks to Dave Schuler's blog and it's really bad. Spending is $26 billion a year and revenue is currently only $13 billion a year. 1/2 the state budget is pensions and health care for public employees (IOW an amount roughly equal to revenue). The former is written into the state constitution, making it neigh impossible for the legislature to reduce costs there even if it were inclined to. There's no conceivable way the state can double revenues. Health care and pension costs are expected to increase by 8-10% a year - 4-5 times the economy in general. It's going to get ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  74. This f'ing comment form is pissing me off.

    Chief,

    I don't claim to have any solutions - at least I don't claim to have any solutions that are politically possible at the present time. And those two political problems are interrelated to a lot of other big problems in this country. I don't see fundamental changes happening absent a crisis - something I think is inevitable given that current trends are clearly unsustainable.

    You're right, the states are even worse and the crisis will hit there first. I been following what's going on in Illinois thanks to Dave Schuler's blog and it's really bad. Spending is $26 billion a year and revenue is currently only $13 billion a year. 1/2 the state budget is pensions and health care for public employees (IOW an amount roughly equal to revenue). The former is written into the state constitution, making it neigh impossible for the legislature to reduce costs there even if it were inclined to. There's no conceivable way the state can double revenues. Health care and pension costs are expected to increase by 8-10% a year - 4-5 times the economy in general. It's going to get ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  75. This f'ing comment form is pissing me off.

    Chief,

    I don't claim to have any solutions - at least I don't claim to have any solutions that are politically possible at the present time. And those two political problems are interrelated to a lot of other big problems in this country. I don't see fundamental changes happening absent a crisis - something I think is inevitable given that current trends are clearly unsustainable.

    You're right, the states are even worse and the crisis will hit there first. I been following what's going on in Illinois thanks to Dave Schuler's blog and it's really bad. Spending is $26 billion a year and revenue is currently only $13 billion a year. 1/2 the state budget is pensions and health care for public employees (IOW an amount roughly equal to revenue). The former is written into the state constitution, making it neigh impossible for the legislature to reduce costs there even if it were inclined to. There's no conceivable way the state can double revenues. Health care and pension costs are expected to increase by 8-10% a year - 4-5 times the economy in general. It's going to get ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Comments aren't working. Chief, your suggestions don't work for me. I put the comment in, post it, the page reloads - the comment shows up as if it's been posted. There's a note at the bottom that says, "Your comment has been posted." The comment form itself is now blank, anticipating another comment. I reload the page and the comment vanishes.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Anything longer than a couple of sentences gets sucked down the memory hole.

    ReplyDelete
  78. No problem with comments here.

    I was re-reading one of Martin Luther King's speeches for a class this evening and came across this . . .

    "I am convinced that for practical as well as moral reasons, nonviolence offers the only road to freedom for my people. In violent warfare, one must be prepared to face ruthlessly the fact that there will be casualties by the thousands. In Vietnam, the United States has evidently decided that it is willing to slaughter millions, sacrifice some two hundred thousand men and twenty billion dollars a year to secure the freedom of some fourteen million Vietnamese. This is to fight a war on Asian soil, where Asians are in the majority. Anyone leading a violent conflict must be willing to make a similar assessment regarding the possible casualties to a minority population confronting a well-armed, wealthy majority with a fanatical right wing that is capable of exterminating the entire black population and which would not hesitate such an attempt if the survival of the white Western materialism were at stake."

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1426

    Bottom of the first page printed out. I had marked that last part of the passage, but rereading it today kinda took my breath away . . . comments?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Chief: "...left and right "whackadoodles..."

    I believe the left is "whackadoodle" and the right is "whackadeedle".

    At least, that's the way I'd prefer it. ;)

    seydlitz, referring way back above to my comment about the difference in thought between those who experience the receiving end of violence and those who have no such experience, or those who do the dealing out of violence, can be quite enormous.

    But the point of the Vietnam expedition, in my view, was more political than anything else including racial concerns.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  80. Comments seem to work for me. I'm posting this, assuming ya'll will see it. If you don't see it, you won't know about my post. I will, and I'll try something else.

