QUOTE OF THE DAY: The trouble with pragmatism is that it's completely useless.
- Sidney Morgenbesser
Political pragmatism is one of the most insidious and pernicious fallacies ever to blight the human race. Its implementation is the crippling of the self.
You have to have a vision. You have to know exactly what you want. Circumstances will force you to settle for less, so always ask for exactly what you want.
To put it in concrete terms: Let's say you want to build a skyscraper. You have to know exactly what it's going to look like before you even start building it. What do you start with? Nothing but an idea. Then, when you get land and labor, bricks and mortar, wood and metal, it still looks nothing like a skyscraper. It's going to take months to build it, and you'd better believe there are going to be problems along the way. Pragmatists look at these details and declare your skyscraper "a nice idea on paper that won't work in practice", settle for arranging the resources into a pathetic lean-to, then angrily discourage any attempts to make something more.
The ideal must be your guiding star. Without a vision, you're just wandering aimlessly.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Balkanization: The Case In Favor
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't going away."
-- Elvis Presley
-- Elvis Presley
For the past 32 years or so, we have been humoring the Far Right. We have been generous and accomodating, giving in to their unreasonable demands instead of telling them what we truly think, in the hopes that they would return the favor. They haven't. They've taken a mile for every inch we've given them. We have had every right to employ the exact same cutthroat, uncompromising politics that they have - but we haven't.
I truly believe that this policy of appeasement and submission to injustice is the only reason that we are not currently neck-deep in a hideous Second Civil War (instead, we are merely neck-deep in a Cold Civil War).
Am I agitating for civil war? Of course not. But the Far Right is absolutely willing to go that far to get what they want. The Left has to at least ask itself: How far are WE willing to go? Let me repeat, I do not want a war. This is why I propose what I consider to be the only viable alternative: a divorce. The South has been not-so-secretly itching to secede for about 150 years now. I say, let them! I am sick and tired of them retarding desperately needed progress. We've freed the slaves, what do we need them for, really?
According to http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html, 8 of the top 10 beneficiaries of federal tax money are red states - deep red, too, like Alaska, Alabama, and the Dakotas. And the 10 states that receive the least federal tax money in comparison to what they pay? Only ONE (New Hampshire) is a serious red state - 2 others are battleground states (Colorado and Nevada), and the rest, like New York, California, and Massachusetts, are solid blue. Contemplate this for a second. Do I need to elaborate on this matter?
Now, I know what you may be thinking: "We have BARACK FRIGGING OBAMA! America is already headed left! And most conservatives don't want civil war either, they won't let the Far Right go that far!" Or possibly, as one person once told me when I raised the issue previously: "No way. Half of my family is liberal and the other half insane, but we all love each other very much and nobody's pulling us apart."
Now, I know what you may be thinking: "We have BARACK FRIGGING OBAMA! America is already headed left! And most conservatives don't want civil war either, they won't let the Far Right go that far!" Or possibly, as one person once told me when I raised the issue previously: "No way. Half of my family is liberal and the other half insane, but we all love each other very much and nobody's pulling us apart."
I'm very sorry, but there's a reason I chose the Elvis quote today: moderates desperately ask, "why can't we just get along?" - well, as things stand, we can't. Moderates don't understand the true nature of the conflict in America. They have tried to smother the issue with sheer weight of numbers, but the Far Right and Far Left understand what they're talking about. We're not going away until the conflict is resolved - and that conflict is nothing less than the struggle to define America's raison d'etre: are we the Land of the Free, where those outcast from other societies can find refuge to live however they want, or are we a "Christian nation", home of the Christian, English-American, Jacksonian ethnic group where everyone else is merely a guest who has to conform to the rules of their culture? America is fundamentally divided between mutually exclusive mindsets and the MOs that follow from them. Simply put, roughly half the country believes in freedom, and the other doesn't - it's just that "freedom" is a "good" word, so they have a completely different definition for it. One George Lakoff wrote an insightful book on this matter that you can learn more about here: http://www.whosefreedom.com/. Like the man says, this is America's most important idea, and we can't operate with two completely different definitions of it.
The Far Right's not budging. Neither should we. What will happen now that we're standing up for ourselves?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
No More Alan Colmes!
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will."
- Frederick Douglass
As many people already know, limp-wristed liberal strawman Alan Colmes was recently dropped from his seat opposite Sean Hannity. One can only speculate as to why.
My point today is not really to talk about Alan Colmes, but what he represents: the cuddly, harmless, "can't we all just get along" liberalism that, by my estimate at least, was ushered in by Jimmy Carter, and has been the soul of the Democratic Party ever since then.
It was a nice idea: it's nice to be nice to nice people. The theory was, this was the dawning of the Age of Aquarius (or, if you're a serious occultist rather than a poseur, the Aeon of Horus), and if we could but love our enemies, they would pay us back in kind. As another song of the era put it, "there ain't no Good Guys/ there ain't no Bad Guys/ there's only you and me and we just disagree." Heartwarming. But did it work?
Well, they did start paying us back in love - the only problem is, it was their definition of "love." In exchange for Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, and Bobby Kennedy, we got James "Child Abuse" Dobson, Pat "Salvation for Sale" Robertson, Ronald "War on Drugs, and the Poor, and Minorities" Reagan, Grover "Fuck the Poor" Norquist, and David "I Used to be a Bloody Grand Wizard in the Goddamned KKK, for Christ's Sake" Duke.
The Far Right has made it unambiguous what they want. As pastor George Grant stated in his book "The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action," "[It] is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less..."
We can't afford the Alan Colmes strategy any longer. We are fighting the equivalent of Nazis here. Yes, yes, I know the majority of right-wingers aren't this scary, but you know what? Most Nazis were just regular people too. It is enough for the majority to believe, fear, and obey. The scary people are the ones giving the orders, and Adolf Eichmann and Stanley Milgram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) showed the world in no uncertain terms what ordinary people will do under the geas of authority.
