The Cocoon of Ideology

I was thinking about the whole James O'Keefe situation and his apparent disconnectedness from any sense of right or wrong when it comes to pushing an ideological cause. His worldview is so distorted and disconnected from mainstream common sense and balanced critical thinking that I really think he perceives that the rightness of his ideological worldview, when buffeted and applauded by an uncritical, adoring cocoon of like-minded ideologues, justifies any behavior he might engage in. And I should say that I don't think this is the exclusive domain of the cocooned rightwing. There are a fair number of cocooned leftwing ideologues who think and behave likewise. In part, it's because of the unreflexive ideological polarization of our political culture, but it's also been entrenched and nurtured by an insular, but omnipresent ideological media -- ranging from talk radio to bloggers/twitterers/facebookers to alternative online media clearinghouses like Drudge, WorldNetDaily, and the Huffington Post.

The constant and circular reinforcement of the absolute certainty of the moral righteousness of their thinking and behavior leads these uncritical militants to do the crazy things they do. I'm not sure what can be done to counter this, but I think it is ultimately bad for our civil society and our political culture. Part of the reason why I am drawn to engage with the rightwing of the blogosphere and the new media is not only to "know the enemy" but also (and primarily) to constantly keep my own self from getting sucked into the ideological comfort of leftist groupthink.

Being Liberal and Being Fiscally Responsible Are Not Incompatible

A common myth in our political culture is that on the economic front conservatives are fiscally responsible and liberals are fiscally reckless. The truth is that the difference between modern conservatives and modern liberals has more to do with smaller government attitudes (conservative) versus bigger government attitudes (liberal). Fiscal sanity has very little to do with it. For instance, I would say that I am not opposed to bigger government, as long as it is still a solvent government.

O'Reilly's Stirring Defense of the Constitution

A few posts back, I wrote about FoxNews mouthmook Bill O'Reilly's stalker-like obsession with Barack Obama. Well, O'Reilly is now claiming that his pathethic, jerkish behavior was absolutely necessary to defend the U.S. Constitution. Click here for the Crooks and Liars story on this, and make sure to look at the video.

Now, where was O'Reilly and his stirring defense of the Constitution argument when Lamar White Jr. reported a similar incident where folks presumed to be affiliated with Bobby Jindal's campaign attempted to "block the shot" of a Louisiana citizen's efforts to videorecord Jindal's speech? Here's the clip of that incident:



Can you imagine what O'Reilly would have run on his show had the folks being blocked in the above clip pulled the same kind of stunt O'Reilly did at the Obama rally.

O'Reilly sure is a piece of work, is he not? And he's one of the darlings of FoxNews. Where's the integrity of that pathetic excuse of a network when it comes not only to dealing with the completely unacceptable, atrocious behavior of O'Reilly, but also to dealing with his smug, pathetic, and disgusting little attempt to defend his indefensible thuggery by wrapping it in the U.S. Constitution? Most networks would fire their staff for engaging in such shenanigans. The least FoxNews can do is apologize. But I'm not holding my breath. After all, it is FoxNews.

Coulter Visit Update

In my previous post, I mused over the rumor that Ann Coulter was coming to Tulane to give a talk. Well, I can confirm without a doubt that the rumor is no longer rumor, but a fact.

I was over in the University Kinko's copying store, having some things copied, when I noticed the young, college-age woman in front of me having a large poster printed about the Ann Coulter visit. I figured I'd strike up a conversation with this young woman. So, I started off my conversation by wishing her good luck with the event. In a very pleasant way, she thanked me. Then I asked her a question about something that the poster said. The posted exhorted people to come hear Ann Coulter speak on "Why liberals are wrong about everything." That's exactly what the poster said. So I politely asked this young woman if she really believed that liberals are wrong about everything, and she said, "Of course not." I just smiled and left it at that, but I was thinking: Why would someone who didn't believe this statement to be accurate seek to promote a talk where someone was going to be making precisely this claim? But I figured this pleasant young woman probably had enough to worry about, so I didn't push it.

I did, though, ask her how she was managing the controversy surrounding the event. Then, she really opened up and told me that, since she was directly responsible for organizing the event and for getting Ann Coulter to come, she had recieved all kinds of nasty comments and threats, so much so that she felt compelled to take down her facebook and myspace pages. I told her that it was wrong for her to be treated this way; but she seemed to be willing and able to take the heat.