    But I don't think I'll need to. Those of you having problems, check your browser and/or ISP. Hint: Double-post, as FDChief as suggested. Also, I sometimes get a message to the effect that my text exceeded limits. I ignore it, and somehow the post appears. I don't pretend to understand this stuff.

    Good discussion, BTW.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Guys, have mercy! Here I am, a busy working stiff and you're flooding me with cool must-read references, great ideas that need to be thought about, wonderful insider humor that needs to be shared the right people... I just don't have enough hours in the day!

    Then, to make matters just that little bit worse, every time I finally come up with a comment worth sharing: You've already made the comment with better phrasing than I would have used. I'm beside myself with joy and envy. (Yes, the cloning experiment was a success)

    Keep up the good work and I'll catch up with you... eventually... maybe... sniff... ;-)

    On a slightly more technical note, I've had off and on problems with posting comments here since the blog started. The things that I've noted are:
    1) This site works better with Internet Explorer than with Firefox (my preferred browser). So if at first you don't succeed, try it the Microsoft way.
    2) I always copy my text before posting just in case the site eats my post. That way I can try posting multiple times and play with settings if something doesn't work right the first time.
    3) There are times when I just can't post no matter what I try. Very frustrating but rare.
    4) It's been working great for me for the last 3-4 months and I hope it keeps working great.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Andy: Well, damn. I normally browse thru Firefox and it often forces me to jump through the hoops I listed, but it doesn't actually eat the comments. At this point I'm at a bit of a standstill for ideas.

    One thing that might help is changing the comment format. Let me look at the settings and see if I can do something there that will help.

    Pluto's idea re: writing the comment in Word first is a good one. Like seydlitz, I offer my e-mail as an alternative route for commentors: jlawes@comcast.net. I will then post them under your name.

    Pluto: You got there first on the Tunisia comment, so you're at lease even with me, anyway.

    basil: I think one thing that makes for a real chasm of understanding, first between us and people in Africa, Asia and Europe, and second between ourselves, is the lack of first- or second-hand experience with real kinetic violence. Most Africans and Asians have been in or near real fighting in their own lives. Most Europeans have, or have parents or grandparents who did. Almost everyone on earth outside North America lives in places that were fought over in living memory. We are truly unique in that respect.

    This kept coming up in a discussion of the Tucson shooting I was involved in over at "ginandtacos". Several of the commentors kept bringing up the "Red Dawn" justification for keeping and bearing arms, without ever considering that 1) guerrilla resistance operations almost never succeed against a ruthless totalitarian occupier (without external support) and any Miliusian U.S.-occupier would most certainly be both totalitarian and ruthless, and 2) the experience of the Western populations under Nazi occupation suggest that an overwhelming majority of the populace will collaborate, even to the point of helping hunt down the Wolverines.

    I suspect that this sort of resistance-fantasy life has a LOT to do with never having had an actual occupation and actual warfighting experience. And I think that colors a lot of our political rhetoric.

    One facet of American politics many writers noted prior to the Civil War (which was preceded by nearly 80 years of general peace) and in Europe prior to WW1 (almost a century) was that rhetoric tended to be quite warlike. It wasn't until after the actual wars that the regions fought over had a decade or so of respite from all that verbal ferocity. Perhaps that is contributing to the fury of our discourse.

    But, as I said earlier, I think that we need to consider verbal nastiness a feature, not a bug, of American political discourse...

    ReplyDelete
  83. FDChief: I think one thing that makes for a real chasm of understanding, first between us and people in Africa, Asia and Europe, and second between ourselves, is the lack of first- or second-hand experience with real kinetic violence.

    I have posted this very notion several times in the past. For most Americans, violence is an "away game", a vicarious experience, a Nintendo or XBox game, almost romanticized.

    I live with people who experienced the Nazi occupation. Where the local German garrison commander was ordered to select and execute 150 Parian civilians in retribution for 15 German soldiers killed by partisans. Whose homes were taken over to be used as barracks. You know, the stuff that Americans see in movies. And, of course, there were numerous other invasions and occupiers over the 5,000 plus year history of our island.