I think that the Far Right understands on some instinctual level that their beloved way of life has no place in the world liberals dream of. Our hope has always been that they will see the error of their ways and abandon their white Christian capitalist identities in favor of something good - but they ARE their white Christian capitalist identities; changing that is to them a fate worse than death. They've known all along that this is a war in which the loser will be obliterated. They won't stop until they have EVERYTHING exactly the way they want it. Of course, they can never actually have what they want - the objective Truth itself is against them; but the amount of destruction, suffering, ignorance and order they can cause before they figure that out is incalculable. And when would they figure that out? They're fundamentally irrational - and irrational people can ALWAYS rationalize their way into preserving their beliefs against facts.
As I've said before, the liberal mindset isn't a side or a perspective, but the perspective one attains when you synthesize all others. That said, if they insist on treating us like a "side", it might not hurt to start acting like one. They want "liberal bias"? Let's give them liberal bias!
No more pitching the tug-of-war game. No more compromises. No more appeasement. No more injustice. No more Alan Colmes.
- Frederick Douglass
As many people already know, limp-wristed liberal strawman Alan Colmes was recently dropped from his seat opposite Sean Hannity. One can only speculate as to why.
My point today is not really to talk about Alan Colmes, but what he represents: the cuddly, harmless, "can't we all just get along" liberalism that, by my estimate at least, was ushered in by Jimmy Carter, and has been the soul of the Democratic Party ever since then.
It was a nice idea: it's nice to be nice to nice people. The theory was, this was the dawning of the Age of Aquarius (or, if you're a serious occultist rather than a poseur, the Aeon of Horus), and if we could but love our enemies, they would pay us back in kind. As another song of the era put it, "there ain't no Good Guys/ there ain't no Bad Guys/ there's only you and me and we just disagree." Heartwarming. But did it work?
Well, they did start paying us back in love - the only problem is, it was their definition of "love." In exchange for Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, and Bobby Kennedy, we got James "Child Abuse" Dobson, Pat "Salvation for Sale" Robertson, Ronald "War on Drugs, and the Poor, and Minorities" Reagan, Grover "Fuck the Poor" Norquist, and David "I Used to be a Bloody Grand Wizard in the Goddamned KKK, for Christ's Sake" Duke.
The Far Right has made it unambiguous what they want. As pastor George Grant stated in his book "The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action," "[It] is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less..."
We can't afford the Alan Colmes strategy any longer. We are fighting the equivalent of Nazis here. Yes, yes, I know the majority of right-wingers aren't this scary, but you know what? Most Nazis were just regular people too. It is enough for the majority to believe, fear, and obey. The scary people are the ones giving the orders, and Adolf Eichmann and Stanley Milgram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) showed the world in no uncertain terms what ordinary people will do under the geas of authority.
I think that the Far Right understands on some instinctual level that their beloved way of life has no place in the world liberals dream of. Our hope has always been that they will see the error of their ways and abandon their white Christian capitalist identities in favor of something good - but they ARE their white Christian capitalist identities; changing that is to them a fate worse than death. They've known all along that this is a war in which the loser will be obliterated. They won't stop until they have EVERYTHING exactly the way they want it. Of course, they can never actually have what they want - the objective Truth itself is against them; but the amount of destruction, suffering, ignorance and order they can cause before they figure that out is incalculable. And when would they figure that out? They're fundamentally irrational - and irrational people can ALWAYS rationalize their way into preserving their beliefs against facts.
As I've said before, the liberal mindset isn't a side or a perspective, but the perspective one attains when you synthesize all others. That said, if they insist on treating us like a "side", it might not hurt to start acting like one. They want "liberal bias"? Let's give them liberal bias!
No more pitching the tug-of-war game. No more compromises. No more appeasement. No more injustice. No more Alan Colmes.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
A Song I Wrote
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
- Douglas Adams
For the record, this DOES NOT necessarily reflect my true feelings or opinions (although I do stand by some parts of it) - this is just me being deliberately cynical and offensive. Submitted for your approval:
FAITH
Buddha was a coward,
Jesus was a fraud
Moses was a tyrant
who served a tyrant god
Islam is imperial
spread by swords and pistols
Wicca's too ethereal
all gossamer and crystals
L. Ron Hubbard was a con-man
but everyone knows that
Alastair Crowley was
just an overprivelaged brat
Shinto's a religion that makes you wonder why
there was no divine wind over Hiroshima's sky
Hinduism can't explain, if we're all reincarnated
where'd we get these extra souls
that have us overpopulated?
Rastafarians are stoners
Asatru is uncouth
Tantra gives you boners,
but can it give you truth?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's just a new kid on the block
If Gilgamesh was so great,
whatever happened to Iraq?
Unitarianism's pointless
Ba'hai is so banal
Lao Tzu was a nutcase
Confucius was anal
Zoroastrians see the world in shades of black and white
the Aztecs thought they had to kill
or there would be eternal night
atheists aren't freethinkers
to say there is no god
you first have to know what it is
isn't that a little odd?
A deist's just an atheist trying to cover his ass
agnostic is a cop-out
Santeria's full of gas
the ancient Greek religion discourages ambition
a Satanist is just
another type of Christian
Voodoo is from Haiti
where it hasn't done much good
Celtic paganism's
just dancing naked in the wood
Native American shamanism failed to prevent
the worst genocide in world history
I wonder where the Spirits went?
Inuit religion's depressing
Egyptians keep your heart in a jar
Sikhs keep me guessing at
just how many gods there are
the Australian Aborigines
see bunyips everywhere
Hare Krishna will shave off all your hair
I've spent my life a-seeking, I always fail to find
If you ask me why I have no faith
Because I blew it on Mankind!
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
- Douglas Adams
For the record, this DOES NOT necessarily reflect my true feelings or opinions (although I do stand by some parts of it) - this is just me being deliberately cynical and offensive. Submitted for your approval:
FAITH
Buddha was a coward,
Jesus was a fraud
Moses was a tyrant
who served a tyrant god
Islam is imperial
spread by swords and pistols
Wicca's too ethereal
all gossamer and crystals
L. Ron Hubbard was a con-man
but everyone knows that
Alastair Crowley was
just an overprivelaged brat
Shinto's a religion that makes you wonder why
there was no divine wind over Hiroshima's sky
Hinduism can't explain, if we're all reincarnated
where'd we get these extra souls
that have us overpopulated?
Rastafarians are stoners
Asatru is uncouth
Tantra gives you boners,
but can it give you truth?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's just a new kid on the block
If Gilgamesh was so great,
whatever happened to Iraq?
