Flat-Out Wonkery (Robert Wright & Hendrik Hertzberg)

[Wonderment]

As far as I know, mental health professionals do not use that term in any sort of serious clinical sense. Therefore, it seems exclusively in the domain of casual use.

Another problem with using "crazy" in this context is that it glosses over the fact that much of the Republican extreme right is worse than crazy, or rather they're crazy like a fox.

Trump, Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich have been deliberately appealing to white racists and demeaning Obama as foreign, Muslim, not smart enough to go to a good college, son of a Kenyan tribal lord, an AA baby, blah, blah, blah. Trump has been the most hideous and ridiculous, but only because -- as a great showman -- he's figured out how well his dog whistle works.

They've been doing this since the Rev. Wright and Indonesian madrassa days, and far from abating it's picking up steam heading into 2012.

Ron Paul has also made racially insensitive remarks in the past, but he doesn't run on them, nor do the more mainstream Repubs. like Romney and Pawlenty.

[DenvilleSteve]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Another problem with using "crazy" in this context is that it glosses over the fact that much of the Republican extreme right is worse than crazy, or rather they're crazy like a fox. ...

accepting this premise that a sizeable portion of the republican population is racist, what was Obama trying to accomplish by delaying the release of the LFBC until after the speculation had reached its high point? Was he trying to draw them out, to get them to reveal their true colors to the remainder of the population? That just exacerbates democrat/republican relations even further. A President should be be agitating a mob. Of course, if republicans are not racist, then what Obama did by withholding evidence of his meeting the requirements of the constitution, is relatively innocuous.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve

A President should be be agitating a mob.

We tried that for about six years starting Sep 12 2001 and look where it got us.

[Wonderment]

My hunch is that O didn't release the LFBC previously because he's in denial. Who can blame him? It's discouraging to have to face the ugly facts of widespread persistent racism in the USA. Having to cave in to the Trumps and Gingrichs of this country is a defeat for democracy -- an admission that fringe bigotry is not that fringy after all.

[uncle ebeneezer]

Yup. Adam Serwer summarizes the whole, sad scenario rather well.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

My hunch is that O didn't release the LFBC previously because he's in denial. Who can blame him? It's discouraging to have to face the ugly facts of widespread persistent racism in the USA. Having to cave in to the Trumps and Gingrichs of this country is a defeat for democracy -- an admission that fringe bigotry is not that fringy after all.

I wonder what John McWhorter would say to that.

[popcorn_karate]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

My hunch is that O didn't release the LFBC previously because he's in denial. Who can blame him? It's discouraging to have to face the ugly facts of widespread persistent racism in the USA. Having to cave in to the Trumps and Gingrichs of this country is a defeat for democracy -- an admission that fringe bigotry is not that fringy after all.

I think they hated Bill Clinton as much as Obama. Different targets, different arrows - all the same hate.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate

I think they hated Bill Clinton as much as Obama. Different targets, different arrows - all the same hate.

Lots of similarities, definitely.

[Wonderment]

I think they hated Bill Clinton as much as Obama. Different targets, different arrows - all the same hate.

Clinton was hated with similar intensity but for entirely different reasons.

Clinton was accused of being a liar and a crook, with some basis in fact. Although some of the charges clearly were preposterous (he murdered Vince Foster), other controversies like Whitewater, sexual harassment and lying in court about affairs with other women had some substance.

The claims against Obama are complete confabulation, based purely on bigotry and xenophobia.

[DenvilleSteve]

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate

I think they hated Bill Clinton as much as Obama. Different targets, different arrows - all the same hate.

It is not hate. It is fear. Democrats are intent on bringing more and more immigrants into the country to dilute the voting strength of the natives. Democrats want society to be one giant collective. Democrats fear the free range people, which causes them to press for increasing numbers of laws and restrictions ( afirmative action, union work rules, college speech codes, anti discrimination laws, title IX nonsense in colleges, ... ), which in turn make the freedom minded republican people rightfully fear those that advocate for the nanny state.

[rcocean]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

yay, someone worth listening to! thanks, bob!

added: can we get fallows next, please?

also added: how about patrick smith AND fallows in a double-team?

