Bill Maher has a point —

Maher is going for laughs, but I think a serious case could be made that the teabaggers represent the kind of mob factionalism the Founding Fathers most dreaded. See, for example, James Madison from Federalist #10 —

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.

Madison goes on to say that “The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation.” However, he also believed factions would not be a threat to the nation as a whole because it was too big to be taken over by any one group —

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

However, modern technology has changed that, especially communication technology. Now “a general conflagration” can spread everywhere in an instant.

Maher is right that the Founding Guys were the elites — aristocrats, for the most part — of their time, and part of the objection some expressed to creating a strong central government was the possibility that it could be taken over by a mob of common, ignorant men.

I understand that the spin coming out of the Right this morning is that the Tucson memorial was too much like a pep rally or even a campaign rally. Some are comparing it to Paul Wellstone’s funeral, which righties ripped for being a political rally. Like someone made them the funeral police.

I only watched a bit of the memorial, and did find the cheering a bit jarring. But, y’know, I wasn’t there. Experiences are much more intense for people who are really experiencing them and not just watching from far away on the teevee. I believe it was David Gergen on CNN last night who said that you had to have been in Tuscon last week to appreciate the emotion of the crowd and why they were cheering.

Not to pass up an opportunity to hate someone, however, Little Lulu and others are ripping the event because it was “branded.” The event organizers even handed out free T-shirts with the logo “Together We Thrive.” (Too socialist? But whatever will Lulu do if she finds out what “E Pluribus Unum” means?)

Steve M:

Michelle is shocked, shocked — messaging is going on here! And really, that’s her problem: not that (in her opinion) this tragedy is being cynically exploited, but that (in her opinion) it’s being cynically exploited by people who aren’t Republicans! Cynical exploitation is their specialty! Messaging is what they do! In fact, it’s all they know how to do. They can’t legislate, they can’t govern — but they sure as hell can craft a meme and frame a debate. They do it every day! They have a near-monopoly in this country on effective memes and expertly deployed symbols and debate-framing. How dare anyone else muscle in on their territory!

And Paul the Power Tool is an unabashed enough bigot to complain that the invocation was a Pascua Yaqui prayer rather than a proper Judeo-Christian one. I’m serious. And these are the same people who have bellyached all week about people squelching their speech.

But here’s the kicker — Adam Nagourney writes for the New York Times, “Even as it began, some conservative commentators were posting comments criticizing the memorial service for being overly partisan and more like a pep rally.”

Even as it began? Sort of sounds like they had the spin ready beforehand.

It’s particularly curious that House Speaker John Boehner declined to go to the memorial even after he was offered a ride on Air Force One. I realize there were some Republicans in attendance, but the ones I know about are those directly tied to Arizona — Sen. John McCain, Gov. Jan Brewer, who was booed. They couldn’t very well get out of it. But Boehner’s absence makes me wonder if he’d already seen the post-memorial talking points and decided to stay clear.

Remarkably, some rightie bloggers are still trying to peg Jared Loughner as a “left wing radical.” This is true even as news media are doing their best to argue that only those nutty lefties are claiming politics had anything to do with the shooting in Tuscon. Chris Cillizza:

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, liberals sought to paint Loughner as an anti-government, tea party conservative. Conservatives retorted that Loughner lacked anything close to a coherent political philosophy — a case strengthened by subsequent glimpses into his personal life that suggests someone struggling with mental illness.

And the rightie punditocracy, for the most part, is going for the meme that Loughner’s acts were entirely random, and anyone claiming a connection to political rhetoric is a “charlatan” (George Will) or a political opportunist (David Brooks).

In other words, they’re going overboard trying to squelch the thought that an overheated political environment had anything whatsoever to do with the Tuscon massacre. It was just a crazy guy doing this, see? We’re not even supposed to think that hate speech from the Right was in any way involved.

(Of course, when Loughner eventually goes on trial, and his attorneys try to present an insanity defense, suddenly the Right will decide his actions weren’t so random after all. Wait and see.)

Michael Tomasky points to a Republican senator who said some sensible things about “caution” and “reflection” and maybe the inflammatory rhetoric has gone to far. What’s remarkable about this is that the senator would not go on record; he is quoted anonymously. Tomasky writes,

What was this senator afraid of? Backlash, of course. From Limbaugh and Fox. From voters and constituents – on the right. Maybe, ultimately, afraid of being next. That this senator feels that fear, over remarks that should hardly be controversial to anyone, proves the point of those of us who’ve been writing that the climate matters and Republicans should do something about it.