Unitarianism's pointless
Ba'hai is so banal
Lao Tzu was a nutcase
Confucius was anal
Zoroastrians see the world in shades of black and white
the Aztecs thought they had to kill
or there would be eternal night
atheists aren't freethinkers
to say there is no god
you first have to know what it is
isn't that a little odd?
A deist's just an atheist trying to cover his ass
agnostic is a cop-out
Santeria's full of gas
the ancient Greek religion discourages ambition
a Satanist is just
another type of Christian
Voodoo is from Haiti
where it hasn't done much good
Celtic paganism's
just dancing naked in the wood
Native American shamanism failed to prevent
the worst genocide in world history
I wonder where the Spirits went?
Inuit religion's depressing
Egyptians keep your heart in a jar
Sikhs keep me guessing at
just how many gods there are
the Australian Aborigines
see bunyips everywhere
Hare Krishna will shave off all your hair
I've spent my life a-seeking, I always fail to find
If you ask me why I have no faith
Because I blew it on Mankind!
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Are Republicans Fascists?
QUOTE OF THE DAY: Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
- Benito Mussolini
I think a lot of people already know this, but someone needs to formally call a spade a spade: The modern Republican Party is fascist.
Now, the trouble with this declaration is that there is some dispute over what fascism is. "Fascist" is by consent a "bad word" in our contemporary culture, but words need definitions. Let's look at a few definitions:
Vladimir Lenin described fascism as "capitalism in decay." Short and sweet. Say what you will about Lenin, he wasn't stupid. This doesn't really tell us much, but I find it intensely interesting because it feels so eerily relevant. It would explain a lot about the past 30 years.
My personal definition of fascism is, "a mean-spirited parody of populism." It is what happens when cynical economic elites try to maintain the social inequality by cultivating the worst in people: groupthink, xenophobia, selfishness, and emotionalism. This has been the heart and soul of the Republican Party ever since Nixon.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/ defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." This definition is actually pretty damning. "Nation above the individual" is eerily reminiscent of John McCain's slogan, "Country First." Now, for the record, when I think of "fascist", I don't think of John McCain. I think of his supporters. The McCain campaign, faced with the absurd task of defending Bush's status quo, resorted to invoking bigotry, irrationalism, and mindless nationalism. "Centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader" - the Constitution kept Bush from being a literal dictator, but it's obvious that's what he and his supporters wanted him to be. "Severe economic and social regimentation" - this is vague. Let's ignore it. "Forcible suppression of opposition" - did Reagan, Bush, or Dubya resort use police brutality against their protestors? Not that I can recall. But the thing is, they didn't need to most of the time. This is only done if it's both necessary and politically viable. Why risk looking like the bad guy when you can solve your problems with "peaceful" propaganda? That said, Bush's "free speech zones" carried the implication that protestors would meet police resistance if they tried to stand up for their true rights, and there was one scary incident in Florida in 2000....http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/28/miami/index.html
The Cambride Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines fascism as "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed." "Very powerful leader" - Reagan and Dubya fit that description (not so much Bush Sr. - he had the same presidential powers as Reagan, but not the personality to make full use of them). "State control" - of what? The railroad? The economy? Women's bodies? Let's not worry about it. "Extreme pride in country and race" - the jingoism's unambiguous, and as I've said before, "conservative" has kind of come to be code for "white." "Political opposition is not allowed" - well, they never got around to making political opposition illegal, but as I've said before, the only true Law is the Law of the Pack - the Republicans make it clear that they're not interested in any way but theirs.
Wikipedia offers several good definitions of fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism). I know Wikipedia has its stigma, but this entry is well-cited and lacking in any warning tags.
FDR defined fascism as "ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power." Okay, does it count if MANY private powers own it? And what exactly does he mean by "ownership"? Big Business might not own the government on paper, but it can still own it in practice (Could Obama possibly be the end of that? We'll see).
Stanley G. Payne identifies fascism with the following criteria:
The creation of an authoritarian state: Three words: USA PATRIOT ACT. Republican Party, you are hereby guilty as charged.
A regulated, state-integrated economic sector: The Republican gospel is deregulation. Okay, if this is a criterion for fascism, they certainly don't meet it.
Fascist symbolism: Um, circular logic? A movement is fascist because it uses symbols fascists use? The GOP certainly doesn't use the Nazi swastika or the Italian bundle of sticks, but as Sinclair Lewis so famously said, “When fascism comes to America, it’ll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross” (For the record, though, that may be a bit of a fallacy: some consider fascism to be an American invention, courtesy of movements like the KKK. Once again, it all depends on your definition.).
Anti-liberalism: No shit, Sherlock! Rush Limbaugh alone wins them this one.
Anti-communism: Obviously.
Anti-conservativism: Interesting...obviously, we need a definition for "conservativism" - Republicans obviously don't think of themselves this way, but they seem to have changed the definition. I believe the kind of conservativism Payne has in mind is what the present colloquial refers to as "paleoconservative" - the conservativism of George F. Will, Barry Goldwater, Bill Buckley, and David Frum, who warned against the Party turning into "a rural white rump." The Party is currently caught in a tug-of-war between brain-possessing oldtimers like Frum and the forces that gave us Sarah Palin. Just how this struggle is resolved will be pivotal to the future of the country. http://word-economy.blogspot.com/2008/10/white-rural-rump.html has a few thoughtful things to say about this.
The goal of eliminating the autonomy, possibly the existence of, large-scale capitalism: By THIS definition, certainly not.
Roger Griffin's brief definition of fascism is "a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism." "Palingenetic" refers to a movement for a "national rebirth" of an ethnic nation (of course, the prefix "Palin" is seriously creepy all by itself). The word has the same connotations as "apocalyptic" or "millenarian", albeit secular. Of course, in the American case, the religious terms are probably the better choices. Yeah, this fits the Republicans alright.
Robert O. Paxton defines fascism as, "A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." I'll admit we haven't seen too much "redemptive violence" (unless you count violence of the non-physical variety) or "external expansion" (unless you consider Gulf War II to be motivated by imperialism), but other than that, it fits.
Umberto Eco describes fascism with the following traits:
The Cult of Tradition: combining "cultural syncretism" with a rejection of modernism, often disguised as a rejection of capitalism. No, I don't think this fits.