Then she asked if I was planning to attend the event. And so I replied to her honestly and said that I wasn't going to go because I wasn't a fan of Ann Coulter and found many of the things she said to be offensive and not part of civil dialogue. The young woman seemed to understand. As she was about to leave the Kinko's I wished her good luck with the event again and expressed my hope that the event would proceed without disruption and with civility. She thanked me again, and then left.

I don't have much more to say on this. It is clear that I think Ann Coulter does a disservice to conservative opinion and civil debate in our society, and that she trafficks in platitudes of hate and disrespect. I honestly even think Ann Coulter is a racist and a bigot. And it saddens me that decent and good people buy into her vitriol. It's one thing to be a committed conservative; but it's another thing altogether to embrace someone as a spokesperson for conservatism who thinks some of the things she does about liberals and other peoples of the world.

I hope that liberals who oppose Ann Coulter don't engage in any silliness or violence during her presentation; but I imagine that some folks will. It's a shame if that happens because it will only confirm the worst that conservatives would like to think about liberals. But Ann Coulter is part and parcel of this unfortunate kind of reaction because she brings the debate down to this level by her own reprehensive, direspectful, and offensive behavior. She taunts people like a schoolyard bully. And sometimes people just lose their cool and behave in unfortunate ways when faced with her taunts and bullying.

Rush the Disingenuous Dissembler

Rush Limbaugh is now saying that he never called Brian McGough a "suicide bomber" as if his use of the specific words "suicide bomber" is what makes it so. Well, it is true that Rush never called him a "suicide bomber," he just described him exactly in the terms as one would describe a "suicide bomber." Here's exactly what Rush said. You make up your mind if Rush is being disingenuous:

You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into.

How can anyone defend Rush here? If I were an honest conservative, I'd be embarrassed by Rush, not only with this pathetic dissembling, but also by his presuming that this soldier is just a mindless dupe of the left who is incapable of thinking for himself.

Rush Limbaugh on Soldier Intelligence

I wonder if the Dittoheads and other rightwing pundits and bloggers will jump all over Rush for his patronizing disrespect of US soldiers. I mean, really, not only did Rush Limbaugh basically accuse a soldier of being unable to think for himself and of being the dupe of the left, he also likens the soldier to a suicide bomber. Really.

Rush, with his "talent on loan from God" majestic and omniscient "wisdom," spins this soldier's opinions and thoughts according to his own convoluted logic. Of course, in Rush's myopic worldview it is just impossible to be a decorated Purple Heart veteran of the Iraq War AND a critic of the war. Hence, this soldier must be a feeble dupe of the anti-war left. What's Rush likely to say next about this soldier? That his anti-war stance is a product of brain damage caused by the shrapnel he took to his head while serving in Iraq? Puh-leeze!

That's bad enough as it is, but then look at how Rush tries to then turn around this soldier's sacrifice and equate the man to a suicide bomber! It's just stunningly and brazenly disrespectful of this soldier when you think about it. I mean, this guy comes out with some strong and powerful criticism of Rush, and what does Rush do? He basically calls the guy a suicide bomber who can't think for himself. To listen to Rush speak, this U.S. soldier is, in effect, the worst kind of enemy to Rush Limbaugh and all that is good and strong about America that Rush thinks he himself epitomizes. It's pathetic and vile, really. Rush removes any kind of agency from this soldier, which disrespects this man's intelligence, and then he likens him to some of the vilest of America's enemies -- an enemy, in fact, that actually gave the soldier the very injury that earned him his Purple Heart. Ain't Rush sweet?

And Rush has the gall to pretend that it's the left who thinks soldiers are fools and who "use" the military for their own political purposes.

I wonder what the Dittoheads and the rightwing blogosphere will say about Rush now? I'm not holding my breath.

Phony Soldiers versus Stuck in Iraq

Rush Limbaugh is on the hot seat for appearing to believe that U.S. Iraq War veterans who criticize the war are "phony soldiers."

