Browsing the archives for the Wingnuts Being Wingnuts category.


Meanwhile, Back at the Bird Sanctuary …

-->
Wingnuts Being Wingnuts

I know we’ve all moved on from the clown-shoe occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, but the last of the occupiers have not moved on. Four of the brave and resolute patriots remain on the Refuge, saying they will not leave unless they are promised law enforcement will not be mean to them, and that they will not be arrested. However, a federal grand jury just indicted their sorry butts, so I doubt that’s going to be an option.

Presumably speaking from a jail cell, this week Ammon Bundy issued an order to state and federal authorities to go home.

Ammon Bundy, leader of the monthlong armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge, said from jail Thursday that the takeover was “a needed action” and called on state and federal law enforcement officials to leave eastern Oregon. …

…”Government officials chose to end our educational efforts with attacks of force and it appears they attempt to do it again,” Bundy said in the minute-and-a half statement. “Go home, Oregon State Police. You have already killed enough. Go home, FBI. It is time to end this.”

Also, a bill has been introduced in Congress that would make the occupiers responsible for paying for the extra law enforcement their occupation required, and also for any damage they’ve done to property on the Refuge. They’ve run up about a million dollar tab so far.

Share Button
17 Comments

A Bang and a Whimper

-->
firearms, Wingnuts Being Wingnuts

So the Bundy boys and some of their followers are in FBI custody. LaVoy Finicum, the “live free or die” warrior known for taking in foster children to work on his unprofitable ranch so he could collect government checks has been killed. So far no details have been released describing Finicum’s death, but already the Web is buzzing with the rumor that Finicum was shot trying to surrender.

Before Finicum’s death was even confirmed, supporters rushed to portray him on social media as a martyr who, according to unverified accounts, had his hands up and was unarmed when he was shot. Law enforcement sources told CNN that Finicum and Ryan Bundy were the only two leaders who did not surrender during the confrontation.

One of the crew at Gateway Pundit, official home of the Dumbest Man on the Web®, reported that “The man was on the ground hands up, unarmed and cooperating. A real need to be shot three times.”

Those details hasn’t been reported anywhere, so how he could have known that is a mystery. And I didn’t think Finicum was ever unarmed. I imagined he had a gun and holster strapped around his PJs when he brushed his teeth at night. But perhaps Black Lives Matter has a surplus “Hands Up Don’t Shoot’ T-shirt this guy could buy .

USA Today reports that five or six of Bundy’s followers remain at the wildlife sanctuary they’d been occupying.

Share Button
8 Comments

Visions of SOTUs Dancing in Their Heads

-->
Obama Administration, Wingnuts Being Wingnuts

I didn’t get to watch the SOTU last night, so I’ve been catching up by reading reviews. I like something Nancy LeTourneau said at Washington Monthly. She is responding to this part of the President’s speech:

The future we want – opportunity and security for our families; a rising standard of living and a sustainable, peaceful planet for our kids – all that is within our reach. But it will only happen if we work together. It will only happen if we can have rational, constructive debates…

A better politics doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. This is a big country, with different regions and attitudes and interests. That’s one of our strengths, too. Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.

But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic. Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get attention. Most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest.

On this, LeTourneau remarked,

That is quintessential Obama. If you don’t understand the basics of what he is saying here, almost nothing he does will make sense to you. In his quest to forge an identity out of the the divergent forces of his own personal background, Barack Obama crafted a world view that values those differences and the wisdom that comes from the democratic process of respectful – if sometimes heated – dialogue. Even more than any one particular policy position, President Obama elevates that process as the priority for the survival of our democracy.

The reason the Republicans have adopted a strategy of spreading fear, anger, cynicism and distrust is because that form of engaged democracy is the biggest threat to their interests.

“If you don’t understand the basics of what he is saying here, almost nothing he does will make sense to you.”   I could expand that to say, if you don’t understand the basics of what he is saying here, almost nothing proposed by genuine progressives will make sense to you.

Go back to the first sentence in the SOTU quote above – The future we want – opportunity and security for our families; a rising standard of living and a sustainable, peaceful planet for our kids – all that is within our reach. This is the liberal/progressive vision in a nutshell. This has been true since Teddy Roosevelt’s New Nationalism speech. It was clearly expressed in another State of the Union speech, delivered by Franklin Roosevelt in 1941:

For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:

Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.

Jobs for those who can work.

