14
My Pet Cause Is More Important Than Yours
This post is very serious! Very serious indeed, for I am a serious blogger whose author-i-TIE you must respect. But more than that, you must respect my special cause, my job, my single special interest, my idee fixe. “That’s my job/that’s what I do,” twanged the minstrel yokel. Well, my job is the most important. EVAR. Acknowledge, bitchez! Anything less is worse than wrong; it’s unserious!
[Bradrocket adds: HTML, don't be too worried about Charles Pierce's disagreement. He surely does kick royal amounts of behind (and he has an even bigger Brady man-crush than I do), but you're very much in the right on this. Of all the colors in the current wingnut rainbow (which consists of leisure-suit green, Deuce-Coupe yellow, and the orange of the '70s Astros uniforms) Paul is by far the least offensive. A Preznit Rudy is basically the worst nightmare scenario. Preznit Mitt would be bad, but he's enough of an opportunist that I don't think he means all the crazy crap he says (and yes, it's sad that I now consider crass opportunism to be a check-mark in a GOP candidate's favor). OK, I'll shaddup now and let you get back to work...]
The Times quotes Norman Mailer putting it far less retardedly — actually, Mailer here is wonderfully, lovably candid (a pleasing break from his default position of lovable obnoxiousness) — one of those advertisements for himself that actually went over well:
“I think the novel is on the way out,” he said. “I also believe, because it’s natural to take one’s own occupation more seriously than others, that the world may be the less for that.”
This hits on all cylinders: He’s right that the diminished importance of the novel is a cultural loss; he’s right to say he takes that fact more seriously than others; he’s right to say it’s natural that a writer does so.
My point is: Would that some political bloggers acknowledged their own — myopia is far too strong a word; how about natural (pace Mailer) or unnatural (and you can figure out which is which and who is whom) — over-investment in x issue, and that the recognition inspired a new sense of caution.
Above: The archetypical monomaniac:
On any given subject, only considers its
connection to a pale cetacean.
The crude reduction, in several obituaries, of Mailer as a mere misogynist is neither rightwing nor leftwing but simply a logical symptom of over-investment, of one’s pet cause (or pet tool — Althouse, crusader against Valenti’s boobs, is most insincere in her feminism) overriding one’s judgment. Likewise, the smears of Ron Paul as a David Duke fellow-traveler and inspiration to Timothy McVeighs everywhere is the logical symptom of an over-investment in anti-racism. While racism and misogyny are important things to combat — indeed opposition to such things is rightly a default position among progressives but is only mouthed and used cynically by wingnuts — neither, respectively, should they be assumed as the underlying cause of… well, everything bad.
The progressive stake in Ron Paul’s success is a simple: We don’t want any Republican to win, but everyone benefits from a rightwing that is less warmongering. A historical analogy that illustrates the strategy I’m talking about would be when, in 1940, Wendell Willkie secured the Republican nomination for President. Wilkie eventually came to a pro-war position, thus giving his opponent, FDR, breathing room to prosecute a war actually worth fighting. A strong Paul showing, on the flip-side of the same coin, would free our Dem candidates to speak with less, shall we say, imperialism (though I doubt Hillary would whatever her opportunities to do so; hence the wingnuts’ preference for her if a Dem must be elected; or, maybe I’m just a misogynist; yes, surely that is it!!!).
…which brings me back to my initial point OF. MAXIMUM. SERIOUSNESS. We all have our obsessions, our bugbears, our pet causes. And we should be careful not to assume that they always pertain to whatever question’s at hand. Doubly, we ought to avoid over-specialization, over-investment, and above all avoid the tendency to make a Unified Field Theory (incorporating our obsession to the point of ludicrous aggrandizement) and apply it to everything monomaniacally. And yet, and yet… some obsessions — okay, one current obsession — is more equal than others, is a political and moral trump card: Stopping the war. As Atrios has mentioned quite a bit lately with sarcastic understatement, people forget that war is a bad thing. But it’s not just a bad thing; unjust, immoral wars are the worst thing a country could ever do short of a Holocaust. Garden variety American racism makes people miserable and gets people killed, as does sexism, homophobia, etc. But evil wars get people murdered en masse — brown people, I might add. Plus it degrades America, breaks her treasury, and the conditions war exerts on domestic politics as a rule enables rightwing policy: there is a relationship between not just the war and, say, domestic spying, but also between the war and cultural issues like racism, sexism, etc. War is the fuel that the engine of wingnuttery guzzles. Wingnuts understand this; why do you think they are willing to concede (if push becomes hard electoral shove) on every single issue but that?
Ron Paul is anti-war. Otherwise, he’s of course a wingnut. We’re not gonna vote for him anyway; but we should hope wingnuts do. Therefore it’s strategically dunderheaded and morally irresponsible (given the importance of the war) to allege that Paul is at best equivalent — or more likely, worse than — the other Republican candidates. Ron Paul can hurt the other wingnuts, especially the worst wingnut of all, Rudolph Giuliani. This is why neocon hacks like David Frum and Rich Lowry constantly and vehemently attack Paul; it’s also why the clay-eating cretins of Redstate.com — composed of racists, sexists, religious nuts, militia sympathizers, etc; basically a clusterfuck of Freepers who’ve learned how to spell — have banned Paul supporters from the site.
Finally, to put the fixation of racism (to the detriment of all other issues, especially the war) in its place: all wingnuts are more or less equally racist, some just use better code than others. Or, put another way, troglodyte racists are a significant part of the wingnut base and all candidates must appeal to that base to get its vote. What I’m getting at here is the apparent belief of some liberals that Rudolph Giuliani’s potential administration, neocon that it would be, and whose support comes from the ‘burbs and cities and from the “conservative intelligensia” [sic], would be in practice any less racist, sexist, cruel, homophobic, etc than Ron Paul’s. It is to larf. Giuliani had to appear tolerant (for a wingnut) to get elected in NYC. And like Mitt Romney, another con man from a Blue State, he’s “sincerely” flip-flopping to get elected to the Presidency. Consider the depravity of Giuliani’s advisors. Racism? Demented Daniel Pipes thinks internment isn’t such a bad policy. Homophobia? Norman Podhoretz counts homosexuality as the root of all evils. Fiscal batshittery? A ‘fuck the poor’ stance of cartoonish supervillainy? David Frum, who wants to repeal the social contract to the Donner Party level, is far more libertarian in the concentrated-evil, social darwinist sense than Ron Paul on his worst day.
Unlike Paul, a President Giuliani will incinerate thousands of people in Iraq, Iran, and probably Syria, too. Somewhere, there is an Arab or Persian Daisy, in whose future a clusterbomb looms if a wingnut not named Paul wins the Presidency. Therefore, the more wingnuts — the existence of whom you can’t wish away — are steered toward Paul and away from the warmongering pack of idiots who compose the balance of the Republican candidates, the better for everyone here and abroad. I’m not gonna vote for Paul, but then I’m not a wingnut. However, the point is that wingnuts do vote, and we have an interest in which candidate they vote for. Paul is the best choice, and if you well-intentioned liberals can’t see past your favorite domestic issue to grasp this truth, you probably need to reassess your hierarchy of values. Yes, my pet issue is more important than yours! Neener neener!
Charles Pierce said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:16
Public schools are a “favorite domestic issue”?
C’mon, gang.
Patkin said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:18
He’s still a gigantic prick though.
the_millionaire_lebowski said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:20
Retardo, WTF mate? What gives with all the commas? I like the article, but really, getting to the point took too long and too much effort.
Shorter: “Get your wingnut friends to support Paul.”
glorified jughound said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:21
So you’re saying we should all put on fake beards and sunglasses and go register as Republicans?