Yep, I agree. I may disagree with him, but Hertzberg is one of the more thoughtful liberals. I'd like to hear Fallows on China or Coats on the Civil war.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by rcocean

Yep, I agree. I may disagree with him, but Hertzberg is one of the more thoughtful liberals. I'd like to hear Fallows on China or Coats on the Civil war.

+1

[popcorn_karate]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Clinton was hated with similar intensity but for entirely different reasons.

i don't think so. i think the reason for the hate is identical - they are not republicans, and that is something republicans just can't abide.

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Clinton was accused of being a liar and a crook, with some basis in fact. Although some of the charges clearly were preposterous (he murdered Vince Foster), other controversies like Whitewater, sexual harassment and lying in court about affairs with other women had some substance.

The claims against Obama are complete confabulation, based purely on bigotry and xenophobia.

exactly, you use different arrows for different targets. The decision to go on a fact-free jihad is made when the presidency falls into the hands of the enemy (democrats) - then the choice of weapons (verbal arrows) is made on utilitarian grounds about what might be the most effective against that particular incarnation of the enemy.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Agreed. To repeat something I said another time someone held him up as a person worthy of respect:

[...]

He is, and has been ever since he left office in disgrace, just as much of a huckster as The Donald. He pretends to be considering entering races just to get more donations from the mouth-breathers and to pimp his books and other merch. He does not espouse any beliefs except when they are fashionable. His stances on Libya are just the latest example of many. He won't even stand behind things he said less than a year ago.

But what's the latest, Alex Pareene?

Newt Gingrich would rather keep making money than participate in Fox debate

We're mere days from the very first presidential debate of the 2012 campaign. It is sponsored by the South Carolina Republican Party, and it will air, on May 5, on Fox News. And Newt Gingrich can't go!

The first debate was supposed to belong to Politico, but once it became clear that a combination of Sarah Palin-related anxiety, reluctance to disclose financial information, and fat Fox News paychecks was causing every serious and credible 2012 candidate to delay officially entering the race until the last possible moment, Politico decided to postpone it debate until the fall rather than waste a lovely spring day asking Herman Cain questions for an hour.

Fox, though, figured it would be fine. It even kicked some candidates off the payroll in order to coerce them into the race. A few weeks ago, it confirmed that Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum and Buddy Roemer would attend. That's like two and a half semi-credible candidates!

There's a problem, though. Newt Gingrich may not actually qualify to participate. He still hasn't launched an exploratory committee, because he still refuses to disclose any information about his shady finances. (Enriching himself is one of the primary reasons Newt Gingrich constantly pretends to run for president.)

The rest.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

I wonder what John McWhorter would say to that.

Whoa. Ask and ye shall receive and all that, but the turnaround time is a little frightening.

[uncle ebeneezer]

Yeah but judging by the segment titles it looks highly probable that it will be filled with blame-Obama-for-his-opponents-craziness.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

Yeah but judging by the segment titles it looks highly probable that it will be filled with blame-Obama-for-his-opponents-craziness.

Just finished watching. There's a tiny bit of that -- in the "what would you say to the critics who say ..." mode, mostly -- but it's not too bad. I think John McWhorter is a bit in denial, as usual, but it's a thoughtful and good conversation.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

But what's the latest, Alex Pareene?

And then there's this: "Newt and friends blame Obama for inventing, popularizing birtherism."

[Wonderment]

And then there's this: "Newt and friends blame Obama for inventing, popularizing birtherism."

He dresses and dances like an Indonesian; he was just begging for it. Donald's only human, you know.

[Wonderment]

the same, including Sarah (born-to-Tweet) Palin.

[operative]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Another problem with using "crazy" in this context is that it glosses over the fact that much of the Republican extreme right is worse than crazy, or rather they're crazy like a fox.

Trump, Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich have been deliberately appealing to white racists and demeaning Obama as foreign, Muslim, not smart enough to go to a good college, son of a Kenyan tribal lord, an AA baby, blah, blah, blah. Trump has been the most hideous and ridiculous, but only because -- as a great showman -- he's figured out how well his dog whistle works.

They've been doing this since the Rev. Wright and Indonesian madrassa days, and far from abating it's picking up steam heading into 2012.

