Put in mind of This Old Entry by a post at Electrolite:
These people aren’t frightening because they’re strong. They’re frightening because they’re cowardly and weak.
Where "These people" is a reference to the hard right. Or that's my reading anyway; hit the link and see if you agree. Or, you know, you could ask. Wacky idea, and one I certainly wouldn't follow through on my own self.
I figure this because Patrick quotes Rivka, who writes:
The hard right aren’t interested in apologies or corrections. If this were really about promoting civility of discourse, they’d have plenty to attack on their own side without hunting down people on ours. They want us to shut up, and that’s pretty much all that will satisfy them. Whether or not you agree with Kos, or Kathryn, it’s important that we not let them be drowned in a sea of right-wing viciousness. They have a right to be free of harrassment.
Which I been saying for years, hence the re-post. And although I did try a bit ago to do the whole reaching out and building bridges and looking for shared interests thang, I've come to the conclusion that it's just not worth trying with most of them.
I wish I could honestly say that I'm either surprised or disappointed.
The people at Warblogger Watch are writing about the disturbing philosophy of anti-Americanism. This is because they're always looking at the negative. Instead, we should look at Americanism.Like any religion, Americanism is based on Faith and Faith Alone. Instead of things like logic, internal consistency, inquiry, observation, or rational thought.
The United States has a high regard for religion. This is why, unlike most of the planet, we refuse to have elections on the weekend, and instead schedule them on workdays.
Conservatives, arguably the closest to high priests of Americanism, generally see no problem with this, figuring that if people really wanted to vote, they'd just have the maid wake them up early that day and have the chauffeur drive them to the polling place (which the chauffeur should know the location of, why should you have to remember things like that?).
They also hate jokes like that, because they're divisive (a feature of anti-Americanism) and contribute to class warfare (ditto).
This does not apply to jokes about limousine liberals.
Remember that bit about internal consistency? There you go.
Another feature of Americanism is the recognition that the U.S. is Good. With a capital Guh. Foreigners, who are not adherents of Americanism and therefore by definition anti-American, often fail to grasp this simple idea. So when, for example, the American President starts declaring that one side or another of a conflict is a true partner for peace, or defining what constitute the legitimate political aspirations of someone on the other side of the planet, they tend to wonder who, exactly, gave him
(and it's been a he, and a white he at that, up until now. One of the things proponents of Americanism proudly point to are surveys indicating that a large percent of the population show a willingness to vote for a woman or a black person for president. [However, any other surveys showing support for the political aspirations of these groups should be discounted as resulting from not wishing to be seen as politically incorrect.] There are no surveys asking if, say, women would be willing to vote for a man, or if blacks would be willing to vote for a white person, because the questions are themselves incoherent. Such is the Power of Faith.)
the right to decide such things.
True believers in Americanism can ignore such heresy, usually because they're not even capable of understanding it. They are a simple people. Very simple. Simpletons, actually.
Oh, and while I'm at it:
Fifteen years later, Harold Lasswell explained in the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences that we should not succumb to "democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests." They are not; the best judges are the elites, who must, therefore, be ensured the means to impose their will, for the common good. When social arrangements deny them the requisite force to compel obedience, it is necessary to turn to "a whole new technique of control, largely through propaganda" because of the "ignorance and superstition [of]...the masses." In the same years, Reinhold Niebuhr argued that "rationality belongs to the cool observers," while "the proletarian" follows not reason but faith, based upon a crucial element of "necessary illusion." Without such illusion, the ordinary person will descend to "inertia." Then in his Marxist phase, Niebuhr urged that those he addressed -- presumably, the cool observers -- recognize "the stupidity of the average man" and provide the "emotionally potent oversimplifications" required to keep the proletarian on course to create a new society; the basic conceptions underwent little change as Niebuhr became "the official establishment theologian" (Richard Rovere), offering counsel to those who "face the responsibilities of power."
That'd be The Noamster, from Necessary Illuisions, Chapter One: Democracy and the Media.
Right wingers are all about the emotionally potent oversimplifications.
I don't think they're capable of grasping anything more complex.
Thank you, Aaron. I've been trying to shake my newfound habit of writing reactively. For some reason, I thought reading opinions of "the other side" would inspire me and cause me to think. It did the opposite, and I think it's going to take me awhile to recover from the dizziness resulting from trying to make sense of circular arguments.