Arky Horse Whipper of Cthulu said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:22
So. If I’m not going to vote for him, you’re not going to vote for him and we think he doesn’t have a shot of winning, what’s to stop me from calling him a sexist, racist, homophobic shit?
As a general matter, I have to say I find your faith in the fact that Paul really would keep his word and pull the troops out of Iraq and leave the rest of the ME alone rather … sweet.
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:25
Sorry, Lebowski, but I just had to incorporate all the stuff that’s annoyed me the last few days. It’s like being constipated your know? I took a relieving rant, feel much lighter, now it’s time to spray the potpourri and air out the bathroom (don’t go in there!).
Gah my first Charles Pierce comment, and it’s in disagreement! Come back, man! I love your work! You’re the only TAPped writer worth a damn! I take the post back! Ron Paul is teh 5uxx0r!!!
InsaneInTheCheneyBrain said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:27
BUT WITHOUT TANCREDO IT’LL BE TOO LATE!
atheist said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:28
OK, but what if we are genuinely concerned that Paul, in the unlikely event that he were elected, would follow through on his heretofore coded suggestions on domestic policy, and would truly do his best to eradicate public education, the EPA, the ability of the state to prosecute hate crimes, and the ability of workers to unionize? And, in addition, attempted to put the US economy back on a ‘gold standard’, however that would supposedly work in 2008? These actions strike me as potentially damaging, to more than a couple of pet progressive causes, but rather to society, as a whole.
the_millionaire_lebowski said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:30
Fair enough. I’m not always coherent or logical when I write about something I care a lot about either. In fact I’ve found that the issues that I care the most about are the ones I have the hardest time writing (or talking, heh) clearly about.
And for anyone who didn’t read the post; my shorter doesn’t include a lot of other points from the post.
zsa said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:33
Shit.
I had the greatest comment ever and I hit the fucken back key … fucken thinkpads …
I forget how I actually got to the conclusion, but it was pretty clear that by 2010 all men in the US will have to undergo surgery to have a “mangina”.
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:34
I’m not always coherent or logical when I write about something I care a lot about either.
Ehhh. These are the barbs that truly sting.
rageahol said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:35
please read david neiwert’s response to glenn greenwald’s assertion of a smear.
i, personally, think that greenwald, though normally excellent, really is in the wrong on this one. i trust neiwert’s judgement on dogwhistle terms of the loon militia racist right wing. greenwald doesnt really have that expertise.
thelogos said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:42
I think I understand the kerfluffle here.
Ru Ron Paul is a nutbar. A nutbar who wants to roll back all the progressive gains that many have fought and died for.
But he opposes the war, so that makes him a viable candidate, one we can tell our wingnut associates that would be the most preferable candidate for the wingnuts to put forth.
Nevermind all the shit he supports. Nevermind that Gilead would be more likely under him (under the guise of a benevolent corporada), He’s against the war!
To paraphrase someone: “What good would it be to end the war, if we lose our soul?”
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:45
But they *all* are nutbars!
The point is that Paul is the least nutbar of them.
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:47
These actions strike me as potentially damaging, to more than a couple of pet progressive causes, but rather to society, as a whole.
Sure they would be, yet except for the Gold Standard thing, all wingnut candidates are more or less for the same, but the rest also want to continue and enlarge the war.
Simba B said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:49
I don’t know, Retardo, in some cases he’s waaay more out there than any “serious” presidential candidate in a loooong time.
Paul is kinda scary because while the mainstream wingnuts just play to their batshit militia base, I think Paul actually believes some of his shit.
tde said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:50
Thanks for the great post.
Duros62 said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:55
It’s like being constipated your know? I took a relieving rant, feel much lighter, now it’s time to spray the potpourri and air out the bathroom (don’t go in there!).
Well, sure, all those commas can block up your colon something fierce.
Not to mention your semi-colon.
RodeoBob said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:55
Look, it’s neither dunderheaded (”verbing weirds language!”) nor morally irresponsible to state that being burned alive is at best equivalent -or more likely worse than- being drowned alive. ‘Suck’ comes in many flavors and colors, and it’s quite possible to recognize a quantitative difference without making a qualitative judgement.
No. They banned the Paul supporters for the same reason that you & I slam the door on Jehova’s Witnesses and encylopedia salesmen: they’re fucking annoying. RP supports descend on websites critical of RP like a plauge of Randriod locusts, steadfast and determined to overlook or generously mis-interpret any possible failing of their saviour. If Guiliani backers are the Roman Catholics in this analogy, and Fred Thompson’s boosters are the Episcopaleans, then Ron Paul supporters are either the Fred Phelps bunch or the Hari Krishnas at the airport.
Speaking in code is one thing. Showing up in your official role as an elected official of the people to a social event being hosted by bigots, that’s a different flavor of shit sandwich. Appealing to the base != lending credibility and support. What Tancredo does for the Minutemen, RP has done for Stormfront.
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:57
Well, my model is Tick-Tack Trevino… Look out, I and my semi-colon will stalk you!
thelogos said,
November 14, 2007 at 0:59
However, there is a refreshing honesty in Ru Paul in that we know he’s fucking cobag and he doesn’t hide it.
povertyrich said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:00
You know what would stop Ron Paul from instituting a crazy-ass wingnut domestic policy? The Congress. You know, the body that’s supposed to forge policy for the President to execute.
Lots of open seats and lots of vulnerable Republicans are likely to fall to young, actually progressive Democrats in 2008
I will probably refrain from casting a vote in the Presidential election in 2008. There’s not a joker in the deck of likely candidates from either party I can vote for in good conscience. So, to paraphrase Mikey from Recess, I will excercise my socially frowned-upon, but politically valid choice to not vote for President. I’ll just leave that part of my ballot blank. Or write in Eddie Spaghetti.
We really should hit the mute button on this current Presidential Campaign Circus and turn up the volume on C-SPAN. Congress is where it’s at.
Article I, bitches!
noen said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:03
Great post HTML Mencken. I got tons of respect for you.
Giuliani would be orders of magnitude worse than Ron Paul. Think of it this way. Prince the CEO of Blackwater is a rabid fascist and Dominionist who heavily supports the Bush junta. But he has also given money to progressive third party campaigns. Why do you suppose he does that? To split the vote of course, and it works all to well.
Here in Minnesota the Independent Party split the vote in the last election and as a result we still have Pawlenty as governor. It doesn’t matter that in my opinion they had better ideas and a better candidate in Peter Hutchinson. He didn’t win, he didn’t even come close, Pawlenty did, end of story.
It would be nice if our political system were set up differently, but it isn’t. That is simply a fact that we have to deal with. Liberal third parties hurt the Dems, conservative third parties hurt the GOP.
If I had millions to spend I would be giving at least some of it to Ron Paul, not because I think he would be a great prez but because I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he would drain conservative votes away from the GOP and therefore help whatever candidates I really wanted to be elected.
Even if by some miracle Ron Paul were to get elected he could do little damage. Again our experience in Minn helps to see what would happen. We had a third party Gov in Jessie Ventura and I actually think he did a good job. His last term was a disaster though and the reason is that he didn’t have a party to back him up. It was just him as gov and a few scattered independents in the legislature. The R’s and D’s made sure that there was little he could get done. Because without a real political machine behind you you don’t have real power. You cannot get legislation you want passed and you cannot stop what you don’t want.
That is what would happen if any third party candidate were elected, no matter who it is. He or she would quickly find it impossible to get anything they wanted done. I think this is absolutly true for Nader and probably also true for Kucinich. He would have very little support and as a result nothing he wanted would get passed.
These are political realities and you have to work within them if you want to be effective. Purity on the left or the right looses elections every time. That said, I think that over time we can take our country back. We can move the electorate back towards more liberal ideas and within that framework a real progressive could work wonders. That will take time. It will not happen today.