The Cult of Action for Action's Sake: Anti-intellectualism, irrationalism, and the general belief that it is always better to do something without thinking about it than to take no action at all. This is George W. Bush in a nutshell.
"Disagreement is Treason": discouraging critical thinking as a barrier to action. Same thing as above.
Appeal to Xenophobia: Another obvious "yes."
Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class: specifically, appeal to the fear that the advancement of the disenfranchised will be of deleterious effect to them. From gutting welfare to opposing affirmative action, this fits the GOP platform.
"Obsession with a Plot": Conspiracy theories and fear of an enemy, internal or external, plotting against the People. Whether it's the USSR, the UN, American liberals, or The Terrorists, Republicans are driven by fear of the Bogeyman.
"Life is Permanent Warfare": Same as the above.
"Contempt for the Weak": Here, "weak" probably means those who don't value physical and military strength. Fascists fail to comprehend the teachings of Lao Tzu. It probably also refers to the economically weak (like those on welfare). Yes, these are pretty strong GOP trends.
"Selective Populism": The "common will of the People", interpreted by a "strong leader." This may involve suspician toward a democratic institution that "no longer represents the will of the People." This has been a strong strand of American politics ever since Andrew Jackson.
Orwellian "Newspeak": Once again, Rush Limbaugh alone gives them this.
So by Eco's definition, the GOP is uniquivocally fascist.
John Weiss defines fascism with the following traits:
Organicist Conceptions of Community: I'm sorry, I don't really understand what this one is.
Philosophical Idealism: This is in stark contrast to the bleak "best of all possible worlds" pragmatism of George F. Will-style conservativism. People don't want to vote for despair. Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980 with a consoling, thought-killing smile.
Idealization of "Manly" Virtues: Chuck Norris's tears can cure cancer - too bad he never cries. Ever.
Resentment of Mass Democracy: Only when they lose.
Elitism: Oh boy....if ever a word needed a clear definition. The Republicans always try to glue this word to intellectualism, but, you know, what about cultural/military/economic elitism? That's them, alright.
Racism: Do I have to go into all the reasons this is another slam-dunk?
Militarism: You can smell it from half a world away.
Imperialism: This is a big word, much bigger than the Republican Party. It certainly fits them, though, even if you don't count Iraq.
A little bit of confusion with Weiss's definition, but it fits well enough to call it another "yes."
The Encyclopedia of Marxism (that's right, MARXISM! Oh no!) has a pretty good list of distinguishing traits developed from the experiences of Marxism's long struggle with its archnemesis:
Right-Wing: Fascism is opposed to all forms of Leftism. Obviously.
Nationalism: More specifically, jingoism and militarism. Nothing subtle about the Republican love affair with these.
Heirarchy: "Fascist society is ruled by a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret vanguard of capitalists." This has been a mainstay of the Republican strategy ever since the Religious Right got the idea to organize themselves on corporate lines.
Anti-Equality: Rich, white, heterosexual Christian men on top, everyone else...in their place. Fair enough.
Religious: More specifically, Christian (unless you're talking about Tojo's Japan). Tell me about it....
Capitalist: "Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers' rights are destroyed." The Marxist definition differs a little from others on this point, but it certainly fits the Republicans.
War: "Fascism is capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wreaking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding." I don't think the fascists themselves are thinking exactly along those lines, but that's certainly what happened in Iraq.
Voluntarist Ideology: "Fascism adopts a certain kind of “voluntarism;” they believe that an act of will, if sufficiently powerful, can make something true. Thus all sorts of ideas about racial inferiority, historical destiny, even physical science, are supported by means of violence, in the belief that they can be made true. It is this sense that Fascism is subjectivist." In other words, why use reasoned debate when you can just act like a spoiled 4-year-old? Once again, a perfect description of Republican behaviour.
Anti-Modern: "Fascism loathes all kinds of modernism, especially creativity in the arts, whether acting as a mirror for life (where it does not conform to the Fascist ideal), or expressing deviant or innovative points of view. Fascism invariably burns books and victimises artists, and artists which do not promote the fascists ideals are seen as “decadent.” Fascism is hostile to broad learning and interest in other cultures, since such pursuits threaten the dominance of fascist myths." Republicans definitely do not like looking at alternative perspectives. There hasn't been much book-burning, but there's certainly been some (Harry Potter, remember?) Add in their love of cutting arts funding, and this fits them like a glove.
Well, that's the dreaded Marxist perspective, which gives the GOP 100% on its fascism score.
But there's also the Libertarian perspective: The Market for Liberty (a book advocating "anarcho-capitalism") defines fascism as "a system in which the government leaves nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private individuals but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation. In effect, fascism is simply a more subtle form of government ownership than is socialism." Well, gee. By this definition, the DEMOCRATIC Party is fascist. But I thought Obama was a socialist?....
Finally, there's George Orwell's perspective:
"...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."
I know what it's like to be bullied. I may have developed my own definition of "fascist", but can't be any better than this one. A thorough scrutiny of Republican rhetoric will show that their logic ultimately distills to little more than, "Shut up! We're right! Obey us! Because we say so!" Claim to authority not by virtue of logic or merit, but force.
The Republican Party is fascist.
- Benito Mussolini
I think a lot of people already know this, but someone needs to formally call a spade a spade: The modern Republican Party is fascist.
Now, the trouble with this declaration is that there is some dispute over what fascism is. "Fascist" is by consent a "bad word" in our contemporary culture, but words need definitions. Let's look at a few definitions:
Vladimir Lenin described fascism as "capitalism in decay." Short and sweet. Say what you will about Lenin, he wasn't stupid. This doesn't really tell us much, but I find it intensely interesting because it feels so eerily relevant. It would explain a lot about the past 30 years.