Oh, but wait ... Apparently, when Rush referred to phony soldiers, he didn't really mean it in the plural, although that's precisely what he said. He didn't really mean to refer to "these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media," although that's precisely what he said. No, instead, he really just meant one soldier in particular: Jesse MacBeth. But you can't blame people for thinking otherwise. Let's review: when Rush made the "phony soldiers" comment, it was in direct response to a caller on his show who was complaining in sweeping, general terms that "they [leftist critics of the war] never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue —"

Really?!? Leftist critics "never" talk to real soldiers? Am I to understand that the only "soldiers" leftists talk to are the phony soldiers? That's what Rush says! And, you know what the converse of this claim is, don't you? Well, let me tell you: those soldiers who do talk to leftists must be the "phony" ones, or else leftists wouldn't be talking to them, would they?

Well, my goodness! Excuse me for getting confused. Now, could it be that Rush Limbaugh really did mean just Jesse MacBeth, but simply "botched" the delivery of this meaning?

Maybe. Maybe. In fact, probably.

I'm willing to give Rush Limbaugh the benefit of the doubt, under one condition. That Rush Limbaugh and his defenders give John Kerry the benefit of the doubt that his "Stuck in Iraq" comment was, indeed, a botched joke referencing George W. Bush, which it most clearly was.

For all those Dittoheads who are now asking that the "context" of Rush's comment be taken into consideration and that the full transcript of his show be parsed and that we try to be sensitive to Rush's "intended" meaning of his "phony soliders" comment, even though the literal meaning of this comment is ambiguous, I ask for the same consideration of "context" as it refers to Kerry's "stuck in Iraq" comment, for the same attention to the full transcript of Kerry's speech and not just the unflattering soundbite, for the same sensitivity to Kerry's intended meaning of his "stuck in Iraq" comment.

If Kerry deserved being raked over the coals for his "botched joke," then Rush deserves it for this careless, ill-phrased, and ill-timed comment, too. And I hope the soldiers at VoteVets.org are as relentless in their "Swiftboating" attacks on El Rushbo (see below) as he and his Dittoheads were on Kerry.



What goes around, comes around.

The Appeal of Obama Across Ideological Lines

Over at Right Wing News, a conservative New Orleanian who regularly visits that site, and who goes by the internet name "RWNReader2," posed a question to John Hawkins, the owner of the blog, asking for data that would convince a conservative-leaning acquaintance of his not to consider voting for Barack Obama, as this acquaintance indicated she might do. Hawkins thought this question worthy of a response. Click on the link above that references RWNReader2's question in order to read RWNReader2's question as well as Hawkins' reply.

I think Hawkins completely missed the boat on this one. His answer was based on the premise that Obama is fashioning himself a moderate; and therefore all RWNReader2 had to do was to expose Obama's liberalism in order to sway his acquaintance to give up on Obama. The problem is that Obama has NEVER fashioned himself as anything but a liberal. So, trying to tag Obama with the "dirty" word of "liberal" just isn't going to cut it. I imagine that RWNReader2's acquiantance assumes that Obama, as a Democrat from Illinois, must be a "liberal." Because of this, I would argue that RWNReader2's acquaintance finds Obama appealing not IN SPITE OF his liberalism, but actually because of it. The thing is, Obama's liberalism is authentic, principled, and well-communicated. The problem for conservatives is not that Obama is hiding his liberalism, but that Obama knows how to convey the core principles of liberalism in a way that resonates with people's values. Hawkins, like many conservatives, simply cannot bring himself to recognize that there is value in liberal ideals which can resonate with all discerning human beings.

It is a mistake for conservatives to try to "reveal" the liberalism of Obama as a means of convincing people to vote against him, as if simply mentioning the "dirty" word "liberal" is enough to do the trick. Why is it a mistake? Because such conservatives would be revealing that which is already exposed. Furthermore, they would be conspicuously avoiding addressing what it is about the substance of Obama's unabashed liberalism that many find appealing.

Obama's strength is that he knows how to move away from liberal soundbites and can articulate a compelling vision and idea of liberalism that touches people's humanity and reaffirms their dignity as individuals who also share the dreams and struggles both in the world at large and within their local communities. He inspires people both to be the best individuals they can be as well as to be the best selfless, other-oriented citizens they can be.