Gundamhead said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:04
Anybody but Giuliani. I still can’t believe that guy is a viable presidential candidate. I actually heard someone say they would vote for that mummy because of how “socially liberal” he was. God, you the idea that that perverted, warmongering fascist freak (endorsed by Pat Robertson for fucks sake!) could actually become the leader of this country is terrifying. Just because he doesn’t have any specific hatred for abortions doesn’t make him a liberal. The same could be said about Saddam Hussein for chrissakes!
I may not like “Paleo-Conservatives” or Libertarians, but at least I know that if someone like Paul gets elected he isn’t likely to kill a few million people and systematically destroy our country for the sake of some crack pot world domination scheme.
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:04
They banned the Paul supporters for the same reason that you & I slam the door on Jehova’s Witnesses and encylopedia salesmen: they’re fucking annoying.
You slam the door on Jehova’s Witnesses [sic] and encyclopedia salesmen? How rude!
Seriously, I don’t by your defense of RedState. Yes, Paul supporters are annoying. But that doesn’t account for the venom of so many wingnuts against them — not for the RedState trash, and not for the “elite” pundits. A for instance of the latter, when during the first debate Paul described the concept of blowback (in a very tame and reasonable Chalmers Johnson sort of way), David Frum smeared him as an anti-Semite and at abotu that time is when the old old dirt was dredged in the form of an anti-Semitic pamphlet from a Paul supporter.
thelogos said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:04
I guess I’m trying to say that I’m mixed about Ron Paul, in some way.
I’m convinced that Teh Village has all but declared Hilary to be the next Dem candidate, and if Ron is the Republican offering…it would be like the ultimate moral dilemma:
Do you kill 3k people to save a city?
Do you vote for war in Iran and Iraq over no war but the rolling back of American society, one which could many more generations to correct than come to grips with Iraq/Iran?
Herr Doktor Bimler said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:06
What is this ‘tancredo’ whereof you speak? Is it some new punctuation mark, to use after a surfeit of semi-colons?
I imagine it as a hybrid of a virgule, a tilde and an em-dash. “He broke up the paragraph with so many tancredos that looking at the page made me sea-sick.”
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:07
Blarg, and here I am trying to parry with a sic your barb about *my* issues with style (that “verbing weirds language” remark stung), and I end up writing a comment filled with typos.
I suck.
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:10
Right on. Brilliant as usual, HTML.
Most of the righties I know have at least a decent education, and even some personal exposure to teh Gay, as just one example, which they mostly are pretty sure, given their personal experience, isn’t contagious.
So, I torment them all the time by saying, “Paul’s your guy. C’mon, you hate BushCo’s policies as much as I do, give him a look.”
It’s lots of fun. I’ve even sworn to them that if HRC is Paul’s opponent in the general, I’ll vote for Paul. Not because I agree with him, or don’t think he’s a wingnut, but because he seems sort of vaguely familiar with the Constitution, which is the direction I think this country needs to go, regardless of who turns us that way.
Also because Paul will lose. I get a lot of, “But you know Paul doesn’t have a chance!”
Not if enough of you support him.. After all, you’re “the majority,” right? You represent “mainstream America, right?
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:10
Anyway, anyone who doesn’t think that there are racists and bigots among the supporters of the other wingnuts that are equal to — or worse — those among Paul’s, has my sympathy. Or maybe some people are unaware of Pat Robertson’s flaming anti-Semitism, or Bob Jones’s racism, or whatever.
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:12
Oh, my vow to vote for him is also grounded in my core belief that even if it happened, the GOP/Dem Congress wouldn’t let too many of his nuttier ideas through.
Beware The Man. The Man is rich and happy.
rageahol said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:22
if the choice is genuinely between ending an ill-fated war of choice, and rolling back a century’s worth of civil rights and progressive victories, then im not going to bother choosing. i’m just going to move to canada.
honky.
Rachel said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:29
Yep. I am a raging dyed-in-the-wool feminist, and I fully intend to vote for Ron Paul in the primary.* Him being the Repub candidate (or, please please god, breaking off and making an independent run) is the best we can hope for.
*I have been registered Republican out of a deep and abiding paranoia for two years now. On the other hand, i’m not on a no fly list yet.
mikey said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:29
Sorry. HTML, Greenwald and I are right on this one, folks. There is much to be admired about Ron Paul’s positions, as there is much to be disgusted by. Hmm, that almost sounds like something you could say about Hillary. Ron Paul is a Republican wingnut who believes that ALL governmental decision-making, all legislation and all government actions be guided strictly by the constitution. I have always been attracted to this position, and with the wingnuts now engaged in a contest to see who can most thoroughly shred the constitution the fastest, this is a specific behavior I’d like to see come back in favor on BOTH sides of the aisle.
I don’t want him to be my president. I won’t vote for him. But I think that if Ron Paul has a certain amount of success in this campaign, it will move the national dialog in a direction I want to see it go.
As opposed to the insane, suicidal, non-sustainable direction it is moving now…
mikey
Stinky Wizzleteats said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:38
OK, but what if we are genuinely concerned that Paul, in the unlikely event that he were elected, would follow through on his heretofore coded suggestions on domestic policy, and would truly do his best to eradicate public education, the EPA, the ability of the state to prosecute hate crimes, and the ability of workers to unionize? And, in addition, attempted to put the US economy back on a ‘gold standard’, however that would supposedly work in 2008?
Here’s the difference I see there: Paul is bat fuck insane in completely ineffectual ways that don’t have broad political support (relatively speaking), while the racism, sexism, homophobia, torture fetish, and murderous impulses of the mainstream Republican candidates have a frightening amount of support. In the completely silly hypothetical that he somehow ended up in the White House, he wouldn’t have half of Congress working to help him push this agenda through, and in fact the Republicans would probably be too bitter about the torture and war buzzkills to work with him on common causes (white supremacy, xenophobia, misogyny, etc.). If you want to talk tactics, try to get him to win the Republican primary (yeah, right), then make him radioactive by pointing out his connections to neo-Nazi and armed rebellion movements.
HTML, you make some good points about relative ape shit craziness. It’s a lot like how Scientologists get a lot of shit for their stupidity (deservedly so), but the snake-handling “9/11 is God’s divine wrath on America” contingent get a free pass (completely undeserved). I think it’s pretty self-evident that Paul is completely crazy and an utterly contemptible individual, but certainly no more so that Giuliani, Tancredo, or Thompson. And more to the point, his craziness isn’t the super-popular kind of craziness. However, I don’t think this is entirely about getting hung up on one hobby horse. Or rather, it’s about getting hung up on the one hobby horse on which he agrees with you (and on which he is sane), and ignoring everything else in the service of it. Now, maybe you’re right about the relative importance of these issues. But I can find all of two things Paul is sane on (war, torture), and on the war he’s right for the wrong reasons, so to speak.
That said, I think Greenwald is being somewhat disingenuous in his defense of Paul and particularly credulous WRT his excuses. Paul is nuts. But find me a Republican candidate who isn’t crazy and/or evil.
I think Arky made the strongest counter-argument: trusting Paul on his more sane positions is rather naive, especially if you buy Greenwald’s excuse that Paul isn’t really buddy-buddy with neo-Nazis, he just plays that
on TVat stump speeches. But of course, that assumes he’d actually get elected.And RodeoBob, I could see Rondroids banned from somewhere for being annoying, mindless idiots, but annoying, mindless idiots are exactly who RedState wants and has in their comments and on their front page. To believe that RedState banned them for anything but being the wrong kind of dumbasses is silly.
N.C. said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:41
Mikey:
Ron Paul is a Republican wingnut who believes that ALL governmental decision-making, all legislation and all government actions be guided strictly by the constitution.