A letter writer to the Boston Globe makes another good point —

IN YOUR editorial yesterday concerning the Arizona shootings (“A crazed loner, an old story, and a harsh political climate’’), you write, “But those who have rushed to blame conservative causes or leaders for the killings should pause and consider whether they, too, are waving a bloody shirt and feeding a culture of denunciation.’’

On the contrary, these are real bloodied shirts, and we must loudly and repeatedly denounce those who spit out anti-government hatred and advocate revolution. To be moderate in reaction to Saturday’s killings would vindicate the perpetrators of vitriol, and in a short time, we would be right back into the same rhetoric that led to this most recent violence.

In other words, hate speech coming from the Right over fantasy grievances like birth certificates and socialized medicine is tolerated year after year. But speak up immediately after a very real massacre, and the Powers That Be say “shhhhhh!”

What Brooks, Cillizza, et al. won’t acknowledge is that the mentally ill don’t live in a vacuum. They are affected very deeply by what’s around them. Although there’s no way to know, it’s entirely possible that if Loughner were living on some peaceful Quaker commune instead of in Arizona, a state roiling with hot-button controversies, as his assumed schizophrenia took over his mind he might have developed an entirely different — and less violent — set of illusions. Maybe he’d think the granola was singing to him or that goats channel messages from outer space.

In other words, just because Loughner’s political ideas were nonsensical doesn’t let the political culture off the hook.

We talk a lot about “political culture.” The word “culture” is related to growing things, as in cultivation. When one is tilling soil and preparing it for planting, one is “cultivating” the soil. Scientists use the word “culture” to describe growing microorganisms for study.

So, “culture” is not a static thing; it is a cultivation, or a process of growing. What is our whackjob political culture growing? Nothing wholesome, I would say. But we are being prepped to go into Official National Denial — that the incessant eliminationist rhetoric about “armed and dangerous,” “second amendment solutions,” and The Coming Nightmare Totalitarian State of an Alien Communist Black President being spewed not by fringe outsiders but by people in positions of authority had nothing whatsoever to do with the Tucson shooting, and if you even think such a thing you are a bad person.

Yep, nothing to see here. Move along.

Michael Tomasky makes another good point in another post. It seems many of his readers (and I’m seeing this everywhere) are incapable of understanding there’s a difference between expressing dislike for someone and threatening to kill someone. As a thought experiment, he asks which is worse

1. Mike Tomasky is a world-class idiot and a—hole and should go f— himself.
2. Mike Tomasky doesn’t have any problems that a Glock couldn’t solve.

Especially in a nation armed to the teeth, the second statement is far more irresponsible than the first. This should be obvious to any sensible person. However, in America, we’re not supposed to notice this.

Tomasky continues,

But if guns are part of your life, it may be the imagery that comes to mind, and it’s far worse than calling someone a dirty name or a war criminal. And sure it’s happened among liberals, but it’s worse among conservatives. Check this out, which another friend assembled:

*On October 9, 2009, House candidate Robert Lowry of Florida held an event at a Broward County gun range during which he fired at a series of symbolic political targets, including a silhouette with his opponent Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s initials on it.

*On January 10, 2010, Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle spoke of the need for “Second Amendment remedies” to congressional policies, and hinted that such remedies might be needed to address “the Harry Reid problems.”

*On May 10, 2010, House candidate Brad Goerhing from California’s 11th District wrote on his Facebook page: “If I could issue hunting permits, I would officially declare today opening day for liberals. The season would extend through November 2 and have no limits on how many taken as we desperately need to ‘thin’ the herd.”

*On June 12, 2010, Rep. Giffords’ very own Republican opponent Jesse Kelly held an event advertised locally as follows: “Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 With Jesse Kelly.” Get that again. Remove Giffords. Shoot an M16.

*On October 21, 2010, Dallas pastor and House candidate Stephen Broden, said the violent overthrow of the U.S. government in 2010 should not be “the first option,” but citizens ought to use “any means necessary” and that violence should remain an option “on the table.”

These weren’t 22-year-old loners or even local talk-radio hosts. These were candidates for Congress! Find me five Democrats from this past election who talked like that about their opponents or their government. Find me one.

See also Tom Schaller.

First, toldja so: Newsmax declares “Shooter Linked to Left Wing Politics.” Yes, by Newsmax. Apparently it was reported the young man accused of shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and several others owns copies of The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf, which of course (in the minds of righties, who cannot figure out why Hitler was a right-wing psychopath, not a left-wing one) proves he’s a leftie.