    Americans broke out in assholes and tried to shit themselves to death after 9/11. My maternal family is from Kobryn, Belarus. In 18 short months in 1943-4, the Nazis dutifully recorded their meticulous extermination of over 99% of the 9,000 plus Jews of Kobryn, including each and every one of my blood relative. Each one, a number carefully and proudly recorded by the executioners in an official journal.

    My fellow Americans know nothing of violence upon themselves. No wonder we glorify it.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Al-

    Very well put. The horrors of that time still haunt Europe.

    In Portugal, it's the colonial wars that people remember since it was not only the soldiers they sent to Africa to fight, but the return of all the Portuguese colonists who felt the need to leave everything in Africa behind.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Postscript added. My conclusions based on Rauschning's view with a bit from Hannah Arendt.

    Thanks to all who commented. I thought there were excellent points made.

    Just wanted to point something out from above, specifically the Martin Luther King quote I posted. The paragraph in question ends with this sentence:

    "Anyone leading a violent conflict must be willing to make a similar assessment regarding the possible casualties to a minority population confronting a well-armed, wealthy majority with a fanatical right wing that is capable of exterminating the entire black population and which would not hesitate such an attempt if the survival of the white Western materialism were at stake."

    A couple of things. First, King is talking about the escalation of violence which would occur in a war, here being a violent uprising of certain elements of the US black population. Resorting to violence from a Clausewitzian perspective involves accepting the nature of war, this being the escalation to extremes once the violent interaction has commenced. Should this war take place during a time of a declining economy (which was not the case in 1966 when this was written) and this is the second point, the (white) radical right would be capable of genocide against the US black population in King's view.

    I had marked this particular quote years back the first time I had read it, but the other night, with this blog post in mind and preparing for a class on MLK's concept of non-violent direct action, it gave me a bit of a shudder . . .

    ReplyDelete
  86. Andy and fasteddiez-

    I found some of your missing posts in our spam file under "comments". Don't know how they got there . . . You'll notice they are sprinkled about the thread . . . sorry guys.

    ReplyDelete
  87. A Note to all. We barkeeps are going to have to keep an eye on the "Spam Filter" feature that Google provides. My experience with another forum is that due to spammers getting more creative in methods of defeating spam prevention, some major hosts, such as Google, are tending to trigger more "False positives". I've cleared the Spam Folder by publishing all, to include the many "groans" about failure to publish. I'll try to check there twice a day to catch any unjustly accused material. If a couple of other barkeeps would do the same, that would help. Meanwhile, if a post doesn't, well, post, be patient.

    ReplyDelete
  88. To all,

    Thanks for a great post and discussion. And I am in violent agreement with Al, Chief and seydiltz about the growing historical amnesia in America. Simply put, the fewer and fewer people who actually have experience (in war, in devastated economy, etc) no longer balance the completely unhinged and seditious maniacs tearing up the (corporate-backed) airwaves.

    Is it any wonder then that dudes like Jared shoot the place up?

    And with regards to "hijacking" of the Conservative label by what I consider to be avowed radical, right wing revolutionaries, I'm again in agreement. We must begin describing what is happening before our very eyes and calling the hijackers for what they are. Seditionists.

    Sadly, as the amnesia sets in, I'm afraid we're going to make new and painful historical memories of war, disaster and revolution here in the Home of the Brave.

    RP

    ReplyDelete
  89. Thanks RP.

    When I find myself in agreement with so many thoughtful people. When they agree with my/our perspective as to what is roughly going on, what is happening before our very eyes . . . it's good. It means that one is not alone, or going crazy. That's becoming more and more important I think . . .

    ReplyDelete
  90. Romeo Papa:

    You can't be stricken with amnesia if you hadn't learned the shit in the first place. As to the right wing going all fruitcake and such, that is a mere, happy faced, red, white, blue, teabagging prophylactic draped over the NeoKon dick that is pork swording the US of A into penury, in large part by invading dung heaps for the sake of the Isrealites. This not even mentioning the rapine of the bottom 95% of murricans by Wall Streeters stealing anything not nailed down...with the complicity of Bill Lewinsky, the dauphin, and the not so magical negro

    ReplyDelete
  91. fasteddiez-

    You were right about the "not so magical negro" . . . and you were right about the "two trains" . . .

    I lived in Charlottenburg btw.

    ReplyDelete