My biggest beef with Paul is that he’s more interested in preserving the letter of the Constitution as of 1799 and not its spirit. He’s not interested in protecting civil liberties, just in drowning the federal government in the bathtub like so many Ollie North fantasies. He’s perfectly fine with states and corporations gutting citizens’ rights, just as long as it’s not the feds. He reaches positions that are agreeable to progressives but are based in completely abhorrent reasoning — the enemy of our enemy is not always our friend &c.
I can understand a desire to get back towards a more constitutional dialogue, but I feel very strongly that Ron Paul isn’t the man to hang your hat on for that.
[Confidentially, I'm A-OK with supporting him in the primary so that he splits off and drains GOP votes in 2008...]
Left_Wing_Fox said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:41
Sorry Menken, But on this, I believe you are wrong.
I’ll start by referring you to this comment on this post, in which he explicitly states he believes Guilani is a greater danger to America than Ron Paul.
The implication that David Neiwert is “smearing” Ron Paul as a right-wing extremist based on a single-issue focus on racism is a gross misreading of Neiwert’s body of work.
The focus on Neiwert’s blog is primarily the transmission of FAR-right ideas of formerly fringe political groups into mainstream conservatism, and how that has transformed the GOP into “pseudo-fascists”. That is to say, government that follows the forms and ideals of fascism but without the reliance on violence or explicit dictatorship.
Neiwert has done a great deal of genuine journalistic legwork on the Patriot Movement, and has drawn upon that knowledge of the Militia and Patriot groups to show the connections between these organizations and modern groups of “mainstream” conservatism, such and the Minutemen movement. His links to the events that Ron Paul has attended is no “guilt by association”, it’s a clear pattern of support and positions that indicate a very right-wing anti-government candidate. While the disaster of Bush’s regime and the hawkery of the frontrunners make his anti-government policies seem more acceptable, it is a mistake to see him as anything more than an anti-war Grover Norquist.
What galls me most is the fact that the progressive blogosphere has UTTERLY written off the most progressive candidates (Dodd, Kucinich, Gavel) as unelectable extremists, and instead bicker over which of the milquetoast centrists are the least objectionable. We’re getting to the point where people who HATE Hillary Clinton on policy (and don’t play the “PC” martyr on this, pretty much everyone regardless of genital affiliation around here hates her on policy), are starting to support her simply because the press and conservatives are making completely baseless attacks on her that have dick-all to do with policy.
Hell, if the Great Orange Overlord had made a token gesture to back one of those three the way the liberterian right supported Ron Paul, it would be a genuinely progressive anti-war candidate getting the “Surprising buzz” over funding figures, rather than a far-right anti-government nut ready to tear down the social fabric of America along with the imperialist policies.
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:42
Well said, Stinky.
There are degrees and flavors of stupidity. I like Paul’s better than Red State’s.
Paul and Edwards are the two most threatening candidates to The Man. That’s why they’ll never get anywhere.
(Though I’ll probably waste my vote on Edwards. Like Paul on the GOP side, he has the least to lose on the left.)
Spiders Everywhere said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:50
Ron Paul is a far right nut who is being less than open with his connections to the millitant right-wing fringe, and he is saner, more honest, and less dangerous that just about any other major Republican figure.
Neiwart and Greenwald’s disagreement is a matter of objective vs relative viewpoints, and is not so much a matter of either being wrong as a sign of just how bad things really are on the right.
Left_Wing_Fox said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:52
You know what? Fuck it, I’m wrong.
It doesn’t fucking matter who the president is. The presidential election is a distraction. Ignore it.
Focus on getting more and better Democratic Reps and Senators. Throw out the Bush-dog dems in the primaries. Get in enough Dems with spines to have Veto-proof majorities.
Short of declaring himself God-Emperor of Jesustan and having the senate shot, even Rudy-fucking-Guliani would be reduced to 8 years of being swept along by the tide of history, and whining all the way.
Thers said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:59
I agree with everything HTML. I have to. I’ve said so.
The only thing I disagree with is that Giuliani can be called a “wingnut.”
That motherfucker is straight-up old-school fascist.
Jillian said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:00
There isn’t a single Republican contender who wouldn’t be an absolute disaster for this country were they to be elected. My take at this point is therefore to encourage your wingnut friends to support whichever candidate you think is least likely to be electable. Or, alternatively, whichever one amuses you the most to support.
I stand by my earlier endorsement: Alan Keyes is making sense!
Thers said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:04
The point is that Paul is the least nutbar of them.
Yup.
To borrow a phrase from the Cold War era, for which I’m more and more nostalgic with each passing day:
“Whose finger do you want on the nuclear button? Ron’s or Rudy’s”?
It’s not even close.
Jillian said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:05
Not so incidentally, the radio has been abuzz with the fracturing of the social conservative support this primary season. Pat Robertson is eating crow by endorsing Giuliani, and the National Right to Life Campaign has, I believe, just endorsed Fred Thompson.
This is the best thing to have happened to this country in maybe twenty years, and probably the only thing that’s brought even a teensy amount of joy to me in about a month (it’s been an incredibly sucky month, both personally and professionally, and it’s been all I could do to get myself out of bed most days).
All the social wingers seem to agree that the only thing that could unite them at this point is if Hillary were to win the Democratic nomination. Will the Dems learn anything from that, or will they go on being the stupid, spineless, tone-deaf jackasses they’ve proven themselves to be time and again?
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:05
That’s true, too, Spiders. Greenwald is right about the general ignoring of Paul’s rather remarkable bank account, and Neiwart is right about Paul being more or less a fake libertarian and all-around nut-job.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
That being said, in the great Orcinus v. Unclaimed Territory debate, the ball, as they say, is in Glenn’s court, clearly.
Neiwart is right that just a whole bunch of Paul’s positions are bat-shit crazy and back-asswards, but Greenwald is equally right that the Corporate Media is marginalizing him to avoid any kind of substantive discussion on Paul’s issues, because God forbid we ever refer to the Constitution for anything. See 4th Amendment, which may as well just be put in the shredder at this point.
This is exactly what The Man wants; intramural fights. At least ours, I’d like to add, are somewhat reasoned and sane.
Robert Green said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:07
shorter html
to a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:07
Jillian, to your question:
No. I don’t think so.
But I hope so. I’ve said for at least a year that HRC is the Dems only chance of losing. But don’t for a minute think the Democratic primary voters are any smarter than the GOP’s. (Not counting, “IQ,” which is only a part of the equation.)
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:12
And I’m sorry about your month, Jillian. Most of us can relate.
I can REALLY relate.
I once heard and learned to love this description of chronic depression: It’s like there’s a big crazy-mean dog in your bedroom, chained up, but he just sits quiet and still unless you try to get out of bed, at which point it is clear to you this dog can break the chain.
Hang in there. Nice job out here, FWIW.
Jillian said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:15
It’s just that - on top of the usual shit life throws your way - we’ve had too many students shot and/or killed at my school lately. And one of them was one of mine.
Fifteen is too young to die.
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:19
Well, kudos to you for teaching someplace lots of folks get shot. For that alone, you deserve a raise and much praise, if I may go all Jesse J. on you. :-)
But try to remember that 15 is a good ol’ ripe middle age if you live in Darfur or some other hell-hole we call a country.
*duck/cover*
Sincerely, I’m sorry. That has to be shit to deal with.
the $50 is the new $20 said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:22
Navel gazers, the lot of you.
Worshipping at the feet of the Democratic party you wish you had, never mind that the party you have is at least as daft as you pitch Dr Paul as being.
If not more so.
M. Bouffant said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:25
Who are these “wingnut friends” some of you speak of? And, if there is such a thing, why would they be listening to any of you for political advice?