My personal definition of fascism is, "a mean-spirited parody of populism." It is what happens when cynical economic elites try to maintain the social inequality by cultivating the worst in people: groupthink, xenophobia, selfishness, and emotionalism. This has been the heart and soul of the Republican Party ever since Nixon.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/ defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." This definition is actually pretty damning. "Nation above the individual" is eerily reminiscent of John McCain's slogan, "Country First." Now, for the record, when I think of "fascist", I don't think of John McCain. I think of his supporters. The McCain campaign, faced with the absurd task of defending Bush's status quo, resorted to invoking bigotry, irrationalism, and mindless nationalism. "Centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader" - the Constitution kept Bush from being a literal dictator, but it's obvious that's what he and his supporters wanted him to be. "Severe economic and social regimentation" - this is vague. Let's ignore it. "Forcible suppression of opposition" - did Reagan, Bush, or Dubya resort use police brutality against their protestors? Not that I can recall. But the thing is, they didn't need to most of the time. This is only done if it's both necessary and politically viable. Why risk looking like the bad guy when you can solve your problems with "peaceful" propaganda? That said, Bush's "free speech zones" carried the implication that protestors would meet police resistance if they tried to stand up for their true rights, and there was one scary incident in Florida in 2000....http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/28/miami/index.html
The Cambride Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines fascism as "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed." "Very powerful leader" - Reagan and Dubya fit that description (not so much Bush Sr. - he had the same presidential powers as Reagan, but not the personality to make full use of them). "State control" - of what? The railroad? The economy? Women's bodies? Let's not worry about it. "Extreme pride in country and race" - the jingoism's unambiguous, and as I've said before, "conservative" has kind of come to be code for "white." "Political opposition is not allowed" - well, they never got around to making political opposition illegal, but as I've said before, the only true Law is the Law of the Pack - the Republicans make it clear that they're not interested in any way but theirs.
Wikipedia offers several good definitions of fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism). I know Wikipedia has its stigma, but this entry is well-cited and lacking in any warning tags.
FDR defined fascism as "ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power." Okay, does it count if MANY private powers own it? And what exactly does he mean by "ownership"? Big Business might not own the government on paper, but it can still own it in practice (Could Obama possibly be the end of that? We'll see).
Stanley G. Payne identifies fascism with the following criteria:
The creation of an authoritarian state: Three words: USA PATRIOT ACT. Republican Party, you are hereby guilty as charged.
A regulated, state-integrated economic sector: The Republican gospel is deregulation. Okay, if this is a criterion for fascism, they certainly don't meet it.
Fascist symbolism: Um, circular logic? A movement is fascist because it uses symbols fascists use? The GOP certainly doesn't use the Nazi swastika or the Italian bundle of sticks, but as Sinclair Lewis so famously said, “When fascism comes to America, it’ll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross” (For the record, though, that may be a bit of a fallacy: some consider fascism to be an American invention, courtesy of movements like the KKK. Once again, it all depends on your definition.).
Anti-liberalism: No shit, Sherlock! Rush Limbaugh alone wins them this one.
Anti-communism: Obviously.
Anti-conservativism: Interesting...obviously, we need a definition for "conservativism" - Republicans obviously don't think of themselves this way, but they seem to have changed the definition. I believe the kind of conservativism Payne has in mind is what the present colloquial refers to as "paleoconservative" - the conservativism of George F. Will, Barry Goldwater, Bill Buckley, and David Frum, who warned against the Party turning into "a rural white rump." The Party is currently caught in a tug-of-war between brain-possessing oldtimers like Frum and the forces that gave us Sarah Palin. Just how this struggle is resolved will be pivotal to the future of the country. http://word-economy.blogspot.com/2008/10/white-rural-rump.html has a few thoughtful things to say about this.
The goal of eliminating the autonomy, possibly the existence of, large-scale capitalism: By THIS definition, certainly not.
Roger Griffin's brief definition of fascism is "a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism." "Palingenetic" refers to a movement for a "national rebirth" of an ethnic nation (of course, the prefix "Palin" is seriously creepy all by itself). The word has the same connotations as "apocalyptic" or "millenarian", albeit secular. Of course, in the American case, the religious terms are probably the better choices. Yeah, this fits the Republicans alright.
Robert O. Paxton defines fascism as, "A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." I'll admit we haven't seen too much "redemptive violence" (unless you count violence of the non-physical variety) or "external expansion" (unless you consider Gulf War II to be motivated by imperialism), but other than that, it fits.
Umberto Eco describes fascism with the following traits:
The Cult of Tradition: combining "cultural syncretism" with a rejection of modernism, often disguised as a rejection of capitalism. No, I don't think this fits.
The Cult of Action for Action's Sake: Anti-intellectualism, irrationalism, and the general belief that it is always better to do something without thinking about it than to take no action at all. This is George W. Bush in a nutshell.
"Disagreement is Treason": discouraging critical thinking as a barrier to action. Same thing as above.
Appeal to Xenophobia: Another obvious "yes."
Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class: specifically, appeal to the fear that the advancement of the disenfranchised will be of deleterious effect to them. From gutting welfare to opposing affirmative action, this fits the GOP platform.
"Obsession with a Plot": Conspiracy theories and fear of an enemy, internal or external, plotting against the People. Whether it's the USSR, the UN, American liberals, or The Terrorists, Republicans are driven by fear of the Bogeyman.
"Life is Permanent Warfare": Same as the above.
"Contempt for the Weak": Here, "weak" probably means those who don't value physical and military strength. Fascists fail to comprehend the teachings of Lao Tzu. It probably also refers to the economically weak (like those on welfare). Yes, these are pretty strong GOP trends.
"Selective Populism": The "common will of the People", interpreted by a "strong leader." This may involve suspician toward a democratic institution that "no longer represents the will of the People." This has been a strong strand of American politics ever since Andrew Jackson.
Orwellian "Newspeak": Once again, Rush Limbaugh alone gives them this.
So by Eco's definition, the GOP is uniquivocally fascist.
John Weiss defines fascism with the following traits:
Organicist Conceptions of Community: I'm sorry, I don't really understand what this one is.
Philosophical Idealism: This is in stark contrast to the bleak "best of all possible worlds" pragmatism of George F. Will-style conservativism. People don't want to vote for despair. Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980 with a consoling, thought-killing smile.
Idealization of "Manly" Virtues: Chuck Norris's tears can cure cancer - too bad he never cries. Ever.
Resentment of Mass Democracy: Only when they lose.
Elitism: Oh boy....if ever a word needed a clear definition. The Republicans always try to glue this word to intellectualism, but, you know, what about cultural/military/economic elitism? That's them, alright.