Anyway, the more I hear about the shooter, the more it appears he was deeply disturbed, possibly psychotic. I am not qualified to diagnose these things, of course, but this is in the Arizona Star:

The suspected shooter has made death threats before and been contacted by law-enforcement officers, but the threats weren’t against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Dupnik said. The suspect is unstable, Dupnik said, but the sheriff would not say he is “insane.”

A former classmate of Loughner at Pima Community College said he was “obviously very disturbed.”

“He disrupted class frequently with nonsensical outbursts,” said Lynda Sorenson, who took a math class with Loughner last summer at Pima Community College’s Northwest campus.

Sorenson doesn’t recall if he ever made any threats or uttered political statements but he was very disruptive, she said. He was asked to leave the pre-algebra class several times and eventually was barred from class, said Sorenson, a Tucson resident.

Now, it stuck me that if some student had shown up in the algebra class bleeding from some injury, the school would have hustled the student off to a hospital, not barred the kid from class. It turns out the school, a local community college, suspended Jared Lee Loughner and told his parents he would need to get a psych evaluation before they could let him return. I don’t believe Loughner’s parents have made any public statements.

Loughner faces a death penalty for murdering a federal judge, so we’re about to go through another round of arguing over the insanity defense.

If Loughner is as psychotic as he appears, the next question is one Michelle Goldberg asks — were his delusions and violent actions influenced by violent rhetoric?

Goldberg adds that “Loughner, while clearly in the grip of delusion rather than any coherent ideology, nonetheless shared many far-right obsessions.”

His videos, which mostly feature white text on a black background accompanied by trippy electronic music, are full of unintelligible messages about conscious dreaming and English grammar. But they also make it clear that Loughner has internalized some of the conspiracy theories common in the Tea Party. He is obsessed with currency manipulation and out-of-control government power. Toward the end of a YouTube video titled “My Final Thoughts,” he writes, “The majority of citizens in the United States of America have never read the United States of America’s Constitution. You don’t have to accept the federalist laws. Nonetheless, read the United States of America’s Constitution to apprehend all of the current treasonous laws.” Among his MySpace photos is an American history book with a gun on top.

See also Adele Stan at Alternet.

Matt Bai, who can occasionally make a point when he’s not too pre-occupied with being bipartisan, wrote,

In fact, much of the message among Republicans last year, as they sought to exploit the Tea Party phenomenon, centered — like the Tea Party moniker itself — on this imagery of armed revolution. Popular spokespeople like Ms. Palin routinely drop words like “tyranny” and “socialism” when describing the president and his allies, as if blind to the idea that Americans legitimately faced with either enemy would almost certainly take up arms.

It’s not that such leaders are necessarily trying to incite violence or hysteria; in fact, they’re not. It’s more that they are so caught up in a culture of hyperbole, so amused with their own verbal flourishes and the ensuing applause, that — like the bloggers and TV hosts to which they cater — they seem to lose their hold on the power of words.

He’s right about the “culture of hyperbole, so amused with their own verbal flourishes and the ensuing applause.” For example, a quote that’s being tweeted around on the Right today is “If Jared Lee Loughner had any political heroes they would have to be Dennis Kucinich & Al Gore.”

I went clicking around to find the source, or at least everyone who seems to have thought this quote actually says something profound, and all I found was the quote. No reason, no explanation. It’s like little boys on a playground egging each other on to do something gross or stupid, for their own amusement. The actual acts, the actual words, have no meaning.

So for the next few days we may talk a little about toning down the rhetoric, but the people who most need to take the words to heart — won’t.

And Palin and her people clearly don’t know when to shut up:

In a radio interview Saturday night, one of Ms. Palin’s top aides, Rebecca Mansour, said of the map of lawmakers: “We never, ever, ever intended it to be gun sights.” Ms Mansour said attemps to tie Ms. Palin to the violence were “obscene” and “appalling.”

“I don’t understand how anyone can be held responsible for someone who is completely mentally unstable like this,” Ms. Mansour said. “Where I come from the person who is actually shooting is culpable. We had nothing whatsoever to do with this.”

She added: “People who knew him said that he is left wing and very liberal. But that is not to say that I am blaming the left for him either.”

You see? They can’t stop. They’re like crack addicts. I have no doubt that Moosewoman will add the remarks about her “target” image to her endless whine list of personal grievances.

Propagandist/dirty trickster James O’Keefe got caught trying to “ACORN” the news network CNN. And CNN ain’t happy. See “Fake pimp from ACORN videos tries to ‘punk’ CNN correspondent.” The correspondent, Abbie Boudreau, has been filming an investigative piece about a group of conservative activists, including O’Keefe.