The best hope would be for each party’s “debates” to be, perhaps, hit by meteors, w/ all candidates & the moderators killed, giving us a chance to start over, perhaps w/ candidates not as power-crazed/willing to do anything to get in the race. Oh, hell, there are still plenty of psychos left who’d jump right in.
Rightwingsnarkle said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:27
Just as a smooth, well-formed, tapered-at-both-ends, meat-rich bowel movement and a messy, odiferous, Havana-omelet-style case of the trots are both still, well, shit, then so, too are Ron Paul and Rudy Guiliani / Mitt Romney / Fred Thompson / Mike Huckabee / St. John / insert any other available repub name here all still, well, shit, too.
Personally, if given the choice, I’d probably support the write-in candidacy of the Havana Omelet.
Jillian’s support for Alan Keyes also makes sense to me.
Neiwert and Greenwald are having their own back and forth on RP (also here.)
Freaking lawyers (and good journalists) - every little detail counts to them.
Me? I don’t need to sift through that Havana Omelet with my bare hands, or dissect that smooth long turd under a microscope, to get an accurate enough picture of what they are.
Keyes/Brownback ‘08!
Jillian said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:28
I don’t think anybody here is denying that our current Democratic party sucks snot out of a dead cat’s nose.
But they’re a damn sight better than the Republican party at this point.
Hell, I’m a socialist, and the Republicans have got me so damn scared that I’m finally voting my fears instead of my hopes in the national elections. Whomever the Dems put on the ticket, I will hold my nose and vote for them, and try not to hate myself too much in the morning for having done so.
Stinky Wizzleteats said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:28
Excellent observation, Spiders. Things really have gotten so bad on the right that the militia nuts aren’t all that crazy, relatively speaking.
John, too true about avoiding substantive discussion of issues. The last thing the corporate media wants is substance in politics. After all aren’t these narratives so much more fun:
ZOMG teh hottness! (Romney)
i can has act0r? (Thompson)
oh noes!!!1! mexican rush! (Tancredo)
9 eleventy! pwn! (St. Rudy)
etc. etc.
RodeoBob said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:30
Every time I see a post about RP pop up on one of the blogs I read, I click through to the comments, just to watch the invasion. Happened over at Orincus (sp?), happened when the feminists discussed the contradiction between libertarian philosophy and anti-choice laws, happens a lot. And it’s not that the Paulians (RonPaulians? RPers?) are annoying, it’s that they’re Wingunt Brand ™ annoying!
The mouth-breathers at RedState are used to debating with reasonable, intelligent folks on the mythical Left by sticking to their talking points, equivocating, setting up strawmen, and moving the goalposts as rapidly as possible. Which is exactly what the Ronins do. Except that the Ronans do it faster, louder, and more often. If one person yelling “I CAN’T HEAR YOU, LALALALA” with his fingers in his ears is annoying, imagine two people doing it, at each other! Red Staters didn’t ban the Ronobos because of ideology, but because they couldn’t stand to see their own strategies turned against them.
Occasionally I have the urge to drink from the firehose of internet aggregation (digg.com) and whenever I do, there’s a continual proto-swarm of RP activity. RP supporters on-line really are like a swarm of locusts, moving with considerable speed and swarming with depressing numbers and ugly enthusiasm. So if Red State is one guy, fingers jammed in ears, yelling Mary had a little lamb at the top of his lungs, then the Ronbos are the Mormon Tabernacle Choir of the ‘la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you’ set.
Say what you will about the Deaneacs of 2004, they were at least well-mannered. Imagine the ‘04 Dean fanatics, only hopped up on Jägermeister and Red Bull and no sleep for 72 hours, and you’ve pretty well got the Ron Paul phenomenon.
Yeah! Just like the last 7 years!
Yeah! Just like in 2006 when the newly-Democratic Congress totally curtailed the President’s out of control power and terrible foreign policy!
Sorry, but if I’ve learned anything from the last 7 years (and Lord knows, I’ve tried not to!) its that any president, dumb as a mule or smart as a donkey, can do a lot of damage, Congress or no.
Candy said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:31
Jillian - I’m really sorry about your student. That really hits home for me. My son is 15.
Don’t despair politically, though. I’m no Nostradamus, but I have a fairly good track record at political prognosticating, if I do say so myself. I went out on a limb on Orcinus:
Now I get to go to class and afterwards to a little blues club, where although I will undoubtedly get a headache from the stinking cig smoke I will also surely have a good time.
——————————————————————————–
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:35
Stinky, in Media Man’s defense, they just don’t have the TIME for substantive debate. If you can’t summon your world-view coherently in 30 seconds, you’re fucked.
The bottom line is, and even the righttards get this on some level, that the Corporate Media is just a waste of time now for anything even remotely resembling “fair and balanced.”
Why should they be, though? Their purpose at work is to make money, and everyone you see on national TV, anyway, is so well off they could give a shit about substantive debate. Plus they’re all goddamn friends and neighbors.
It will take an overwhelming election, which isn’t going to happen if HRC is the Dem nominee, for Media Man to connect the dots of their relevancy and profit-potential with what the People care about.
Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:40
M.B.
Most of these wingnut friends are colleagues and or politically educated by the Great Tube of Education. They don’t pay any attention. They’re tribalists, first and foremost.
It isn’t their fault, in a manner. They were raised to trust Cronkite and the rest, and haven’t quite caught up with reality.
Leonard Pierce said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:42
Wait, hold on. What was the pet we were talking about again? Is it a cat?
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:42
Lots of them are what I fondly call them, “Wallet Republicans.” As in, they support mostly Dem positions except for their wallets, i.e., taxes.
I have a whole Jesus rant in the hard drive for that. Also fun.
a different brad said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:44
Orcinus has already been referenced here, but in this I take my cues from there, so I’m mostly going to paraphrase Dave n Sara. Yes, Rudy is worse because he might win, and is literally insane. Yes, they’re all bad.
But Ron Paul is not what you think he is. There are lefties and independents galore who, because the MSM doesn’t mention it, don’t realize who Ron Paul’s base are, and think he’s the only hope our nation has. They’re currently being inoculated against the truth about him, glorifying him to the point that nothing negative will stick, soon. It’s classic indoctrination into/transmission of extremism. Like new world order assholes creeping into the truther movement.
Ron Paul as a third party candidate, the only way he’s at all significant, would hurt the Dems just as much, if not more, than the Repubs. Hillary voted for the war, and the developing narrative that the Dems either can’t or don’t genuinely want to end the war is not without an element of truth.
People I respect are claiming Paul would fragment the racist base. He wouldn’t. Extremists would vote for him, but the base would see him as off the reservation, and thus arguably worse than Hillary. Tribes always save their worst punishments for traitors, and being part of the tribe is the fundamental draw of conservatism. Paul could well, however, fragment the anti-war and independent voters, who have no love for or loyalty to Hillary and the Dem machine, and see them both as ineffectual, if not complicit.
Ron Paul is very, very dangerous. In part because of his extremism, but more because of his potential allure to the mushy middle.
As for the rest, he’s right for the wrong reasons, and that matters.
Ultimately, tho, the real problem is Hillary.
povertyrich said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:46
RodeoBob -
In the last 7 years, we’ve had a pliant Congress that gave the President everything he wanted, followed by a razor-thin and timid Democratic majority in the Senate and a marginally larger and less timid Democratice majority in the House. If Democrats had larger majorities in both houses, things would be a little different right now. In 2008, unless they fall all over themselves trying to lose elections, the Democrats will build on those majorities.
We need to stop paying so much attention to brain-sucking presidential politics, and pay more attention to the Congress.
Stinky Wizzleteats said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:49
I don’t think anybody here is denying that our current Democratic party sucks snot out of a dead cat’s nose.