Racism: Do I have to go into all the reasons this is another slam-dunk?
Militarism: You can smell it from half a world away.
Imperialism: This is a big word, much bigger than the Republican Party. It certainly fits them, though, even if you don't count Iraq.
A little bit of confusion with Weiss's definition, but it fits well enough to call it another "yes."
The Encyclopedia of Marxism (that's right, MARXISM! Oh no!) has a pretty good list of distinguishing traits developed from the experiences of Marxism's long struggle with its archnemesis:
Right-Wing: Fascism is opposed to all forms of Leftism. Obviously.
Nationalism: More specifically, jingoism and militarism. Nothing subtle about the Republican love affair with these.
Heirarchy: "Fascist society is ruled by a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret vanguard of capitalists." This has been a mainstay of the Republican strategy ever since the Religious Right got the idea to organize themselves on corporate lines.
Anti-Equality: Rich, white, heterosexual Christian men on top, everyone else...in their place. Fair enough.
Religious: More specifically, Christian (unless you're talking about Tojo's Japan). Tell me about it....
Capitalist: "Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers' rights are destroyed." The Marxist definition differs a little from others on this point, but it certainly fits the Republicans.
War: "Fascism is capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wreaking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding." I don't think the fascists themselves are thinking exactly along those lines, but that's certainly what happened in Iraq.
Voluntarist Ideology: "Fascism adopts a certain kind of “voluntarism;” they believe that an act of will, if sufficiently powerful, can make something true. Thus all sorts of ideas about racial inferiority, historical destiny, even physical science, are supported by means of violence, in the belief that they can be made true. It is this sense that Fascism is subjectivist." In other words, why use reasoned debate when you can just act like a spoiled 4-year-old? Once again, a perfect description of Republican behaviour.
Anti-Modern: "Fascism loathes all kinds of modernism, especially creativity in the arts, whether acting as a mirror for life (where it does not conform to the Fascist ideal), or expressing deviant or innovative points of view. Fascism invariably burns books and victimises artists, and artists which do not promote the fascists ideals are seen as “decadent.” Fascism is hostile to broad learning and interest in other cultures, since such pursuits threaten the dominance of fascist myths." Republicans definitely do not like looking at alternative perspectives. There hasn't been much book-burning, but there's certainly been some (Harry Potter, remember?) Add in their love of cutting arts funding, and this fits them like a glove.
Well, that's the dreaded Marxist perspective, which gives the GOP 100% on its fascism score.
But there's also the Libertarian perspective: The Market for Liberty (a book advocating "anarcho-capitalism") defines fascism as "a system in which the government leaves nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private individuals but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation. In effect, fascism is simply a more subtle form of government ownership than is socialism." Well, gee. By this definition, the DEMOCRATIC Party is fascist. But I thought Obama was a socialist?....
Finally, there's George Orwell's perspective:
"...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."
I know what it's like to be bullied. I may have developed my own definition of "fascist", but can't be any better than this one. A thorough scrutiny of Republican rhetoric will show that their logic ultimately distills to little more than, "Shut up! We're right! Obey us! Because we say so!" Claim to authority not by virtue of logic or merit, but force.
The Republican Party is fascist.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Why I'm an anarchist
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
C. P. Snow
I'm not just any liberal - I'm the worst kind of liberal. I'm the liberal that even other liberals are scared of.
I am an anarchist.
Why, you ask? My logic follows:
What is the purpose of government? It seems to me that, in the broadest sense, the purpose of government is to protect us from Evil - invaders, murderers, natural disasters, et cetera.
But let's look at history: Governments actually cause more Evil than they prevent!
In Dungeons & Dragons terms, let's compare Chaotic Evil (the kind of Evil government is supposed to protect you from) and Lawful Evil (the kind of Evil that runs government). A good example of Chaotic Evil would be Charles Manson. What he did was pretty grisly, but how many people did it affect? Only a few, really. Let's compare that to the epitome of Lawful Evil, Adolf Hitler. His government-sponsored Evil was at least as bad as Manson's on a per capita basis, but he managed to do it to MILLIONS of people. Simply put, in a state of anarchy, there could BE no Hitlers, and even if anarchy produced 10 times as many Charles Mansons (which I assure you it wouldn't), that wouldn't hold a candle to one Adolf Hitler.
But, you ask, doesn't anarchy just mean mob rule? Post-invasion Iraq, post-Katrina New Orleans, that kind of thing?
NO. Mob rule is Law and Order in its purest form; there is only one true Law, and that is the Law of the Pack. When formal governments vanish, the reason so many people coalesce into mobs is because they've been trained their whole life to obey and follow. They've been trained to take orders from others rather than think for themselves.
I see things differently from other people because I have Asperger's Syndrome. I'm a non-conformist because it's neurologically impossible for me to do otherwise. I've been an outsider my whole life. I was picked on in high school. I've seen the Human Hive-Mind that most people are stuck in. That's what government is. As George Washington said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."
Simply put, how do I know anarchy would work? Because I already live in a state of anarchy. Anarchy is a state of mind, wherein one lives by Leonardo da Vinci's maxim, "You can have no dominion greater or less than that over yourself." People are born good; the desire to help others, solve problems, and learn is innate to Humanity - if you can accept that, it's basically a straight line in logic to anarchism.
So, you ask, what about providing people with resources? Are you one of those people who say 'leave it all to the private sector?' NO. I'm not a Libertarian (though I am of course a libertarian) - Libertarians don't get it. They don't understand what a government is. A corporation is every bit as much a government as a nation-state. Any heirarchical organization where people try to control other people is a government. Consider the early American colonies; the government was the Virginia COMPANY - a corporation. The colony's raison d'etre was to make money. One person who gives a command plus one person who obeys the command for no reason other than that the command was given equals one tiny, short-lived, totalitarian state. In my vision, all multiperson organization must be temporary and with a specific purpose in mind. A government is like an organism - it exists simply for its own sake.
I'm not a utopian. There will be problems no matter what you do, there is no perfect society. There is no "perfect." My goal is to minimize suffering and injustice. I don't expect anarchy anytime soon - there's too much screwed up that we have to fix. But yes, I'm an idealist. I think you have to be. You have to know exactly what you want or you won't get anywhere. You have to have a vision. If you know exactly where you are and exactly where you want to be. Getting from Point A to Point B is all details.