Ron Paul has also made racially insensitive remarks in the past, but he doesn't run on them, nor do the more mainstream Repubs. like Romney and Pawlenty.

If it was ok to intimate that perhaps George Bush wasn't deserving of graduate school admission (which was fair game), then it's ok to raise the same charge against Obama.

The only thing that we know about Barack Obama's college days was that he smoked marijuana and surrounded himself with the most extreme figures he could find. Which makes him no different than plenty of other privileged Left-coast lefty kids.

[miceelf]

that's not the only thing we know, and you speak as if you had never met someone who attended a coastal college.

[operative]

Originally Posted by miceelf

that's not the only thing we know, and you speak as if you had never met someone who attended a coastal college.

Oh I have. I'm not a fan of coastal colleges. Well, particularly west-coast ones.

[stephanie]

I suppose this topic is now in the McWhorter/Loury thread, but I tend to agree with what you say here, I think, although I'm still thinking it through.

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate

i don't think so. i think the reason for the hate is identical - they are not republicans, and that is something republicans just can't abide.

It felt to me like it started in a new way with Clinton, but maybe not -- maybe that's the limitations of my memory plus simply the time since a Dem had been in office. I wouldn't make it Dem vs. Republican, though -- it's about certain subgroups in the right (and Republicans, of course), I think.

What was so weird to me about the Clinton hate is that Clinton just wasn't all that leftwing, yet it was a freakout presumptively based on that (and in that sense it's related to the Obama reaction too and something with which I directly do disagree with McWhorter, as I should flesh out over there). Instead, it seemed more cultural -- at the time, at least presumptively, the leftover anger from the wars of the '60s/early '70s (Baby Boomer stuff), which struck me as odd but not all that surprising in '92, and clearly would be mostly outdated and ineffective now.

exactly, you use different arrows for different targets. The decision to go on a fact-free jihad is made when the presidency falls into the hands of the enemy (democrats) - then the choice of weapons (verbal arrows) is made on utilitarian grounds about what might be the most effective against that particular incarnation of the enemy.

Something like this. I'd be curious if Ocean has thoughts, as I was thinking of it as a psychological phenomena (not for those stirring up the issues, but those who buy into Vince Foster conspiracies or birtherism or whatever). You HATE someone, are convinced he's unamerican, the devil, whatever, and then find reasons. Whatever those reasons are, you tend to cling to unreasonably, but what form the reasons take are going to depend on both the issues of the day (culture war stuff for Clinton, terrorism/Islam now) and who the enemy is (class/horndog vs. race stuff, although there's always some element of race that plays in attacks on the left, I think, because of the success of that element in US politics generally).

[popcorn_karate]

Originally Posted by stephanie

It felt to me like it started in a new way with Clinton,

I tend to think thats right. But that may be because I wasn't really aware of politics during Carter - particularly at the beginning of his term. And, the same hate mongering right did manage to so tarnish Carter's reputation that he is still largely a joke.

[operative]

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate

I tend to think thats right. But that may be because I wasn't really aware of politics during Carter - particularly at the beginning of his term. And, the same hate mongering right did manage to so tarnish Carter's reputation that he is still largely a joke.

I'd say that his disgraceful post-presidency behavior has a lot more to do with that.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate

But that may be because I wasn't really aware of politics during Carter - particularly at the beginning of his term.

Yeah, same here (my actual memory goes back to Reagan era only), and just looking at it historically, the post-Nixon '70s were a weird period. But I do think there were elements of the same kinds of thing in the far right in earlier periods. I just don't think it was as prominent pre Clinton, and I'm not convinced it was the internet, since the internet wasn't yet such a major force, not until the end of the Clinton era. My memory is that the nuttiness was pushed by TV news/talk radio (maybe FOX and Rush, etc. was one reason for the change), and there was a ton of underground stuff, not sure from what. I recall coming home from college and finding my dad with a brochure about Clinton's crimes that some friend of his had given him and flipping out about whether he thought there was any truth to any of it and how could he hang out with people who would spread such things and so on. (Generational turnabout or something?)