But they’re a damn sight better than the Republican party at this point.
To riff off Rightwingsnarkle’s analogy… You want steak. You have a choice between stale meatloaf and a plate of shit. No matter how much you want the steak, when dinner time comes around, the choice is obvious. (Shamelessly cribbed from an old listserv debate back in the day. Wish I still had it around so I could give attribution.)
And Jillian, I’m sorry to hear about your depression. I know what it’s like — I’ve been known to de facto drop out of school and society (even blogs! horrors!) for weeks at a time because I literally can’t bring myself to get out of bed — and often the worst part is other people not understanding why you can’t just “snap out of it.” So for what it’s worth, I understand, and I hope things get better for you. I can’t say I know what it’s like for a student or mentor or friend to have their life cut short like that. I can only offer my condolences.
John, my thesis advisor has a similarly colorful metaphor for bipolar depression: alligators. The alligators chomping at you from the dark depths of your mind, impossible to placate or silence. If you somehow stay on the move you might be able to evade them, but as soon as you stop (say, to go to bed), they’ll latch on and drag you down into the abyss, and then it’s damn near impossible to fight your way free.
Notorious P.A.T. said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:54
HTML, too bad it takes so long to point out something that ought to be painfully obvious.
thelogos said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:54
I guess I’ve been reading Arthur Silber too long to really place much hope in Dems which we have in congress right now.
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:54
Meh, Leonard also thinks the post is incoherent! I’ve seriously got to do something about my style. Too many asides. Too leaden, too pompous. I was hoping I’d inserted enough “fucks” and “shits” to distinguish my style from Tick-Tack’s, but I no longer think that’s enough. Back to the ol’ drawing board.
On a less-depressing note, I found two abandoned kitties at the edge of my field yesterday evening. One is very very close to having a Hitler moustache — his marking is just a little off and a little too big. They are barely weaned and rather pathetic, but have taken to their new home fairly well. I may try to take pictures soon, if only to make Andrew Northrup cry like a little titty baby.
Stinky Wizzleteats said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:56
Goddamnit, John, why do you have to be so right about the news media. Add on top of that shit the whole Manufacturing Consent aspect of it, and I guess I shouldn’t be surprised so many people in this country are so ignorant and misinformed — it’s all they see and hear. As for the 30 second worldview, well, don’t let me near a TV studio or I’ll really be fucked. I don’t know anyone else who can so consistently double the length of a paper in the course of editing out of some compulsive need for clarification and qualification.
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:00
Stinky, thanks, and great metaphor. However, I feel the need to point out that “bipolar” is different than plain ol’ “polar” depression.
Bipolars experience times of great joy and energy and brilliance (Lincoln), but unipolar depressives only go below the baseline of average “happiness,” whatever the fuck that is.
Admittedly, it’s a tough line to draw. As someone with personal and profressional experience, reading Attending Physician’s Statements for a living for 15 years, I’m gonna have to declare myself an expert. :-)
But your prof was right: Keeping very busy will keep either at bay. The difference is that the bipolar will revel or even thrive in their keeping on the move, while the unipolar will not be able to do it for any extended period of time.
Now, on topic: Ron Paul is nuts, sane, consistent, and safe. HRC is sane, inconsistent, pandering and not at all safe.
LOL.
Krassen said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:04
Elections are decided by Middle America and Middle America has not tuned in yet. This blog is, too, guilty of what HTML described: overinvestment. Ron Paul only matters to people who are overinvested in politics. Your regular Jane and Joe don’t care about Ron Paul, when general election time comes, everyone will have forgotten about Ron Paul.
The real danger for this country is Mitt Romney, he is the only electable GOP candidate: rich, handsome, well-funded, smooth, slick, can BS with the best of them. Don’t pay attention to meaningless national polls, the only good indicators are the Iowa electronic markets and the early state polls. Romney’s shares are close to $0.35 (with the exception of him and Gulliani, noone else trades above $0.05) in the electronic market and he is polling ahead in IA, NH and close at the top in SC. Once these primaries roll out he will have the buzz and the media focus as an early leader, just when Middle America starts paying attention.
If he gets the nomination he will be formidable. Gulianni is a bit too nutty and abrasive for Middle America. If you are progressive and care about what’s gonna happen to this country, blocking Romney should be your #1 priority.
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:06
Thanks, Stinky.
Compared to our great blogging hosts, I’m an incoherent moron, which is not to say I don’t “get it,” but I sure as hell can’t write it down as well as your Digby’s and HTML’s and even your OIIP’s like Amanda.
I try to cut to the chase, which makes me automatically boring and stupid. I take too many things as self-evident.
But I sure as hell understand Corporate Politics, and Corporate Purpose, because I’ve worked in a very normal one for 23 years. After the media went Corporate, it wasn’t all that hard for me to figure out.
M. Bouffant said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:08
HTML, you got your new friends @ just the right age, they should imprint on you as their mother & be your best friends for many happy yrs.
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:09
Krassen, I’m not going to re-type it, but I disagree. Romney is the LEAST threatening GOP candidate.
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:09
Shit, blew the link. Sorry.
http://jonorato42.wordpress.com/2007/11/13/electoral-suspicions/
a different brad said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:10
Please, everyone, read this post by Dave and Sara at Orcinus. I have a deep, deep respect for Greenwald and Html and bradrocket, but I think you’re all simply wrong here.
The enemy of my enemy can still be my friend, and Paul’s extremism is very, very significant in understanding him and his candidacy.
a different brad said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:10
Oy. Enemy of my enemy can still be my enemy. Doy.
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:11
a different brad might be on to something. I know he’s onto something with the Hillary-being-the-ultimate-problem things. Still, I don’t see Paul appealing to the center. His support is entirely wingnut, no better or worse on any issue except the war than any other wingnut candidate.
But let’s try an analogy. How many DFHs here ignored the saintly Matthew “I hate protesters” Yglesias’ advice and participated in the anti-war marches? Hmm? Did you know that you were joined by fellow-marching Stalinists, anti-Semites, fundie Christianists, fundamentalist Hasidim, Free Mumia whackjobs, and Buchananites. Of course you did: such fringe characters were what the “anti-idiotarian” wingnuts used to discredit the whole anti-war movement. And yet, you still marched, not because you endorsed everything these idiots and cranks and bigots believed in, but because the greater issue which trumped everything was stopping the war. How awful of you! Your hierarchy of values was in order! War criminals (of your culture, of your country, of whose actions you as a citzen in a democracy had some responsibility for) were about to do their thing and you didn’t stop to consider if the guy protesting next to you had ever said “nigger” or “faggot,” was pro-choice or pro-life, had the correct position on school vouchers.
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:12
Don’t worry, different Brad: Media Man would rather have Hillary.
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:14
M. Bouffant — I don’t understand. I think you’re unhappy with me, right? Ron Paul isn’t my friend, neither are his supporters, if that’s what you meant.
Simba B. said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:18
Retardo, I think she’s talking about your kitty cats.
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:19
Ah, yay then! Sorry about being so defensive!
a different brad said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:20
HTML- I agree with you and mikey that his positions are unimportant in accepting his help ending the war, but it’s just not that simple when it comes to his candidacy. The left and right extremes are cross-pollinating thanks to Paul, and that really scares me, because no one can say what the results will be. And he’s a gateway drug into extremism for a new generation, an anti-war hero whose supporters are some of the scariest people in the country, neocons excepted because of their influence. I think the proper analogy is Goldwater, not Dean, and his legacy ended up turning into something even he found repulsive. Furthermore, Paul strikes me as a genuine extremist leader, who knows the most important thing is to gain trust. Once that’s given, then you give them the Kool-aid.