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
C. P. Snow
I'm not just any liberal - I'm the worst kind of liberal. I'm the liberal that even other liberals are scared of.
I am an anarchist.
Why, you ask? My logic follows:
What is the purpose of government? It seems to me that, in the broadest sense, the purpose of government is to protect us from Evil - invaders, murderers, natural disasters, et cetera.
But let's look at history: Governments actually cause more Evil than they prevent!
In Dungeons & Dragons terms, let's compare Chaotic Evil (the kind of Evil government is supposed to protect you from) and Lawful Evil (the kind of Evil that runs government). A good example of Chaotic Evil would be Charles Manson. What he did was pretty grisly, but how many people did it affect? Only a few, really. Let's compare that to the epitome of Lawful Evil, Adolf Hitler. His government-sponsored Evil was at least as bad as Manson's on a per capita basis, but he managed to do it to MILLIONS of people. Simply put, in a state of anarchy, there could BE no Hitlers, and even if anarchy produced 10 times as many Charles Mansons (which I assure you it wouldn't), that wouldn't hold a candle to one Adolf Hitler.
But, you ask, doesn't anarchy just mean mob rule? Post-invasion Iraq, post-Katrina New Orleans, that kind of thing?
NO. Mob rule is Law and Order in its purest form; there is only one true Law, and that is the Law of the Pack. When formal governments vanish, the reason so many people coalesce into mobs is because they've been trained their whole life to obey and follow. They've been trained to take orders from others rather than think for themselves.
I see things differently from other people because I have Asperger's Syndrome. I'm a non-conformist because it's neurologically impossible for me to do otherwise. I've been an outsider my whole life. I was picked on in high school. I've seen the Human Hive-Mind that most people are stuck in. That's what government is. As George Washington said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."
Simply put, how do I know anarchy would work? Because I already live in a state of anarchy. Anarchy is a state of mind, wherein one lives by Leonardo da Vinci's maxim, "You can have no dominion greater or less than that over yourself." People are born good; the desire to help others, solve problems, and learn is innate to Humanity - if you can accept that, it's basically a straight line in logic to anarchism.
So, you ask, what about providing people with resources? Are you one of those people who say 'leave it all to the private sector?' NO. I'm not a Libertarian (though I am of course a libertarian) - Libertarians don't get it. They don't understand what a government is. A corporation is every bit as much a government as a nation-state. Any heirarchical organization where people try to control other people is a government. Consider the early American colonies; the government was the Virginia COMPANY - a corporation. The colony's raison d'etre was to make money. One person who gives a command plus one person who obeys the command for no reason other than that the command was given equals one tiny, short-lived, totalitarian state. In my vision, all multiperson organization must be temporary and with a specific purpose in mind. A government is like an organism - it exists simply for its own sake.
I'm not a utopian. There will be problems no matter what you do, there is no perfect society. There is no "perfect." My goal is to minimize suffering and injustice. I don't expect anarchy anytime soon - there's too much screwed up that we have to fix. But yes, I'm an idealist. I think you have to be. You have to know exactly what you want or you won't get anywhere. You have to have a vision. If you know exactly where you are and exactly where you want to be. Getting from Point A to Point B is all details.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Liberal Bias an Oxymoron?
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."
--Dresden James
You know what bugs me? Allegations of "liberal bias." For the past 30-40 years, the Far Right has been using this gem to brilliant effect. Somebody or something disagree with you? Just call "liberal bias" and they have to give your perspective even more time than it already gets.
First of all, you know what I think this is? Politically-correct anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism's been a central feature of Christian society for as long as Christianity's been in the regimented, authoritarian form we recognize today, and it was only with the defeat of the Nazis in World War II that it became "uncool" - you don't get rid of something that important in just a generation or two, you just drive it underground, and when it comes back up, it's been rebranded: same concepts and emotions, different superficial details. This all started with Watergate and the New York Times - as notable anti-Semite Richard Nixon said, "What do you expect from a Jewish newspaper?" Keep in mind this was the same guy who created the political landscape we know today with his devastatingly effective Southern Strategy. If you can start by whining about the "evil Jewish liberal New York Times," it's a trivial jump to "evil Jewish liberal New York media" - because New York's a blue state, and the central nerve center of a lot of media, there's no denying that. But like I said, anti-Semitism's uncool now. People have the same prejudices, they're just not allowed to show them - so, all you need to do to make this conspiracy theory a little more mainstream is drop the "Jewish." The right people will know what you're talking about, and many others will go along for the ride. And of course, if you can see a trend in one state, you can follow it to others - we've arrived at the "liberal media" we're all familiar with today. Yes, I know, right-wing Jews like Ben Stein and Bernard Goldberg bash this "liberal media" along with everyone else, but that's the beauty of prejudice: It's completely illogical. All bigots really know is that they're afraid of SOMETHING - anti-Semitism was never about the REAL Jews, but a cartoonish caricature. The hate has been holistically transferred from one caricature to another, allowing those who are technically Jewish but behave sufficiently like white people to act as allies against a common enemy. In the contemporary colloquial, "conservative" has become an ethnic group.
Which brings me to my other, and more important, point: there is no "liberal" ethnic group. Once again, the "liberals" that run the "liberal media" are a cartoonish caricature that exist only in the minds of bigots. This raises the fundamental question: What IS a liberal, and what does it mean to have a "liberal bias"?
Bottom line is, you know what I think? I think "liberal bias" is a brilliant Orwellian oxymoron. A bias is a perspective, a particular angle, (note that when the Far Right talks about *their* bias, they always use the nice word "perspective") but a liberal is someone who listens to every side of an issue - the mindset of a true liberal is post-ethnic. An individual who thinks of oneself as a liberal can certainly have a bias - a New York or California bias, a bias for the Democratic Party, a bias for Marxism or atheism - but "liberal bias" is an oxymoron! The Democratic Party is nothing more and nothing less than an uneasy alliance making the case for everyone in America who is oppressed by the rich, Anglo-Saxon, Puritan, heterosexual male ruling elite. "Registered Democrat" IS NOT equivalent to "liberal" - consider the black Californians who voted for both Obama and Proposition 8. They think in the ethnocentric mindset just like Jacksonian Republicans do. They're Democrats because they're an oppressed minority, not because they understand the mysterious vision of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and - dare I say it? - Yeshua ben Yosef AKA Jesus Christ. The Far Right dutifully recites that every perspective deserves equal time, well guess what happens when you listen not only to whites, Christians, capitalists, and men, but also to women, androgynes, blacks, hispanics, asians, American Indians, Eastern Indians, Jews, atheists, Muslims, Satanists, Discordians, Pastafarians, Voudoun, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, animists, Gnostics, Nordic pagans, Greek pagans, Celtic pagans, Egyptian pagans, Middle Eastern pagans, socialists, communists, and anarchists?