Security for those who need it.

The ending of special privilege for the few.

The preservation of civil liberties for all.

The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.

These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.

Truly, these ideals have never been fully realized. But working toward this is what the United States is about — to liberals.

I don’t think the Right wants that stuff. They may say they do, but their votes say otherwise.  All they seem to want is wealth and power for themselves, and if that’s at the expense of others (including fellow Americans), so be it.  And because they don’t understand what we lefties hope to achieve, nothing we do or say makes sense to them. All they understand is power and privilege.

Le Tourneau writes, “Even more than any one particular policy position, President Obama elevates that process as the priority for the survival of our democracy.” These days, this is is a liberal-progressive way of seeing things. I know I’ve written in the past that righties have no respect for the importance of process, although I can’t find that post now.  And this is turning the norms of political science on its head. It used to be the “conservative” impulse to protect and preserve process, the traditional wheels and levers that make things work, and “progressives” who wanted to smash the old way of doing things to try something new. Today’s Right cares about nothing but outcome. If they have to smash through tradition and established procedure to get where they want, no problem.

I noticed that some right-wing commenters though last night’s SOTU was “boring.” Righties tend to claim boredom when confronted with an argument they can’t easily refute. Opportunity, fairness, equality, sustainability, peace — yeah, boring stuff. Never mind that these things would benefit them as well; somehow, such things feel like a diminishment to them. Let’s hate! Let’s drop bombs! Let’s tweak the economy so that we can all we rich! Let’s drill for oil until the sun don’t shine! That’s the ticket!

Elsewhere — responding to a Peter Baker column, Steve M writes that President Obama’s optimism is not really anything like Ronald Reagan’s “sunny disposition” back in 1980. Reagan projected cheerfulness, but his words warned of doom and promoted divisiveness. And it’s that stuff that got him elected.

Right now, half the country looks out its windows and sees a Mad Max movie, Steve M says. Well, maybe we all see a Mad Max movie. The difference is that liberals/progressives think we have everything we need to make it better, to make it more like the ending of It’s a Wonderful Life. We just need the will to do it. The Right thinks itself helpless without big guns to shoot the bad guys (everybody who isn’t Them) and big bombs to wipe out the scary foreign people. And the things progressives propose that would make things better make absolutely no sense to them.

And so we are at an impasse.

Share Button
14 Comments

Support the Local Sheriff

-->
Wingnuts Being Wingnuts

After several days of taking a low-key approach, Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward — known by all in Burns, Oregon, as “Sheriff Dave” — is mounting a media counterattack against Yokel Haram.

He is, in short, turning to spectacle.

That was evident at a meeting Wednesday at the Harney County Fairgrounds. The meeting, called by the sheriff on his home turf, was ostensibly to answer community questions. …

… Ward said his wife’s tires were slashed, prompting her to “pack up and leave town.” His parents were seated in the audience, and he asked them to stand, saying they had been followed home. “Those are true Americans right there,” he said to applause.

John Lamborn, a local defense attorney, approached the microphone. Lamborn and Ward are usually on opposite sides at the local county courthouse, but not at this meeting.

“Now, there are some people questioning your patriotism,” Lamborn said.

Ward nodded.

“Sheriff Dave, you’re a veteran, right?” Lamborn asked.

Ward said he was, and proceeded to detail his military history, including tours in Somalia and Afghanistan.

The crowd cheered.

“If he doesn’t hit all of these guys in the face with a pie in the next few days,” Charles Pierce writes, “Sheriff Dave’s got the Nobel Peace Prize locked up.”

I don’t doubt the part about slashed tires, as Sheriff Dave has been targeted by some right-wing sites for being a government stooge (example).

Meanwhile, Y’all Qaeda has torn down a government fence so that a local rancher can graze his cattle on the occupied wildlife preserve, and they’ve been digging through employee files in the compound looking for “transgressions” they can expose.

I personally think the government ought consider a variation of Sherman’s March. Maybe now the BLM should move on the Bundy Ranch in Nevada to seize cattle and other assets to help pay the delinquent grazing fee.  The Mullah Militia (that’s pronounced MOO-law, y’all) might find they have a bigger problem on their hands than being short of snacks.

Share Button
21 Comments

VanillaISIS? YeeHawd?

-->
Wingnuts Being Wingnuts

I’m not going to call the meatheads occupying buildings in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge “terrorists” because I don’t think they rise to the level of competence to actually terrorize anybody. They’re more like play-pretend insurgents.