If Rudy wins I very genuinely might leave the country, don’t get me wrong, but Paul is a monster in his own right, just a different flavor.
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:21
M. Bouffant said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:22
I still don’t get how any of us are going to have any impact on anything to the right of Che. All of the Republican candidates are toads, none of the Dems who are mainstream enough to be nominated are worth spit, & it’s still a couple of months till the Iowa caucuses. Nothing we can do or say will make any difference.
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:24
Still testing, out of embarrassment, mostly.
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:24
Goddamn it!!!!!
Still humiliated. HTML 101, and I’m flunking.
christian h. said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:30
HTML, M. Bouffant was talking about the kitties, I believe.
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:30
The implication that David Neiwert is “smearing” Ron Paul as a right-wing extremist based on a single-issue focus on racism is a gross misreading of Neiwert’s body of work.
No, the implication is that there are people who are emphasizing the extremism of some of Paul’s followers as if it is equal to or trumps the extremism of the other candidates and their followers (in Giuliani’s case, the majority of his followers), because of the nature of the extremism.
Well, sorry, racism, Bircherism, anti-government nuttery, etc is not worse than warmongering, especially when that warmongering is certain have have results in mass murder. And, again, it’s not like the other candidates don’t have their share of racist, etc supporters.
I like the hell out of David Neiwart; I respect him. I just think he’s wrong on this, but so are a lot of people. This is the first and last time I’ll use his name in the post because it’s not meant as a personal attack on him and I don’t want to damage the cordial line of communication I have with him. I’m after the principles at stake here, which is why I linked to Greenwald’s post.
John O said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:33
OK, last one, I promise:
I loves me some Rude Pundit
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:33
Ah, yay then! Sorry about being so defensive!
(I meant this in reply to M. Bouffant. Thanks for the heads-up, christian and Simba!)
Doodle Bean said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:33
HTML,
A few style tips:
First, when you refer to one Presidental candidate by his last name (Paul) and another by her first name (Hillary), it appears that you are just continuing the ongoing trivialization of women which your female readers have been dealing with for - oh - their whole lives. I know everyone’s doing it - that in fact is the problem - but it’s bad form. So you could come across better by using ‘Ron and Hillary’ or ‘Paul and Clinton’.
Second, some basic framing. I work with hundreds of
stupid peopleordinary Americans and find solace by using them as a bigdumbsample for various framing and policy questions. About 75% of them sincerely believe that conservatives are correct because they are called ‘right’. It sounds dumb I know, but they know nothing of French history, etymology and semantics. For them, ‘right’ means ‘correct’. That is that.Since these
moronsordinary Americans are representative of the types of people we wish to influence and educate, please avoid the use of the words ‘right’ or ‘right-wing’ in association with wingnuts and conservatives. Seriously. We all need to stop. We can call them conservatives, cons, neo-cons, theo-cons, religious nuts, Reich wingers, ‘the Wrong’, wrong-wing, wingnuts… anything but ‘right’.It also turns out the same
idiotsaverage Americans think of “Left Behind” when they hear ‘the Left’ and that’s not good. But that is a subject for another time.So, these are my pet causes; they are more important than yours.
M. Bouffant said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:34
Thanks Simba, you are indeed right (except the “she” part, I know the name’s not necessarily macho, but I am of the masculine persuasion). Enough w/ the politics, as I said @ 3:22, it’s hopeless & we’re powerless. Cats are more interesting. Should’ve qualified it as “feline friends,” Mencken. You needn’t be defensive (w/ me, anyway) as long as you don’t whine about “Baby Boomers” wallowing in their musical nostalgia.
ignobility said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:35
I’m at work and running out of battery, so I haven’t read all the comments. Ergo, this could be redundant. What I find interesting, and scary, about R. Paul is that his supporters don’t seem to be the republican base, but more the left(ish) who are disenchanted with the democrats in congress and who see an anti-war candidate whom they find less repugnant than the other republicans. But he’s not. He’s totally repugnant, just like all the other rethug candidates, except for his stance on the war. Lending him any kind of support is a mistake, in my eyes. All the right-wing candidates suck, and we should be putting our energies into ensuring that none of them is elected. Still, a very thought-provoking post.
a different brad said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:36
HTML- I don’t mean to belabor a point you want to move past, but Neiwert’s point seems, to me, to be that, like Rudy, Paul is an extremist in his own right. It’s not he associates with them, it’s that he is one of them.
Simba B. said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:39
Oops, sorry, M. For some reason I had it in my head that you were female.
Emily Litella said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:41
What’s all this fuss about Sean Paul? I thought “Get Busy” was groovy!
sophie brown said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:43
From my perspective, here in Idaho, Paul is really scary. Those domestic ideas which seem way to far out are actually embraced by healthy numbers of people. Today we’re voting on a school levy and there was actually a letter to the editor last week saying that support for public schools was socialism. Its that libertarian ideal — fuck everyone else, I don’t need nothing from the gov’mint, I’ve got guns and a well. Sure, it’s consistent, and it’s populist, but its scaaary.
I also can’t get past the local Paul supporters. They scare me. They’re all fired up, and actually they are people the kind of people you would rather not have fired up. It’s like Yeats poem: “The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.”
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:44
And, again, adb, if I concede the point that Paul is.. what, exactly? A Libertarian crackpot? ..the other side has to concede that all the Rethug candidates have libertarian crackpot beliefs (except Huckabee, to his credit). I personally think Paul is a Grover Norquist libertarian, which is indeed a noxious and, yes, bugfuck extreme thing to be, but no more so than any other wingnut. Yet Paul takes the fiscal crackpottery route (bad) and fundamentalist literalist interpretation of the Constitution route (not all that bad — and the Hugo Black version of it was very good indeed) to get to an anti-war position, which is of supreme importance.
a different brad said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:49
Another factor to consider in Paul’s candidacy is the John the Baptist angle. He’s making close connections to far-right extremist organizations acceptable in the political context. The next David Duke won’t have the same problems, provided he just avoids the KKK.
I love that there’s a Repub at their debates mentioning they’re the party of warmonging and corruption and so on as much as anyone, but with Paul, to me, it’s not ultimately about what he’s doing, but why.
And the why is very bad.
Lesley said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:50
a republican’s author-i-TIE.
Johnny Coelacanth said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:51
I’m such a worthless off-topic shit, but ”verbing weirds language!” is the funniest thing I’ve seen in a week.
Left_Wing_Fox said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:53
Of course you did: such fringe characters were what the “anti-idiotarian” wingnuts used to discredit the whole anti-war movement. And yet, you still marched, not because you endorsed everything these idiots and cranks and bigots believed in, but because the greater issue which trumped everything was stopping the war. How awful of you! Your hierarchy of values was in order!
No. If I went to an anti-war rally (and I attended a couple back in 2002) and brushed shoulders with LaRouche supporters, it would be unfair guilt by association to assume I’m necessarily supportive of Lyndon LaRouche.
If I then went to several LaRouche meetings, and proposed bills condemning “Zionist conspiracies against the United States of America”, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume I’m a LaRouche supporter?
Ron Paul’s beliefs line up perfectly with the patriot and militia movements. Period. To say this is merely “guilt by association” is like whining that it’s unfair to call Guliani a fascist because he doesn’t CALL himself a fascist, and besides he’s pro choice.
If it looks like a horse and runs with a horse, don’t pin your hopes that it just might be a unicorn.
Krassen said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:55
John O., See! Exactly what I was talking about. Romney looks least threatening of them all, which means that he is the most electable.
We just cannot afford another Romney, even if he somehow manages an appearance of normalcy and pragmatism.
In reality Mitt Romney is a scumbag. Kerry’s flip-flopping in Senate was mostly pragmatic, Romney’s is the type of “if I say something that these people want to hear, and I smile widely, and look all get-down-to-workish, who the fuck cares what I said yesterday to these other people?”
