|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
THE DANGEROUS DICHOTOMIES OF THE RADICAL RIGHT |
Current rating: 0 |
by MWO Commentary
(No verified email address) |
15 Oct 2001
|
We've always known that the conservative extremist ideology can't withstand logical or moral scrutiny. But what is most fascinating is that they know it, too.
Conservative extremists' own discomfort with their warped world view is evident in the way they consistently demonstrate a need to rip apart other, often unrelated beliefs, groups, or individuals in an attempt to fortify their own. |
We've all witnessed a particularly virulent strain of these malignant tactics since the September 11 terrorist attacks.
It's not the size of the flag, it's how many people see you waving it
It started immediately, with the hyperbolic comments of right wing figures such as Andrew Sullivan. While virtually all of the nation, left, right, and center, was instinctively unifying, not on all things political, but around the belief that America must respond to the attacks and forcefully, Sullivan couldn't suppress his own conservative extremist instinct, which is to call into question the patriotism of all non-conservatives. It wasn't quite good enough that there was a spontaneous surge of patriotism on the part of Americans of all political stripes, in response to the attacks. Commentators on the right had to use the event to declare that the left was suddenly "learning" patriotism, a trait they had possessed all along.
In fact, liberalism had always been patriotic, but rejected the cringe-patriotism we're now seeing in wall-to-wall ads on cable news networks, for "the entire Freedom American Collection, including the Old Glory flag, the God Bless America flag, the Personal American Pride Pin - but wait, call now and receive the 4 reusable peel 'n' place flags."
Liberals never believed shouting patriotism from the rooftops signified anything except that the shouting patriot felt a need to prove something to the other, non-shouters, or had been drinking. Liberals understand the difference between love of country and gaudy jingoism. But beginning immediately after the attacks, conservatives, predictably, went about furiously protesting against comedians for offhand comments and initiating email campaigns against news anchors who preferred not to wear a flag pin. It all became more ridiculous by the day, with each new report of yet another flag pin controversy. Their need not to show but to prove their own patriotism seemed insatiable. Who are they trying to convince?
It happened because we didn't pray in school
Another area in which the right-wingers have demonstrated their characteristic overkill response has been in their commentary along the lines of, "God is Back," beginning immediately after the attacks.
Certainly there was greater open expression of religious beliefs after September 11. Thoughts of an entire nation turned to eternal questions of life and death, and God. It is probably safe to say beliefs all along the spectrum intensified, as they always do when humans are left to grapple with unspeakable loss and questions they can't answer. Not only did the religious turn to God for comfort, but non-believers had their worst suspicions confirmed.
None of the facts mattered to conservatives, though. Suddenly, they said, America had discovered why we need prayer in school. Again, it wasn't enough that there was a spontaneous affirmation of the general religiosity of Americans. Right-wingers had to stand up and declare the death of secularism, and in doing so, again demonstrated their own lack of independent faith, as they have always done unwittingly through relentless efforts to destroy the vital separation of church and state.
It's not enough for conservatives to pray with their children on the way to school, or that their children can pray to their hearts' content at lunch time and recess. Other people's children must also be held captive in the classroom and forced to pray. It's not enough that polls consistently show that around 80% of Americans believe in God. It's not enough that they and their families can go freely to the institution of their choice at any time and practice their faith. They must use every opportunity they can to force other Americans to acknowledge it, too. They must declare the United States a "Christian nation," display nativity scenes at City Hall, and post the Ten Commandments in courthouses. Never mind that Jesus instructed them that praying ought to be done privately and not on the streetcorner. For some reason, they insist that all others be made aware of their own belief in God, and of which god they specifically worship.
Who are they trying to convince?
White-collar professionals are so six weeks ago
On September 11 and after, we witnessed and were told stories of awe-inspiring displays of courage and self-sacrifice, of which the NYPD Firefighters became the symbol. But their deeds alone, somehow, were not enough for the right. Firefighters and other heroes could not be regarded as sufficiently heroic unless their fellow Americans were torn down in the process. Peggy Noonan decided her scapegoats for this purpose would be the professional class, especially "writers and intellectuals," and specifically men in these categories. (Noonan gave "businessmen" a special dispensation - one can't be dissing businessmen when writing poison for the Wall Street Journal, after all..)
Incidentally and just as offensively, Noonan seemed to view the heroes of September 11 in the way some people view novel, trendy new pets. Firefighters, soldiers, and the like were "back in style," she said. (Did this mean she is now prepared to exchange her previous interests - writers, intellectuals, and other professionals - and begin associating with these new, "stylish" accessories, including "men who are welders and do construction"? Hey, New Yorkers: let us know if you see elitist-no-more Peg out on the town with her new welder boyfriend.)
Noonan doesn't care that soldiers are able to carry out their missions with minimized risk, thanks to not particularly "physical" engineers who designed the state-of-the art weaponry, eggheaded programmers who designed tools enabling the military to engage from a relatively safe distance, and "intellectuals" who fashion diplomatic strategies that ensure our allies' continued support - all of whom have saved countless lives.
And never mind that the principles American soldiers are fighting for are perpetuated even more by the pen than the sword. Without the patriotism, intellect, and eloquence of the writers Noonan sees a need to disparage as "not good men," American ideals could not survive. Without the diligence of (real) journalists and intellectuals whose role it is to serve as watchdogs of democracy by informing us of our government's actions, questioning them aggressively, and recording them for history, democracy will die.
Even with the mightiest military in the world, the survival of American principles and values depends on those able to communicate them and their importance to the people. We believe what we believe because hundreds of years ago, gifted writers and intellectuals helped convince Americans of the validity and morality of our beliefs, and of the reasons they were worth fighting for.
Noonan herself even seemed to believe in the power of the written word when she referred to Bush's speech on terrorism - written by none other than, well, writers - as "God-touched."
But since that observation just weeks ago, Noonan has evidently changed her mind and decided, "men who push things and pull things and haul things and build things" represent the only "good" men left. Not only is physicality itself a virtue, but intellect is a vice. But why? What could explain adoption of such a monumentally ridiculous and false dichotomy by conservatives like Peggy Noonan? Is it because so many right-wingers either have nothing else going for them but brute strength and a claim they would run into a burning building, or that they doubt their own intelligence and thus must disparage those whose most distinct quality is their intellect?
The meek shall inherit Ann Coulter's invective
In yet another related, divisive, zero sum proposition, the right tells us women and feminine virtues must be diminished in importance if masculine virtues are to be appreciated. Not only did Noonan divide men into subsets of good versus bad, depending on the degree of physicality required in their occupations, but in doing so also elevated physical strength as the most important characteristic in a person, reinforcing the right-wing tendency toward relegation of women (and physically handicapped men) to second-class citizenship.
Helping Noonan along in this regard was Ann Coulter, who divided Americans along lines of "good," angry Americans craving revenge, and bad, "womanly" Americans who mourned the victims. Coulter also used the terrorist attacks as an opportunity to ridicule women in the military again (in case Ann missed it, our terrorist enemies' warnings and actions indicate that no man, woman, or child in America should be surprised to find himself or herself engaged in combat.) Of course Ann's sexism cuts both ways in some cases, depending on the color of the man in question. As a bonus, she also called for mass profiling and deportation of all "swarthy males."
But the right didn't stop at jingoism, Christian supremacism, the maligning of crucial occupations, marginalization of the physically weaker, sexism, or racism. In fact they were just getting started.
The buck stops with Clinton. Forever.
There has been a constant stream of commentary from the right, set into action immediately after the attacks, and seeking to build up a White House occupant known for a lack of gravitas, competence, and legitimacy - by tearing down the most successful president of our lifetime.
Americans must be kept from recognizing that the terrorist attack happened on Bush's watch after nine months of inaction against terrorism, the thinking seemed to go.
Despite resistance from the right and their media toadies against every action taken against bin Laden and terrorism throughout Mr. Clinton's presidency, and despite fact after fact emerging, demonstrating that it was the Republicans who blocked efforts all along to focus the nation's resources on terrorist threats, conservative pundits instinctively began to blame President Clinton for the September 11 attacks.
Why? Because if they failed to throw out distraction after distraction and distortion after distortion about President Clinton's actions, attention might turn to Reagan and Bush policies that created bin Laden and resulted in the Taliban coming to power in Afghanistan - and to Dubya's complete and total abdication of responsibility in preventing terrorism in the first nine months of his occupancy, in favor of exclusive attention to committing all resources toward useless "defense" projects that would make his Poppy's friends and his own campaign contributors wealthier.
In this case, it's clear who they're trying to convince: America, the media, and themselves.
The right would tell you that the left is just as exclusive and divisive when it comes to patriotism, religion, and dividing Americans by occupation, but they'd be lying. Liberals were not calling into question the patriotism of Americans based on whether they wore a flag pin. Liberals have never sought to shut down churches or prevent other people's children from praying. They have instead fought for inclusion of everyone, and have fought for both the right to pray and the right not to be forced to pray. No liberal has said that because writers and intellectuals make important contributions to humanity, therefore firefighters and construction workers do not. Liberals never mocked mourning by a grief-stricken nation, least of all their own.
The right has always been unbalanced. Who cares what they say?
So what's wrong with the right-wing desire to completely eliminate the views of their perceived opponents and replace them with their own, rather than simply allowing differing views to coexist? After all, is obvious that their need to do so results from a profound uncertainty of the validity of their own beliefs, perhaps resulting in a nagging conscience they cannot silence unless all opposition is destroyed. But what harm is there in declaring that flag pins should be turned into identifiers of true patriots, that their own Christian faith should be recognized as the real American faith?
Nothing, if there is no risk that such exclusive and irresponsible rhetoric could result in the chipping away of protections for the minority. But every population is always vulnerable to creeping extremism, and both that extremism and the risk that its rhetoric could resonate more strongly in our nation's current, panicked atmosphere are intensified now.
The optimism, rationality, and moderation in America that normally prevail and ensure the insuperability of certain leaps in principle, have been temporarily diminished since September 11, reducing the span of those leaps for any opportunistic, extremist interest that would seek to exploit the current unease and confusion: leaps like turning dissent into anti-patriotic treason; rejecting religious freedom in favor of "returning the nation to its Christian roots"/theocracy; rejecting a principle of valuing all members of a diverse society for their contributions in favor of one that calls for killing the artists and intellectuals; rejecting a goal of equal opportunity for all in favor of mandating the veil and stoning for speaking in public; rejecting democracy and self-determination in favor of requiring allegiance to a dictator not elected by the people, and requiring adherence to his regime's orders to "watch what you say."
Conservative extremists in America are terrorizing our country using their own strategically delivered, familiar brand of political Anthrax. They are making themselves willing allies of the anti-democratic, anti-diversity, theocratic, absolutist terrorists, by seizing on their attacks against America as excuses to divide Americans along paranoia-driven lines that have always operated subterraneously in right-wing ideology.
Before September 11, the exclusive, control-oriented nature of the right-wing ideologue was rarely anything to be regarded with much seriousness or alarm, and was actually amusing for the most part. But America is fighting for her life now as a result of a breakdown of forces preventing right-wing Islamic extremists from making their final leap into power. We have learned again the painful lesson of the evil that results when a lack of sufficient opposition allows exclusive, dichotomous ideologies to be taken to their extremes.
We knew conservative extremism here at home was a logically and morally bankrupt belief system, and we can glean from their need to go as far as to use the recent tragedy to silence all dissent, that even its own practitioners doubt its validity. But their tactics are worse than invalid, they're dangerous in the current climate. We must do more than just be amused by the right. We must be more vigilant than ever in calling right-wing extremists on their poisonous, exclusive, exploitive and destructive rhetoric wherever we find it.
|
See also:
http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/
|
|
