Lindsay Lohan is suing Fox News, which she accuses of peddling “malicious innuendo.” Malicious innuendo is the Fox News business model.
Perhaps the anti-Vaxxers could be quarantined on the Bundy Ranch in Nevada.
Whenever Rand Paul’s wacky libertarian philosophy leaks out, he reveals himself as a card carrying member of the lunatic fringe.
The nut didn’t fall very far from the tree (Ron Paul).
It could be that the USA is in the midst of conservative days of rage that recall the period of uncivil unrest that occurred in the wake of the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Those Tea Partysans who are unable to contain their disappointment over a legislative defeat appear willing to cross over the line from a peaceful remonstration of grievances into violent opposition. Even “Pro-Life” conservatives have turned on other Pro-Life politicians who are now deemed “baby killers” because they wrangled an executive order banning the use of federal funds for abortion from a pro-choice President (and in the screwy logic of the contemporary conservative base of the Republican Party, what would otherwise be treated as a victory is viewed as a defeat or, worse, as a traitorous surrender). The overlapping membership of the remnants of 1990s militias and the newly-minted extremists within the Tea Party camp could lead to the formation of groups analogous to the Weathermen/Weather Underground. Whereas the Weather Underground’s theory of the legitimate use of political violence was fueled by Marxist-Leninist theory, copious quantities of pot, LSD, and polymorphous perversion, today’s incipient Rogue Underground is driven by apocalyptic visions of death panels and hidden Muslim agents, Hitler and the Anti-Christ — all embodied in the Affordable Health Care for America Act — and fueled by a collective memory of rage that was stoked when the Branch Davidians were consumed in the cleansing fires of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’s secular purgatorium. Similar to the Weather Underground, which possessed a photogenic and charismatic frontperson in Bernardine Dohrn, a conservative Rogue Underground can already claim a candidate with similar qualities as the attractive face of its armed resistance.
It would be interesting to know whether, and how deeply, the FBI has infiltrated the Tea Party organizations.
Lacking moderate voices among their membership, the Republican Party has only one option as long as it is out of power: total, absolute, non-cooperation. That is understandable, even rational. However, the way in which it pursues non-cooperation is curious, especially the use of slogans and distortions of reality that only invigorate the less emotionally stable segments of its political base. Republicans only paint themselves into a corner. It’s been said many times before: if Republican legislators insists on describing the Affordable Health Care for America Act as a threat to American democracy and values, as a government takeover, and as socialist, then there’s no way these legislators can contribute positively to such a piece of legislation, and the rhetoric will be impelled further into loon land. And the loons will come out to play.
Also curious is the way the once staid, emotionally controlled presentation of the Republican Party has morphed into an uninhibited expression of feelings and a political style that exhibits the characteristics of a new form of secondary narcissism. In The Culture of Narcissism, Christopher Lasch described the shift in the type of patient who presented him/herself for psychoanalytic treatment: “Psychoanalysis, a therapy that grew out of experience with severely repressed and morally rigid individuals who needed to come to terms with a rigorous inner ‘censor,’ today finds itself confronted more and more often with a ‘chaotic and impulse-ridden character.’ It must deal with patients who ‘act out’ their conflicts instead of repressing or sublimating them.” Today’s Republican politician, no less than the Tea Partysan that is her de facto mirror-image, now presents similar characteristics. The Republican politician reacts impulsively to disappointments, and “acts out” against the agency (whichever one is found to be handy at any given moment: “liberals,” Obama, ACORN, unions, Pelosi, “Hollywood,” “illegal immigrants,” the “mainstream media,” etc.) that is perceived to be the source of disappointment through the use of disparaging language that reaches for the worst metaphors of political degradation. The emocons of today are no longer able to sublimate frustrations and anger, and their rage boils over on the floor of the House (“baby killer”), in town hall meetings, at Tea Partysan gatherings, and on voice mail left for members of Congress (“I hope you bleed … (get) cancer and die”). None of this is new, of course: paranoid style rage against the changing political cultural circumstances is older than McCarthyism, the clinic bombings, and Tim McVeigh. What is new is the open embrace of a discourse of victimhood, of victimization, from the conservative milieu. The fear of victimization is the emotional anchor of conservative politics today, a sense of victimization conservatives enable through their refusal to participate in the political process like responsible legislators and citizens.
Individuals identifiable with the Tea Party-Patriot tendency now feel entitled to attack governmental authority using symbolic and physical violence (if necessary). This new violence entitlement, often claimed in the name of Jesus, the Second Amendment, or Ayn Rand, has, unfortunately, been given comfort by mainline Republicans (who should know better) and by rogue conservatives (who don’t know any better).
At least since 1965, the Republican Party has cultivated, sometimes overtly, mostly covertly, the garden from which the sentiments about the “Negro” expressed by Cliven Bundy grow. It believes that a significant portion of its electoral base is emotionally engaged with these sentiments and that it would be wise to avoid causing this base any offense. I’ve wondered if there would actually be any risk to the Republican Party if it were to more actively censure elected officials who dance with the devil of racial resentment. Is the Republicans’ “southern strategy” still necessary in 2014? Does the Party still fear that a George Wallace will emerge to steal away votes from it during the 2016 Presidential election?
It is not impossible for the Republican Party to compete with Democrats on the basis of the promotion its small government, free enterprise, and individual liberty credo without embracing anti-black or anti-latino statements. The Republican Party could malign the Democrats as Big Government Big Spenders, as hostile to business and individual freedom, all without having to disparage racial and ethnic minorities.
However, it could be the case that the scenario I imagine for Republican resistance to racist temptations is hopelessly rosy. The problem may be more deeply rooted in Republican “ideology.” From this point of view, the Republican Party made a fatal faustian bargain when it sought the votes of disgruntled southern segregationists (in the wake of 1968). Since then, its electoral fortunes depend on the affirmation of the residual racial animus of that region, from the segment of its population that longs for the south to rise again to its former Confederate glory.
We are pretty familiar with this story: A perfectly sensible if slightly boring idea is walking down the street. Suddenly, the ideological circus descends, burying the sensible idea in hysterical claims and fevered accusations. The idea’s political backers beat a craven retreat. The idea dies.
This is what seems to be happening to the Common Core education standards, which are being attacked on the right because they are common and on the left because they are core.
Finally, a sensible column from David Brooks.
Men and women tick the same. We all want free wifi; a quality, artisanally poured latte; and the latest Carsick Cars album (on vinyl).
Hiding pot from kids works no better than hiding sex from them. Eventually, they figure out you’ve done it (at least once).
Religion is the bane of politics.
Benghazi is a distraction from the Bundy Ranch.
By the time Prince George becomes King of England, he’ll be a grandfather.
When the The Wealth of Nations was published, capitalism as described by Adam Smith didn’t even exist. The Wealth of Nations was a speculative text, like much of modern macroeconomic theory. Really existing capitalism exhibits neither the “universal opulence” envisioned by the radical Mr Smith nor Pareto optimality.
In the Nevada “range war,” Cliven Bundy has played the George Armstrong Custer (or David Koresh) role. The renegade cattlemen (read tax cheats) are flashing automatic weapons as if they were Black Panthers.
I wonder if Senator Rand Paul offered to serve as a human shield for Mr Bundy.
The Bundy Ranch is a distraction from Benghazi.