Remember, Romney is a classmate of Bush from Harvard BS. Except that he was top of the class. There is a lot of tricks that one can learn from the corporate world, that when applied in the real world are not only disastrous but evil.
I see a lot of a typical CEO manipulating passive and disinterested investing public in both Bush and Romney, except that Bush is so much cruder and awkward at that, while Romney is so polished.
OneMadClown said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:56
Could we all please move beyond our insignificant personal pet issues and get to the meat of this matter? We need focus, not this pointless hair-splitting about who the bugfuck craziest member of the Bugfuck Crazy Party is. The only question that matters vis-a-vis the Paul candidacy is this:
Has Ron Paul ever been photographed with a Giant Sammich?
Rightwingsnarkle said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:57
Well, alright!!!11! Sounds like HTML’s found himself a Kitler.
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 3:59
If I then went to several LaRouche meetings, and proposed bills condemning “Zionist conspiracies against the United States of America”, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume I’m a LaRouche supporter?
But no one here is arguing doing the equivalent of that. You’d have me if I were voting for Paul, but I’m not. To go back to the analogy, it would have been better if some of the wingnuts who were for the war had been LaRouchies (or Buchananites, or Libertarians like Henley, etc.) instead. Just like it would be better if supporters of Giuliani came around to supporting Paul instead.
Stinky Wizzleteats said,
November 14, 2007 at 4:03
I’m aware of the distinction (though I should probably have realized a lot of people aren’t), John, but I can say from personal experience (both major depression leading to a suicide attempt and rapid-cycling bipolar type II) that there is a distinct similarity in flavor to the depressive aspects. I guess what you were saying about the line being hard to draw. When I hit my bipolar lows, I’m in pretty much the same state as when I had the plain old depression (before I really expressed bipolar symptoms), the big difference being that my mind still sometimes keeps running a mile a minute even if I hate life and have no energy, whereas straight-up depressed stops my mind dead. And yeah, I can get myself manic sometimes and just enjoy going supersonic for a while, but sooner or later it ends and there’s hell to pay when I crash — both from swinging back to depressed and from all the stupid shit I do manic.
HTML, I hope you post some kitten huffing goodness when you get the chance. I love me some kitten huffing.
Jillian said,
November 14, 2007 at 4:05
Please, guys, let’s not argue over which of the Republican candidates is the biggest, smelliest shit sandwich.
They’re ALL shit sandwiches. All we’re really doing is discussing which shit sandwich is most likely to give us e. coli O157:H7. Even if one, none, or several of them are likely to give us deadly mutated Escherichia coli, the fact remains that we’re still talking about shit sandwiches. Whipping out your inner Julia Child on this topic is kinda pointless.
M. Bouffant said,
November 14, 2007 at 4:05
Simba, no sweat, I mistook Palau for a dude once, she was flattered that her writing came across as gender-neutral.
Seems to me that a lot of Ron Paul’s people were not exceptionally political until he came along & got some attention. The ones who come by my low-traffic web log every time I make mock of him to leave their pre-digested talking points seem to be most interested in no constitutional basis for income tax, don’t care that he gets the First Amendment 180° wrong, & are generally ignorant of real life. They’re really worried about taxes, because they all swallow the American Dream & are sure they’ll be rich any day now.
That said, I was wandering the wasteland yesterday & today, at some paleo-con, & even White Nationalist sites, & they sure like Ol’ Ron. They’re mostly opposed to war in the Mid East because they don’t think we should be doing Israel’s job for them, & we should be stacking up the army & Marines ten deep @ the (southern, need I say) border. And I think we all know what “States Rights” is (barely) code for.
Mandos said,
November 14, 2007 at 4:09
Ron Paul may or may not be the best or worst GOP candidate, but I think that HTML’s analysis is weak. Racism is not separate from the war. A particular candidate may be a racist and not support the war, but his racism ensures that there will be future wars. Better prosecuted ones, maybe, assuming the mistakes in this war were mistakes.
You just can’t split these things up.
Simba B said,
November 14, 2007 at 4:10
Re: Stinky’s comment
Kitten huffing is an Uncyclopedia (Wikipedia parody) in-joke.
Just pointing that out because someone is bound to not catch the reference.
Jillian said,
November 14, 2007 at 4:16
Mandos, just to clarify here: are you saying that racism is a contributory factor in starting wars? Sort of like a weaker version of saying that racism causes wars?
a different brad said,
November 14, 2007 at 4:17
Well, surely we can all agree racism is just an extension of sexism?
donthitmeinsidejokeidontmeanit
Jillian said,
November 14, 2007 at 4:19
Shucks, I’m going to bed, which means I’m gonna miss the fish-slapping dance that follows this. But I just have to say I don’t find that particular idea very convincing.
Not trying to falsely attribute it to you, Mandos - especially as you haven’t had any time to reply, and I know I’m ducking out like a jerk. But if that is what you’re saying - it seems to me to be a pretty silly idea.
Wars are about money, and it’s a rare, rare set of circumstances that folks with money let the color of someone’s skin get in the way of getting more money.
Jillian said,
November 14, 2007 at 4:20
ADB, it is now - as it has always been - all about the money.
Anybody who tells you anything other than that is trying to sell you something.
Smiling Mortician said,
November 14, 2007 at 4:21
Too early for bed here in the PNW, but I am planning to get drunk now if anyone cares to join me.
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 4:24
Racism is not separate from the war.
Well, it depends on what kind of racism you mean. Of course racism fuels the Charles Johnsons of the world who just want that place over there with those different people in it, glassified. But the racism Paul’s being accused of is isolationist American racism. Both suck, but one is recognized as teh suck by all but a very small lunatic fringe. The other is institutionalized in the Republican Party. The one is very scary but managable (just how popular was David Duke?). The other — what a socialist usually means by “racism,” which is fear and loathing of the Other — must be destroyed conclusively and forever, because it is what fuels immoral wars.
Left_Wing_Fox said,
November 14, 2007 at 4:25
But no one here is arguing doing the equivalent of that.
Glenn is, and that’s what kicked off this whole mess.
Bah. Nevermind. I stand by my second statement: It doesn’t matter. You guys go vote yourselves better Dems in the House and Senate primaries, and get as many of them into congress so they can bust through filibuster and veto proof bills, and it won’t matter who the president is.
Mandos said,
November 14, 2007 at 4:29
Racism is an enabling factor in the capacity to wage war. It ability to establish hierarchies of power, if only in the mind of the afflicted, is one of the instruments that enables state and society to achieve a war footing. No, I’m not saying something so crude as people fight *because* they are racist towards their enemies.
Lesley said,
November 14, 2007 at 4:30
Please, guys, let’s not argue over which of the Republican candidates is the biggest, smelliest shit sandwich.
You’d have to pay me in pretty big pie slices to be a judge in this contest.
They are all batshit INSANE. The nasal passages can only handle so much odour before they collapse.
MzNicky said,
November 14, 2007 at 4:30
What Doodle Bean said way up yonder re let’s call her “Clinton” already, how about?; and also, what the brilliant Jillian just said down this-a-way.
HTML Mencken said,
November 14, 2007 at 4:31
And, to incorporate Jillian’s excellent point, the popular racism among wingnuts is not coincidentally the profitable one.
The liberals who focus on racism focus on the least popular variety. Thus, their beef with Paul, whose isolationism appeals for good and bad reasons. Yet the racism that the warmongering candidates and the vast majority of wingnuts subscribe to, and therefore results in mass death and stupid wars, is somehow a fucking subordinate issue — i.e., their pet cause is more important than mine, and Paul is the most dangerous man on earth!!!