According to Jennifer Williams at Vox, most of the “militia” men are  “a small group of individuals who travel around the country attaching themselves to various local fights against the federal government, usually over land rights.” They seized some buildings in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge ostensibly to offer shelter to Dwight and Steven Hammond, a couple of local ranchers who were convicted of setting fires on federal land.  The feds say the Hammonds started one fire to cover up evidence of illegal deer poaching, although as the fires destroyed all the evidence of poaching I don’t know how the feds would know that. Oh, the feds got it from a witness, it says here.

Anyway, long story short, the Hammonds are turning themselves in after being resentenced to more prison time. They turned down the offer of a refuge from the law.

There may be a legitimate argument that the re-sentencing wasn’t fair, but the “militia” is not making that argument. Instead, they are arguing that federal land ought to be turned over to the states, which in turn ought to let the righteous white men of the West do whatever they want with it, sandhill crane habitat or no sandhill crane habitat. This has something to do with the U.S. Constitution, which they say is an “inspired document by Our Lord Jesus Christ.” However, I’m not aware of any part of the Constitution that deprives the federal government from retaining federal reservations within state boundaries. I believe in the case of national parks and wildlife reserves, states agreed to let the feds run the land and were compensated for it.

And if you want to be really picky about it, the Paiutes have a stronger claim to the land in questions than the state or the ranchers.

The question is, what’s to be done about this situation? Apparently the feds are being cautious, wanting to avoid another Waco. But letting the meatheads get away with these little tantrums seems to encourage them. I’d vote for a blockade; once they’re out of beer and beef jerky they may become more pliable.

Share Button
28 Comments

The PC/SJW Boogeyperson

-->
Wingnuts Being Wingnuts

Every now and then Dana Milbank writes something worth reading, and he did so this week. See “The GOP’s War on ‘Politically Correct.’” Milbank effectively demonstrates that, in current right-wing usage, the term “political correctness” has no actual meaning. “Once a pejorative term applied to liberals’ determination not to offend any ethnic or other identity group,” Milbank wrote,  “it now is used lazily by some conservatives to label everything classified under ‘that with which I disagree.’ ” For example:

GOP candidates are now using the “politically correct” label to shut down debate — exactly what conservatives complained politically correct liberals were doing in the first place.

When CNN’s John Berman last week asked Rick Santorum about Trump’s plan to ban Muslims from entering the country, Santorum employed the familiar evasive maneuver.

“Republicans are sick and tired of the political correctness that we can’t talk about this,” he said. “You can’t say the word ‘Muslim.'”

It wasn’t clear which officer in the P.C. Police told Santorum he couldn’t say “Muslim.”

People say “Muslim” all the time. And Trump’s plan to ban Muslims from entering the country was discussed rabidly throughout the nation for several days, with armies of people pointing out why this was a really bad idea, not to mention bigoted and possibly unconstitutional. What it is Frothy thought he was not allowed to talk about I can only guess.

Ted Cruz said that political correctness is “killing people.” I had to hunt to find out how. He was referring to the Obama Administration’s policy of not using the term “radical Islamic terrorism.” Apparently if the President would just say that phrase, ISIS would shrivel up and die on the spot.

And Ben Carson seems to think that not waterboarding people is just being PC. In his world, there is no other reason to not torture people. As Milbank said, this is intellectual laziness on its face.

I’ve only relatively recently stumbled into the acronym SJW, meaning “social justice warrior.” Apparently being a social justice warrior is a bad thing. According to Rational Wiki (which may or may not be accurate, but it’s fun to read), the phrase “social justice warrior” was coined in 2009 by a blogger named Will Shetterly. Shetterly was talking about people who like to engage in arguments favoring social justice on the Internet but aren’t committed to fighting for it anywhere else, like in the real world. They’re phonies, in other words, who are posing as liberals to raise their social status. I’m not sure why anyone would do that, but whatever.

However, SJW has since morphed into a term, meant to be a pejorative, applied to any progressive political or social activist. The subtext of this is that all progressive political or social activism is phony; people just pretend to champion liberal views to make themselves look good to other liberals who must be as phony as they are.

(Years ago I read a social psychology paper in which researchers had determined that white racists sincerely believe all other white people also believe nonwhites are inferior, and that the only reason some whites won’t support white supremacy is that “they’re just being PC.”)