That's right. We ALL deserve equal time. No special treatment for ANYONE. You become a liberal, and you know what?
We've been pampering the Far Right. We've played along, met them halfway, indulged them, listened to their side of the story over and over, and how do they return the favor? They continue to shit on us like they always have.
I am SICK AND TIRED of it.
No more. After Bush, President Obama (I still can't believe it) shouldn't have had to put even ONE conservative in his cabinet. No more meeting them halfway - it's a tug-of-war, and every time we try to win them over with kindness, they take advantage of it. They know true freedom and equality will mean the end of their way of life - they're not going to change.
No more of this "middle ground between liberals and conservatives" bullshit. Liberals ARE the middle ground. We are where all perspectives intersect. I'm sure we could stand to get over our individual state or partisan or religious bias, but the Far Right just wants the same special treatment they got before the Second World War taught us ethnocentrism and imperialism are bad.
Liberalism stands for freedom and equality - and we must never settle for anything less.
--Dresden James
You know what bugs me? Allegations of "liberal bias." For the past 30-40 years, the Far Right has been using this gem to brilliant effect. Somebody or something disagree with you? Just call "liberal bias" and they have to give your perspective even more time than it already gets.
First of all, you know what I think this is? Politically-correct anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism's been a central feature of Christian society for as long as Christianity's been in the regimented, authoritarian form we recognize today, and it was only with the defeat of the Nazis in World War II that it became "uncool" - you don't get rid of something that important in just a generation or two, you just drive it underground, and when it comes back up, it's been rebranded: same concepts and emotions, different superficial details. This all started with Watergate and the New York Times - as notable anti-Semite Richard Nixon said, "What do you expect from a Jewish newspaper?" Keep in mind this was the same guy who created the political landscape we know today with his devastatingly effective Southern Strategy. If you can start by whining about the "evil Jewish liberal New York Times," it's a trivial jump to "evil Jewish liberal New York media" - because New York's a blue state, and the central nerve center of a lot of media, there's no denying that. But like I said, anti-Semitism's uncool now. People have the same prejudices, they're just not allowed to show them - so, all you need to do to make this conspiracy theory a little more mainstream is drop the "Jewish." The right people will know what you're talking about, and many others will go along for the ride. And of course, if you can see a trend in one state, you can follow it to others - we've arrived at the "liberal media" we're all familiar with today. Yes, I know, right-wing Jews like Ben Stein and Bernard Goldberg bash this "liberal media" along with everyone else, but that's the beauty of prejudice: It's completely illogical. All bigots really know is that they're afraid of SOMETHING - anti-Semitism was never about the REAL Jews, but a cartoonish caricature. The hate has been holistically transferred from one caricature to another, allowing those who are technically Jewish but behave sufficiently like white people to act as allies against a common enemy. In the contemporary colloquial, "conservative" has become an ethnic group.
Which brings me to my other, and more important, point: there is no "liberal" ethnic group. Once again, the "liberals" that run the "liberal media" are a cartoonish caricature that exist only in the minds of bigots. This raises the fundamental question: What IS a liberal, and what does it mean to have a "liberal bias"?
Bottom line is, you know what I think? I think "liberal bias" is a brilliant Orwellian oxymoron. A bias is a perspective, a particular angle, (note that when the Far Right talks about *their* bias, they always use the nice word "perspective") but a liberal is someone who listens to every side of an issue - the mindset of a true liberal is post-ethnic. An individual who thinks of oneself as a liberal can certainly have a bias - a New York or California bias, a bias for the Democratic Party, a bias for Marxism or atheism - but "liberal bias" is an oxymoron! The Democratic Party is nothing more and nothing less than an uneasy alliance making the case for everyone in America who is oppressed by the rich, Anglo-Saxon, Puritan, heterosexual male ruling elite. "Registered Democrat" IS NOT equivalent to "liberal" - consider the black Californians who voted for both Obama and Proposition 8. They think in the ethnocentric mindset just like Jacksonian Republicans do. They're Democrats because they're an oppressed minority, not because they understand the mysterious vision of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and - dare I say it? - Yeshua ben Yosef AKA Jesus Christ. The Far Right dutifully recites that every perspective deserves equal time, well guess what happens when you listen not only to whites, Christians, capitalists, and men, but also to women, androgynes, blacks, hispanics, asians, American Indians, Eastern Indians, Jews, atheists, Muslims, Satanists, Discordians, Pastafarians, Voudoun, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, animists, Gnostics, Nordic pagans, Greek pagans, Celtic pagans, Egyptian pagans, Middle Eastern pagans, socialists, communists, and anarchists?
That's right. We ALL deserve equal time. No special treatment for ANYONE. You become a liberal, and you know what?
We've been pampering the Far Right. We've played along, met them halfway, indulged them, listened to their side of the story over and over, and how do they return the favor? They continue to shit on us like they always have.
I am SICK AND TIRED of it.
No more. After Bush, President Obama (I still can't believe it) shouldn't have had to put even ONE conservative in his cabinet. No more meeting them halfway - it's a tug-of-war, and every time we try to win them over with kindness, they take advantage of it. They know true freedom and equality will mean the end of their way of life - they're not going to change.
No more of this "middle ground between liberals and conservatives" bullshit. Liberals ARE the middle ground. We are where all perspectives intersect. I'm sure we could stand to get over our individual state or partisan or religious bias, but the Far Right just wants the same special treatment they got before the Second World War taught us ethnocentrism and imperialism are bad.
Liberalism stands for freedom and equality - and we must never settle for anything less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