It appears O’Keefe decided to discredit Boudreau by luring her onto a boat filled with “sexually explicit props” and hidden cameras, and seducing her on camera. (Dude, ain’t enough roofies on the planet … ) Boudreau was warned of the scam just before she got on the boat.

CNN’s report includes the detail that ACORN was scammed, and that the videos that caused their downfall had been heavily edited by O’Keefe.

Boudreau’s account of what happened is hilarious, in a creepy sort of way. I take it O’Keefe’s ideas about seduction were gleaned from his dad’s collection of 1970s Penthouse magazines.

In the spirit of pubescent smarminess we’ve come to associate with righties — a rightie blogger has decided it would be oh, so clever to open a gay bar next to the Cordoba House Islamic center in lower Manhattan. I did some googling and discovered there is already a gay bar around the corner (Remix Fridays, 24 Murray Street between Church & Broadway.) But that bar appears to be a popular lesbian bar, so maybe it doesn’t count.

The person who came up with this idea says “I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men.” Somehow, I suspect the many gay bars already in Manhattan cater to Muslim men already. Further the entire bleeping Village is only about a five- to ten-minute cab ride from the Cordoba House site. So I doubt a gay bar for men would do much business in that particular location. But, hey, if the guy wants to waste his money, who am I to disagree?

[Update: Andy Sullivan loves this idea and thinks here should be an initiative to open gay bars next to all churches, temples, mosques and synagogues that preach discrimination against homosexuals. Works for me, although in most communities you couldn’t do it because of zoning laws.]

In the who you callin’ an elitist department — William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal complains that the recent court ruling that overturned Prop 8 in California questioned the motives of Prop 8 supporters. Specifically, McGurn disputes the idea that Prop 8 supporters were motivated by bigotry.

According to McGurn, the judge said, “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.” Well, yes. And McGurn provides no evidence or argument whatsoever to show there is a reason outside moral and religious views to oppose same-sex marriage. He just doesn’t like being called a bigot.

Well, dude, if the shoe fits … but what really got me tickled was the subhead on the article, which is “Attacking the motives of those who disagree with elite opinion has become all too common.” So, get this, the federal judge is part of an “elite”, but McGurn — a guy who was once a White House speech writer, a guy who has a master’s degree from Boston University, a guy who writes opinions for the bleeping Wall Street Journal — is not part of an “elite”? on what planet?

If you read the entire column — and you certainly don’t have to — you see what McGurn is doing — people who disagree with conservative opinions are, by definition, an “elite,” whereas people who hold conservative opinions are good ol’ salt-of-the-earth regular guys. Even if they are privileged, upper-income white guys who write for the Wall Street Journal.

He thereby questions the motives of people who disagree with conservative opinions — they only disagree because they are stuck-up snots. And a strong inference is that what a majority of people believe cannot be motivated by bigotry.

Um, yes it can, and often has been. Why does McGurn think it was so hard to get rid of Jim Crow?

Update: More buttinskys —

Ads opposing a planned mosque near Ground Zero should soon be seen on city buses after the MTA signed off on their controversial design today.

A lawyer for the the New Hampshire group behind the campaign called the decision “a victory not just for free speech but against political correctness and Mayor Bloomberg’s bullying.”

Mayor Bloomberg ain’t the bully in this fight. And I think if the out-of-towners don’t butt out of New York City business, New Yorkers are going to get very, very pissed.

Another update: Steve M. also points out that there’s a gay bar almost next door to the Islamic center site already. He adds,

… if you build anything culturally conservative in New York, you’re going to be surrounded by stuff that’s not at all culturally conservative. (And you can’t live here for any length of time without knowing that, so I strongly suspect that the Cordoba House people wouldn’t react to a next-door gay bar in a way that would fulfill Greg Gutfeld’s most sophomoric hopes.)

Exactly, over the past few days I’ve seen a number of suggestions of things people might place near the Islamic center in retaliation, without realizing that whatever it is, it’s probably already there. So, everyone planning to build gay bars or open a doggie day care center or sell pork sandwiches from a cart will need to compete with gay bars, doggie day care centers and pork sandwich carts already in the neighborhood. Plus straight bars, at least one strip club, and lots of churches. All already there.

Hey, it’s New York.

One more update: It’s not a gay bar, but there’s a regular bar called the Dakota Roadhouse at 43 Park Place. From a map on the roadhouse site it appears to be on the same block as the proposed Islamic center, but closer to Church Street.