“SJW” seems particularly popular among libertarians and “men’s rights advocates” (MRAs). It says here, SJWs are

… people who, according to Urban Dictionary, engage in “social justice arguments on the internet… in an effort to raise their own personal reputation.” In other words, SJWs don’t hold strong principles, but they pretend to. The problem is, that’s not a real category of people. It’s simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice—and often those people are feminists. It’s awfully convenient to have a term at the ready to dismiss women who bring up sexism, as in, “You don’t really care. As an SJW, you’re just taking up this cause to make yourself look good!”

Labeling someone “SJW” is just a way to not have to answer their arguments. Most women will recognize this as a variation of the “women are just emotional” line that sexists have used forever to avoid listening to us.

I’ve noticed that complaints about people or opinions being PC/SJW tend to follow a pattern (a recent example, if you want one). If the individual is educated enough to be writing for a commercial publication, we will learn he was traumatized in his college years by  fascistic “PC police” on campus. Even assuming some young people get a bit over-strident in their intolerance of intolerance, college is a relatively brief interlude in life that is quickly left behind as one marches into adulthood. So who’s oppressing him now? Hard to say, but he will complain bitterly about being “censored” without giving us any specific examples. Ahem.

If you want to see specific examples of people who try to intimidate other people into shutting up, see the Mahablog archive on conservative correctness.  I wrote back in 2007,

When the phrase “political correctness” was first coined, as I recall, it was something of a joke, ribbing academics for going overboard creating “inclusive” language, like “physically challenged” for “disabled.” Wingnuts seized the phrase and turned it into an all-purpose explanation for why liberals say crazy things like “racial discrimination is wrong” — the standard response is “Oh, you’re just being P.C.” Meaning, “you don’t really mean what you say.”

But we really do mean what we say, and when righties conjure up some phony outrage in order to bash liberals, we get all caught up in answering charges, explaining logical fallacies, and pointing out hypocrisies. We do this because we assume they mean what they say. And, frankly, the more cognitively challenged among them probably do mean what they say, because they can’t critically think their way out of a wet paper bag.

But Bill’s hypothesis is that many of the opinion leaders among them — he discusses Michelle Malkin because he knows her personally — don’t mean what they say. They know good and well that many of the outrages they gin up to bash us with are contrived. They’re just trying to bully us, often because (deep down inside) they think we’re trying to bully them. So while we’re exhausting ourselves in a mighty intellectual struggle, they’re just playing tit for tat and barely working up a sweat.

Now we’re hearing about “victimist” culture, never mind that righties can’t so much as say good morning without adding a complaint about how they are being victimized (see, for example the “war on Christmas”).

As has been said elsewhere, the original “PC” effort was well-intended, even if it sometimes got a bit silly (“differently abled”?). The backlash, however, is about nothing other than being able to express hate speech without being criticized for it.

And I’m done with it. The only correct response to “Oh, you’re just being PC” is “Oh, you’re just being an idiot.”  And a bigoted one at that.

Share Button
45 Comments

The American Impasse

-->
big picture stuff, Obama Administration, Wingnuts Being Wingnuts

Here we are, rolling to the end of another year, about to elect another President.  Very likely the Democratic nominee will be elected, and yet barring divine intervention we’ll be stuck with a Republican majority in the House.  (Right now it appears the Senate could go either way.) So there is still obstruction ahead as far as the eye can see.

Our basic problem, as I see it, boils down to this: There’s a portion of the American population that is prepared, intellectually and emotionally, for the United States to adjust to the 21st century. This portion accepts the U.S. as a multicultural and multi-ethnic nation. It understands the U.S. is one nation among many on this planet, and that our future security and prosperity require friendship and co-operation among nations, for our mutual benefit. It sees government as a means to carry forward the will of we, the people; to secure the rights of citizens; and to be sure that everybody gets a “square deal,” as Theodore Roosevelt promised about 112 years ago.

And then there’s the portion that wants to crawl inside a 1950s-era Disney movie about America and patriotism and never come out. You remember those. In that world, nearly everybody was white. Men were in charge and women were happy to let them be in charge. The few blacks were poor but cheerfully docile, and Native Americans were remote characters who dutifully fell out of trees whenever a white man shot a rifle. You’d think they would have learned to stay out of trees.