But I think Florian in the other thread is right that something has changed to allow all this to be as mainstream as it seems to be on the right. I think it has to do with the breakdown of any common, accepted channels of information. The right has done a fabulous job at taking popular representations of post-modernism and combining them with traditional anti-establishment (anti-elitism, resentment) attitudes so that there now exists, in a much more mainstream way, an innoculation against any information which might conflict with what one wants to believe. Oh, the truth is unknowable and all information is political, so I will just cherrypick what I want to believe and it's just as good as anything else, and a lot easier, too.

[Wonderment]

What was so weird to me about the Clinton hate is that Clinton just wasn't all that leftwing, yet it was a freakout presumptively based on that (and in that sense it's related to the Obama reaction too and something with which I directly do disagree with McWhorter, as I should flesh out over there). Instead, it seemed more cultural -- at the time, at least presumptively, the leftover anger from the wars of the '60s/early '70s (Baby Boomer stuff), which struck me as odd but not all that surprising in '92, and clearly would be mostly outdated and ineffective now.

Clinton was primarily despised because of the deep divisions in the country over Vietnam. Carter didn't receive the same level of hate because he was a veteran and a devout old-school Christian. Clinton represented hippie, draft-dodging, pot-smoking, free-lovin' cultural revolution. In a sense it was quasi-racial because the hippies were viewed as "white Negroes" or at least as miscegenating, civil-rights-supporting, "N-lovers," "faggots" and subversive peaceniks.

It's probably hard for younger people to fully grasp how deep the hatred from the right ran in those days toward those who represented the cultural revolution.

[miceelf]

Clearly, the bloom is long off of this rose, but Clinton was, at the time, regarded by many African Americans as the first Black president, because of his cultural comfort with African Americans. Not sure this translated into much substantively, but I got the sense that many of his enemies noted this as well.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Something like this. I'd be curious if Ocean has thoughts, as I was thinking of it as a psychological phenomena (not for those stirring up the issues, but those who buy into Vince Foster conspiracies or birtherism or whatever). You HATE someone, are convinced he's unamerican, the devil, whatever, and then find reasons. Whatever those reasons are, you tend to cling to unreasonably, but what form the reasons take are going to depend on both the issues of the day (culture war stuff for Clinton, terrorism/Islam now) and who the enemy is (class/horndog vs. race stuff, although there's always some element of race that plays in attacks on the left, I think, because of the success of that element in US politics generally).

Stephanie,

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Perhaps you can find something in my reply to Diane in the other thread. Although it seems that you're more interested in knowing how it works for the base that is receptive to this kind of strategy.

I think it starts by having Republicans dislike the president just because he's a Democrat. Then you start to add other ingredients: he's liberal, he's black, he's for AA, he's community organizer, he's elite, etc, etc. So, what is it that people dislike about all those things? They dislike the stereotypes attached to those attributes. "Liberals will raise taxes." "Black people aren't intelligent enough, or responsible enough, or hard working, or prepared for leadership, etc" "He's against white people." "He's a communist who will take away our rights and freedoms". "Elites are dismissive of people with less education." I think you get the picture. Their worst fears have become true!

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Perhaps you can find something in my reply to Diane in the other thread. Although it seems that you're more interested in knowing how it works for the base that is receptive to this kind of strategy.

Right. I think I get what's up with those who cynically stir up these things. I'm wondering more about the phenomenon of the hatred itself. It seems to me that the hatred somewhat preexists the reasons, and then reasons are found. The Clinton hatred and Obama hatred is basically the same, but different reasons are found, because they are different people and the prejudices they fit are somewhat different (though there are relationships, as others have pointed out).

It reminds me a bit of Iago, who just hates Othello, yet seems to be trying to explain the feeling to everyone, even himself, throughout the play, and basically never giving a reason that sounds like the real one. (FTR, yes, I'm aware of the various theories here.)