Hawkins thinks Obama is fashioning himself as a moderate because Hawkins himself recognizes the appeal of Obama's liberalism, but he can't fathom accepting this appeal as a product of liberal ideology, so he has to call it something other than liberalism. He calls it "being moderate." Others call it "charisma." And still others call it "being smooth and slick," as if there has to be something sinister and deceptive behind the undeniable appeal of the man and what he has to say.

Proof of the emptiness of this line of thinking about Obama is that all the "evidence" Hawkins can give to RWNReader2 in answer to RWNReader2's question is a couple of links to some rankings by some organizations of how "liberal" Obama is on a liberal/conservative scale. As if that's going to be convincing to someone who says: "Yeah, and so? Tell me why that's so bad when I find myself hearing Obama articulate an ideology behind his rankings that I like and respect." Apparently, Hawkins has no answer to that.

It is not a fluke that when Obama speaks, time and again even conservatives find themselves often finding something admirable in what he has to say and how he says it. The little secret is not that they find themselves impressed with Obama because he resonates with their conservative values, or because he adopts "moderate" positions that they can find palatable, but rather because he can pierce through that reactionary conservative armor and show them in a convincing way that liberalism has value. He can say: "Here's the liberal way, and doesn't it make sense?" And some truly open-minded conservatives might find themselves, if not agreeing, perhaps at least blinking and wondering.

I think I have a fairly decent read on RWNReader2 from having engaged him numerous times in discussions at RWN. And I'm confident in saying that RWNReader2 is a smart person who knows how to fashion a convincing argument in defense of conservative principles. Because of this, I think the fact that he is asking Hawkins for some ammunition is indicative of the fact that he, himself, is somewhat at a loss as to how to respond honestly, and not in some conservative knee-jerk fashion, to the thinking of his acquaintaince and her tendency to find Obama an appealing candidate.

This is something that conservatives will have to deal with when it comes to Barack Obama. And right now, I find that they are struggling to deal with this. And they better find more substantive ways to tackle Obama than simply throwing out the dirty word "liberal" and hoping that this will be enough. People respond to what they see, hear, and understand. And Barack Obama, in his unabashed liberalism, is connecting to people in visceral ways that labels like "conservative," "moderate," or "liberal" just won't suffice as convincing arguments on their own either for or against him.

What Is It About Conservatism That Bothers Me

Over at Right Wing News, there is an interesing discussion taking place in the comments section to John Hawkins' Q&A Friday posting regarding liberal "mis" perceptions of conservatives. (And, no, I'm not going to pick on Hawkins this time!)

The debate is actually quite interesting. But I wanted to jump off of this debate and pose my own main perception of conservatism that ultimately turns me off from it. At least conservatism as practiced by the modern rightwing in America today.

For me, it seems that modern conservatism as defined by folks like John Hawkins has as a fundamental characteristic an aversion to fallibility. I guess Andrew Sullivan would call this a kind of "fundamentalism" that he would say is anathema to real conservatism, which is (or should be) essentially skeptical or doubtful. There is a rigidity of thought in modern conservatism that not only disagrees with other perspectives, but also fails to even accept the legitimacy of core differences of thought within any substantive dialogue. I have heard time and again conservatives equate liberalism to a mental illness, as if every liberal must be somehow mentally imbalanced. The mantra "we must agree to disagree," followed by a respect for the intelligence and principled positions of intellectual rivals, seems to be rather unacceptable to modern conservatism.

There is a strand of this rigidity in hard-left liberalism as well, but most liberals I know embrace a kind of liberalism grounded in a constant questioning. Conservatives seem to want to embrace absolutes and tend to brook no room for dissent or divergence from orthodoxy. It is the moral absolutism as well as its accompanying lack of intellectual curiosity that comes with the critical questioning process that turns me off to what passes for modern conservatism today.

It is no coincidence that the academy tends to lean leftward. Conservatives always like to point this out and to then unfairly make the jump to the conclusion that higher education is nothing but liberal brainwashing. But anyone who is honest about his or her college experience will have to recognize that colleges and universities are places where all kinds of ideas and different perspectives are in a vigorous exchange. If colleges and universities really were the hard core leftist propagandist machines conservatives make them out to be, there wouldn't be as many conservatives with college degrees out there.