There also are a lot of people in neither of those portions. I think a big chunk of the electorate probably knows that Donald Trump is ridiculous and really don’t want to bomb Iran, but they tacitly accept much of the “wisdom” of the Right because that’s all they ever hear — taxes must always be cut, government spending is always bad, and all Middle Easterners are dangerous. They probably don’t accept progressivism, but it’s also the case that it’s probably never been explained to them.

So here we are, this big, strong, wealthy and allegedly dominant nation, and we can’t so much as fix our own bridges. We’re stuck between moving forward as a modern representative democracy or morphing into some kind of authoritarian state run by a cabal of mega-billionaires. If the latter vision wins, the (white) masses will be placated by visions of Fess Parker and his spunky militia protecting the homestead against scary foreign things. Everybody else will be disenfranchised.

A couple of weeks ago,  Rebecca Traister wrote that we’re all suffering through the death throes of while male power.

This moment, this election, these years represent the death throes of exclusive white male power in the United States. That the snarling fury and violence are contemporary does not make them less real than the terrors of previous periods; it makes them more real, at least to those of us living through them. And the presidential-primary contest, while absurdist and theatrical, is reflecting very real fury and violence in the non-electoral world: the burning of crosses and black churches, the execution of black men by police, the resistance of male soldiers to women in elite combat positions, a white man with a history of violence against women himself a “warrior for the babies” after killing people at a Planned Parenthood clinic, and a younger white man killing nine black churchgoers with the explanation “You rape our women, and you’re taking over our country.”

The political contest just projects these panicked resentments on a bigger, more official screen. The public spectacle of this presidential election, and the two that have preceded it, are inextricably linked to the racialized and gendered anger and violence we see around us. Recall that Trump’s rise in politics began with his attacks on Barack Obama as foreign, as Muslim, as other. And that the tea party whence Ted Cruz springs has concerned itself mostly — official protestations about economic priorities to the contrary — with shutting down reproductive-health options for women. That is, when they are not trying to shut down the political ambitions of Hillary Clinton at any cost (see Trey Gowdy’s wild-eyed, profligate, and fruitless Benghazi investigation).

Increasingly, Republican voters want just one thing: revenge. Read what Frank Lutz says about pro-Trump focus groups:

I spent three hours in a deep dialogue focus group with 29 Trump supporters. The phenomenon of “The Donald” is rooted in a psyche far deeper and more consequential than next November’s presidential election. His support denotes an abiding distrust in — and disrespect for — the governing elite. These individuals do not like being told by Washington or Wall Street what is best for them, do not like the direction America is headed in, and disdain President Barack Obama and his (perceived) circle of self-righteous, tone-deaf governing partisans.

Trump voters are not just angry — they want revenge.

Mr Trump has adroitly filled the vacuum of vitriol, establishing himself as the bold, brash, take-no-prisoners megaphone for the frustrated masses. They see him as the antidote to all that Mr Obama has made wrong with America. So to understand why millions love Mr Trump so much, you have to take a step back and listen to why they hate Mr Obama so much.

Here, my Trump voter focus group was particularly illuminating. Some still believe the president is not Christian. Many believe he does not love America. And just about all of them think he does not reflect the values the country was built upon. Indeed, within this growing faction, Mr Trump has license to say just about anything. As we have seen repeatedly, the more outrageous the accusation, the more receptive the ear.

Mr Trump delights in unleashing harsh attacks on Jeb Bush, the Republican establishment and the “mainstream media”. His childlike joy in ridiculing his critics is tantamount to healing balm for the millions who have felt silenced, ignored and even scorned by the governing and media elite for so long. Is it any wonder that his declaration of war against “political correctness” is his most potent and predictable applause line?

This of course begs the question — what, exactly, has President Obama “made wrong with America”?  Other than being POTUS while black? Do they even know?

The fact that they hate “political correctness” above all things tells me that nothing matters to them more than the freedom to be openly bigoted without being stigmatized for it.

Tom Gogola writes that America really wasn’t ready for a black president.

If hope and change were the Obama buzzwords in 2009, the lesson of 2015 is that a bunch of overstimulated, hopelessly right-wing pseudo statesmen haven’t changed, grown up, dropped the sub rosa race-bait narrative—even as Obama delivered on his fair share of what he promised way back when.

Don’t ask me why Obama’s race is still an issue; ask Lou Dobbs. The immigrant-bashing news anchor blabbed to the Fox masses about how Obama only became president because he played the “race card,” a curiously timed outburst given that Dobbs made it just two weeks ago.