Hmm, I guess what I'm getting at is that it's kind of visceral -- not based on the kind of rational disagreement on issues that, I dunno, Rob and I might have, but a sense of people like me and people opposed to people like me (or to whom people like me are opposed to). Because so much of politics is about painting the political opponent as the other (as a threat, not a fellow American with different ideas), then the reaction is much more tribal or whatever, and then kind of rationalized and made more defensibly political. So I think it's the segment of the right that approach this as a culture war that tend to feel it, less a real ideological difference and expected reaction to that, as McWhorter seemed to be putting it. I don't know, maybe this isn't worth speculating or wondering about.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Right. I think I get what's up with those who cynically stir up these things. I'm wondering more about the phenomenon of the hatred itself. It seems to me that the hatred somewhat preexists the reasons, and then reasons are found. The Clinton hatred and Obama hatred is basically the same, but different reasons are found, because they are different people and the prejudices they fit are somewhat different (though there are relationships, as others have pointed out).

It reminds me a bit of Iago, who just hates Othello, yet seems to be trying to explain the feeling to everyone, even himself, throughout the play, and basically never giving a reason that sounds like the real one. (FTR, yes, I'm aware of the various theories here.)

Hmm, I guess what I'm getting at is that it's kind of visceral -- not based on the kind of rational disagreement on issues that, I dunno, Rob and I might have, but a sense of people like me and people opposed to people like me (or to whom people like me are opposed to). Because so much of politics is about painting the political opponent as the other (as a threat, not a fellow American with different ideas), then the reaction is much more tribal or whatever, and then kind of rationalized and made more defensibly political. So I think it's the segment of the right that approach this as a culture war that tend to feel it, less a real ideological difference and expected reaction to that, as McWhorter seemed to be putting it. I don't know, maybe this isn't worth speculating or wondering about.

Perhaps you're trying to articulate something slightly different. Most of our hatreds and fears are established early on in life. The intensity of the feeling and perhaps the overall target of our negative emotions are set early. Later on there are external circumstances that can tap on those emotions. The more closely related to the original ones, the more likely that the response will be intense.

In this respect I wouldn't put it in terms of right/left or other political or group divisions. It's a universal response. However, there are certain political, philosophical, moral or even religious principles that can work towards modifying those responses or towards maintaining or even enhancing them. Groups that predicate tolerance will tend to buffer those negative responses, while groups that stimulate tribalism will enhance them.

I keep going to the external influences because the dynamic is very dependent on that external stimulation of prejudice. At the individual level there are mostly potentialities and latent fears/hatred. If the same group of individuals who is today in outrage about one thing was to be presented by the people they trust, with strong arguments to the contrary, they would most likely change. It's the nature of public opinion.

[handle]

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve

It is not hate. It is fear. Democrats are intent on bringing more and more immigrants into the country to dilute the voting strength of the natives. Democrats want society to be one giant collective. Democrats fear the free range people, which causes them to press for increasing numbers of laws and restrictions ( afirmative action, union work rules, college speech codes, anti discrimination laws, title IX nonsense in colleges, ... ), which in turn make the freedom minded republican people rightfully fear those that advocate for the nanny state.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by handle

I think Steve needs a nanny.

[graz]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

I think Steve needs a nanny.

And some Thorazine.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

I think Steve needs a nanny.

Just make sure that nanny isn't, you know, the wrong ... type, since a lot of those nannies tend to be too ... Un Native

[handle]

Originally Posted by graz

And some Thorazine.

Ha! Izat a democrat drug?

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

Just make sure that nanny isn't, you know, the wrong ... type, since a lot of those nannies tend to be too ... Un Native

And free range people don't like to be placed in a pen.

[eeeeeeeli]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

You should go back and listen, and read some of Rick's posts, because you clearly don't understand the core principle. The whole point of the NPV is to remove the winner-take-all aspect regarding individual states and their electoral votes. In a state with a large population, be it California or Texas, the 45 or so percent of people whose votes pretty much never matter in a presidential election under our current system suddenly matter a great deal. Pretending for a moment that those in rural areas are all the conservative Republicans you imagine them to be, they get representation by virtue of, for example, aligning themselves with the rightward-leaning voters of California and New York.

Also, we still have the congress.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Ocean

And free range people don't like to be placed in a pen.

based on previous posts by our denvillish colleague "free range" doesn't equal "cruelty free" In either case they will end up being more expensive in the supermarket unless the FDA gets out of the way and allows producers of "free range" americans to label their product ... freely