One of the things that differentiates right-wingers from the rest of the American population is their focus on developing new catch-phrases for their political enemies. One of the things I noticed when I was debating right-wingers on Slate's Fray is that all the right-wingers would be really impressed if one of the conservatives came up with a snappy new insult to aim at me. In general, the right worries much more about developing new insults than they worry about policy. It's like they all want to be little Ann Coulters.
In that light, Mitt Romney's line during tonight's debate was probably the event of the year for Republicans. For those who didn't see the debate, Romney satirized Obama's foreign policy statements in these terms: "he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week." Of course, none of this is true. Obama's never been anything like either Jane Fonda or Dr. Strangelove. But that's beside the point. It's a funny, attention-getting phrase that asserts a Republican stereotype of Barack Obama and other Democrats as being soft on defense and unreliable. Coming up with this kind of caricature bolsters conservatives morale because it gives them an opportunity to express their contempt for white liberals. It's also the kind of thing that really gets under the skin of white liberals and leads us into paroxysms of outrage.
I don't know why Democrats get so upset. In the end, the right-wing is mostly hot air and comic-book gestures and that's what they want from their presidential candidates. There's a lot of reasons for this. The Republicans are a natural minority that wins elections primarily through negative ads, sleazy innuendo, and other means of wrecking the reputation of Democratic candidates. In that sense, the focus on comical insults of the Democrats is the Coulterization of the basic Atwater/Rove approach to politics.
Focusing on lines like "he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in a week" also has the same kind of comic book feel to it as Ronald Reagan lines like "Make My Day" or George Bush's "Bring It On." Given the taste for these kinds of gestures among the weenie boys and girls of the right, coming up with new insulting lines keeps the right-wing in their sadly narrow comfort zone and reinforces the group solidarity of conservatives.
There's also an inner connection between the politics of comic insult and the politics of social bigotry. One of the things that racists, misogynists, and homophobes most enjoy about their bigotries is the opportunity to indulge in stereotyping jokes and put-downs of the groups they so cordially despise. When Romney or any Republican politicians does a broad, comic put-down of someone like Barack Obama, they're engaging in one of the basic cultural motifs of their bigoted core constituencies and are pleasing those constituencies even if they're not engaged in a primary kind of bigotry.
In the current political comment, coming up with new insults is also a way for Republicans to distract themselves and others from the failures of the war in Iraq, the scandals among Congressional Republicans, the broad incompetence of the Bush administration, and the increasingly ludicrous figures cut by George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales. By engaging in comic put-downs, they're also able to project a kind of "moral equivalence" between themselves and the Democratic politicians they're posing as ridiculous.
Instead of being outraged by right-wing catch phrases, the Democrats need to contextualize GOP language and make it reflect badly on conservatives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Two possibilities here
1. You're were looking forward to assuaging your own white guilt and at the same time confirm your Non-racialism by getting to vote for someone because they are African-American so you decided to go ahead and ignore just how often the left does this.
2. You really are blind to your own confirmation biases and have managed to keep your inner conscience ignorant of how often the left does this.
Obama's implosion is pretty fun to watch from over here. He's tossed out enough lines for RNC campaign ads in the last couple weeks that I would love to see him anywhere on the ticket. Seriously, when is the last time a presidential candidate sparked riots with his botched foreign policy. I can't imagine what would happen if he actually had the office.
Oh and since you seem to have trouble with symbolism (do they teach anything in College these days?) here's a primer.
Jane Fonda went and talked with our enemies during the Vietnam war (you may have heard about the "Hanoi Jane" thing[is that just Reich Wing name calling]{reich wing, where did that come from?}). Recently, Obama stated he would, without precondition sit down and talk with our enemies.
Dr. Strangelove (or How I Learned to Love the Bomb) is a character in a movie that takes unilateral nuclear action to interrupt a perceived Soviet plot. Obama recently stated he would take unlateral action and invade an ally to interrupt al qaeda plotting in it's remote provinces. Within a couple days of that he revealed his Nuclear Strategy as "Absolutely not, well maybe, I probably shouldn't discuss it until someone tells me what I think, is this microphone on and where is that glass of water I asked for?"
When did Pakistan become an ally? They're even bigger supporters of global terrorism than the Saudis.
A disagreement over the nature of Pakistan is all you have? I expected at least a passing attempt at defending your original idea.
So ... sort of ally. Given the rest of the bunch in the region, anyway. They definitely are not perfect, but Musharraf is somewhat of a secularist. While he's been limited in his ability to move the country the way he wants to, his goals and ours lie in generally the same direction. The people of Pakistan are generally a different story.
I would say Saudi Arabia is far worse the Pakistan. While the Pakistani population tends to be behind Islamists, the actual Government of Saudi Arabia is, making them in my eyes the worst of the pair. Even worse is their adeptness at playing both sides (longer than just this president). They funnel a great deal of money to groups in the west to build mosques that host Islamists as well as money to groups like CAIR that file suits in an attempt to silence criticism.
I'm thinking about top posting on your original comment. It's become pretty evident to me that the term "white guilt" has gotten new life as a racist code word. What happened to "color-blindness?"
Which circle are we going to run around in: the one where I satirize your insistence on identifying individuals by skin color, or the one where you satirize my satire by suggesting that we shouldn't? I just want to be sure we are playing the same game.
All of which continues to abandon your original absurd point.
By the way, not to interrupt the discussion with ef or anything, but I heard Limbaugh pimping Romney's line on his show yesterday. The Republican talk radio circuit is just an appeal to children, right? He ran through a supply side canard about lowering taxes and increasing revenues and cheered Romney's attack on Obama (oh, and ef say what you will, I think Obama's positioning himself as a non-wussy will help him in a general and pre-empts the sort of silly "he's afraid to kill people, how can we elect him" nonsense the RNC would try to run). I've seen mud puddles with more depth than Limbaugh's analysis, but he yammered on about it for almost 15 minutes. Dishonest and shallow? 20 million kooks listening?
Wow! It made me long for Goldstein's analysis. It's just as silly, but at least it's not shallow. And, he funnier than Limbaugh
I think it's down to 13 million kooks.
I think Obama's positioning himself as a non-wussy will help him in a general and pre-empts the sort of silly "he's afraid to kill people, how can we elect him" nonsense the RNC would try to run
Which might be nice if it weren't for two things:
1. If it's positioning, rather than a sincere position, it's useless. I'm interested in what he actually would do, rather than how he attempts to cover all his vulnerabilities
2. Both positions are absolutely ignorant (Naive as -shudder- Hill put it) of the consequences his actions carry with them in international diplomacy.
Since they were at least pasrtially off the cuff, the only hope for an effective policy from him is if he hires an presidential babysitter to remind not to stick his fork in any particular light socket.
Is it normal for a Secretary of State to have to apologize for candidates?
Is "he's willing to invade Nuclear armed nations in which a secular head of state is narrowly holding back the tide of Islamism" an improvement from your perspective over the other potential RNC ads?
I've seen mud puddles with more depth than Limbaugh's analysis
I had a horse almost roll me into waist deep mud puddle once. Regardless, it's orders of magnitude deeper than anything you'll find here.
Our new foreign policy - sit down and talk with our enemies, and unilaterally attack our allies. Why didn't President Bush think of that? Good gawd. Obama's resume was light for being a US Senator, and he is proving that in this inept run for President. It is truly scary when Hillary is the rational one of the bunch.
Hillary's a lot more rational than the current occupants of the White House. Obama's mistake is that he didn't take the various taboos and rigidities of American politics into account. Obviously, we should be talking with our enemies if that furthers our interest. Likewise, Pakistan is much more of a danger to us than Iran. The Pakistanis are most likely harboring bin Laden, have a very active Taliban element in their society, and have an extremely weak and unstable govt that could be overthrown by Islamic extremists. In this context, the fact that the Pakistanis have nuclear weapons is very dangerous to us.
So, Obama's emphasis was realistic. But being a competent American politician requires that you negotiate your way around the various taboos that have built up over the years. Obama didn't show much skill in that regard last week.
Leaving aside all else, I say again, as a liberal Mormon..Romney is despicable.
She is not more rational, she is more calculating. Obama was just being realistic?
ef, just so I'm clear, you're alleging that Obama is unqualified for the Presidency. One of the reasons you seem to cite is his "inexperience" with foreign affairs.
If that is so, may I assume you determined the same of the current President, who was unable to name General Musharraf (your beloved ally) during Campaign 2000.
I would say that Senator Obama has a far more intelligent and rational view of foreign affairs at this moment than the current occupant of the White House (in his 7th year).
For instance, whether or not you think it is wise to send soldiers on a raid into Pakistan, I maintain it's a good idea to get bin Laden. You might remember him; the President has forgotten him, since the President screwed up at Tora Bora.
Further, whereas attacking bin Laden or Al Queda troops in Pakistan would briefly violate their sovereignty, it would in your simpleton language be "attacking Pakistan." The government of Pakistan has no more control of those tribal regions than we do of most of Afghanistan. You could fly forever over Waziristan and never see a Pakistani soldier or a member of one of their security forces.
Is this all you guys have for next year?
I know I predicted a 55-45 win for the Dem, but, if this is the crux of your attack, then maybe it will be 60-40?
Shorter anonymous: She's calculating when she agrees with me and wrong when she doesn't.
If you're looking to vote for a truth-teller, pal, you might be pulling the lever for Paul or Kucinich.
A mainstream American candidate for President criticized for calculating? Just outrages my inner compassionate conservative (whatever the hell that was supposed to mean).
I'm at 57-43 for the Democrat.
we should be talking with our enemies if that furthers our interest.
Unfortunately it rarely serves our interests. It does serve theirs though, as propaganda in state run media.
Pakistan is much more of a danger to us than Iran.
Pakistan has the potential to be much more dangerous. To realize that potential, it must be destabilized to the point where the Islamist overthrow Musharraf. The Iranians aquiring Nukes would be equally as dangerous. The important distinction between the two is that Pakistan in lead by a secularist, while having a strong Islamist movement among the population, Iran is very much the opposite. Further, OBL is being harbored by elements that are also opposed to Musharraf, not by the government itself, as was the case in Afghanistan.
Especially in light of the Nuclear Islamists angle, any action relating to OBL and Pakistan has to be considered against it's potential for destabilising/overthrowing the Musharraf government. That, and not American taboos, was Obama's biggest misstep.
And, on to Timb....
just so I'm clear, you're alleging that Obama is unqualified for the Presidency. One of the reasons you seem to cite is his "inexperience" with foreign affairs.
I'd say ignorance more than inexperience. The latter can be overcome more easily. His comments show the former to be dangerously deep. I don't think either governors or senators are well prepared for real international diplomacy, and pop quizzes like that are dumb.
I would say that Senator Obama has a far more intelligent and rational view of foreign affairs at this moment than the current occupant of the White House (in his 7th year).
Clearly, you believe that's so, but that's the very point we're debating. Traditionally, you try to back up a statement like that with an argument.
I maintain it's a good idea to get bin Laden.
Even if it destabilizes Musharraf and gives Islamists access to Nuclear devices and MRBM's? I'd love to take the bastard out, but not at that price.
You could fly forever over Waziristan and never see a Pakistani soldier or a member of one of their security forces.
Something that, following the Red Mosque incident, Musharraf seems to be trying to change. It remains to see if that is effective, but if it is, may lead to some positive developments re. OBL. as well as Afghanistan.
A mainstream American candidate for President criticized for calculating?
It's not that she calculates, it's that she's so damn good at it(not intended as a compliment).
Post a Comment