See the rock-solid belief in the minds of true bigots — black people get things handed to them they don’t deserve, at the expense of white people. They even somehow get elected POTUS when they don’t deserve it.

The Trump supporters feel their “values” are being threatened. And, of course, we know what those values are. They value maintaining social and cultural dominance as a birthright. They deserve to dominate because they are white. Being male and overtly Christian also count.

I could go on. Of course,there’s always been a disconnect between the ideal America and the “real” America. We see ourselves as the “good guys” who stand for freedom and compassion. And, y’know, every now and then, we have been. But there’s also always been bigotry and discrimination, sometimes to the point of violence. We’re a nation of mutts uneasily tied together by a Constitution that we all honor, even if we disagree over what it means.  And right now I have no idea where we are heading.

See also: Nate Cohn, Donald Trump’s Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat; Nancy LeTourneau, Republicans Want Revenge and A World View in Its Death Throes.

Share Button
19 Comments

The War on Christmas Escalates

-->
Wingnuts Being Wingnuts

I am linking to this without comment, except to say the writer is not trying to be funny. This is a Breitbrat; they have no sense of humor. Or any other sense, for that matter.

Share Button
34 Comments

Clueless!

-->
Wingnuts Being Wingnuts

It takes a pathological degree of self-obliviousness to be a white conservative guy like Jonah Goldberg and write this:

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson took a plausible stab at why Carson is popular. “They like him, they like him,” he repeated, referring to conservatives in Iowa and elsewhere who admire Carson’s dignified and soft-spoken demeanor.

True enough; Carson has the highest favorables of any candidate in the GOP field.

But what’s remarkable is that at no point in this conversation did anyone call attention to the fact that Carson is an African-American. Indeed, most analysis of Carson’s popularity from pundits focuses on his likable personality and his sincere Christian faith. But it’s intriguingly rare to hear people talk about the fact that he’s black.

One could argue that he’s even more authentically African-American than Barack Obama, given that Obama’s mother was white and he was raised in part by his white grandparents. In his autobiography, Obama writes at length about how he grew up outside the traditional African-American experience — in Hawaii and Indonesia — and how he consciously chose to adopt a black identity when he was in college.

Meanwhile, Carson grew up in Detroit, the son of a very poor, very hard-working single mother. His tale of rising from poverty to become the head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital is one of the most inspiring rags-to-riches stories of the last half-century. (Cuba Gooding Jr. played Carson in the movie about his life.) He was a towering figure in the black community in Baltimore and nationally — at least, until he became a Republican politician.

Like I said, it takes a pathological degree of self-obliviousness for Goldberg to assume he is in any way qualified to judge “authentic” African-Americanism. But note what Goldberg is saying here — he’s complaining that the world isn’t perpetually commenting on Ben Carson’s blackness.

It gets better. Goldberg then descends into the Usual Whining about how everybody picks on Republicans, and if a Democrat were to be treated as shabbily in media as Carson is being treated — the New York Times has stopped calling him “Dr.” — “charges of racism would be thick in the air.”

Then there’s the crowing about Hey, liberals — we got us a black politician, too! How do you like them apples?

How strange it must be for people who comfort themselves with the slander that the GOP is a cult of organized racial hatred that the most popular politician among conservatives is a black man. Better to ignore the elephant in the room than account for such an inconvenient fact. The race card is just too valuable politically and psychologically for liberals who need to believe that their political opponents are evil.

Carson’s popularity isn’t solely derived from his race, but it is a factor. The vast majority of conservatives resent the fact that Democrats glibly and shamelessly accuse Republicans of bigotry — against blacks, Hispanics, and women — simply because they disagree with liberal policies (which most conservatives believe hurt minorities). Yet conservatives also refuse to adopt those liberal policies just to prove they aren’t bigots. Carson — not to mention Carly Fiorina and Hispanics Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — demonstrates that there’s no inherent contradiction between being a minority (or a woman) and supporting conservative principles. And that fact is just too terrible for some liberals to contemplate.

Of course, that depends on what “conservative principles” one is talking about, but never mind.

Share Button
14 Comments

The Grift That Keeps On Grifting

-->
Wingnuts Being Wingnuts

Conservative PACs raise millions … for conservative PACs.

Share Button
13 Comments
« Older Posts


    About this blog



    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me








    Support This Site







    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile