How to respond to Rush Limbaugh's abuse of soldiers against the war as "phony soldiers?" Or Fox military expert Col. David Hunt's call for American generals to be court-martialed and imprisoned for their efforts to enforce military law?
Specifically, why is the right seeming to focus on attacking the military at a point when the conservative media is fully mobilized around the "Betray-Us" controversy? Is Greenwald right when he ridicules the Fox call for the arrest of American generals as hypocrisy?
What I've noticed is that right-wing figures like Ann Coulter really exult in attacking war hero types like John Kerry and John Murtha. Because the Democrats assumed that Kerry's heroism in battle and Murtha's medals would give them credibility as opponents of the Iraq War, the smear artists of the right took special pleasure in blowing up that credibility.
There's a logic to that. Warmongering is an important part of right-wing politics and it is very important for the right that they be associated with military power, military service, and military symbols. It is also important to the right that the military be seen as supporting conservative policies.
Going a little further, the cultural association between the American right and the U. S. military helps relieve the right's sense of cultural isolation. The right is intensely alienated from American intellectual and cultural life, hostile to American cities (especially those on the coast), and beginning to become suspicious of big business icons like Walt Disney and their growing tolerance for gays. As a result, the right-wing is associated primarily with an evangelical Protestantism, rural life, and the military.
And of those three, the military is the most prestigious.
But they also have to worry about the military. The military's far from being above suspicion. They've gone a considerable way toward integrating women into the military structure. The right-wing doesn't like that. After Vietnam, the military has also become relatively serious about prosecuting military abuses of Iraqi civilians. As David Hunt's article indicates, the right doesn't like that either. Moreover, having 160,000 troops in Iraq means that there are thousands of possibilities for infantry soldiers, officers, generals, and other military personnel to get "off message" and otherwise betray the political interests of the right.
As a result, the right believes that it needs to use all of their influence to ensure that they remain allied with the military.
That's whwere the smearing comes in.
Because the symbiosis with the military is so important to the right, conservative media figures are willing, even eager, to fight when they sense the connection being threatened. The right takes special pleasure in smearing former veterans who are speaking in opposition to the war or running for office as Democratic candidates. The same goes for Republican veterans who oppose conservative policies or anointed conservative candidates as well. The right loved attacking Max Cleland, John Kerry, John McCain, and John Murtha. And they're gleeful when they demean all the retired generals who've come out against the war.
Smearing feels good in these cases because it's a way for the right to defend their cultural and political territory.
And it feels especially good to the right because they have so little territory left to defend.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
This phenomenon was brought to my attention in a big way when I learned that Rush Limbaugh has been dissing US servicemen who oppose the war calling them “phony soldiers.” The problem with lying full time in public is you will say something stunningly stupid especially when you do not care about facts. Rush manages that on his show.
This is a new low for Limbaugh and the right in general. This statement was foolish and disrespectful and Rush Limbaugh owes an apology to everyone who has ever or does now wear the uniform of the United States military.
These troops have every reason to oppose the war and every right to say so and if the right wing and Limbaugh have a problem with that then it is indeed their problem. This statement by Limbaugh exposes the depths of the chickenhawk right. An arrogant gas-bag sitting on his ass calling
soldiers "phony!“ Does not fly!!
This is a prime example of how the Left tries to create scandals where they do not exist. Only by ignoring the context in which these words were spoken could one think that Rush called any soldier that disagreed with the war a phony soldier. This was reference in the context of the Jesse MacBeth and Beauchamps of the world, just to name a couple.
The rest of it is your analysis of Republican positions. We will start paying attention to your analysis of our thoughts when Oliver Willis is described as thin.
Way to parrot the line. Read the transcript. The media always produces those soldiers.
phony soldiers?
Yep.
So, you vacation didn't make you less partisan, but was it a good time?
Well Cutnpaste, I demand that Rush not apologize to me for his comment.
Soldiers (real ones) have some right to publicly oppose the war. Soldiers (real ones) are required to conduct all political activities in a way that does not appear to associate their service with their political positions. Pretend soldiers are free to do as the please.
tim - My vacation did not make you any less partisan either, I see.
Thank you, Disney was a grand experience, as always.
If you were using an alternative meaning of "partisan", which means "person who has listened to thousands of hours of Limbaugh and read the transcript," then "yeah, I'd say you're onto something.
Personal favorite Limbaugh moment? Sure: one day he is recounting to his listeners his trip to an overnight charity gold event hosted by former Cowboy star Michael Irvin. He says in the course of speaking with Irvin, they saw Terrell Owens (former wide receiver of the Philadelphia Eagles and the worst teammate on the planet). Irvin confided to Limbaugh that no matter you heard about TO, it was all crap, 'cause he's a really good guy. Limbaugh claims to have spoken with TO and "Michael is right."
I laughed and laughed. Here we have as a character witness for a man who has been released from two NFL team and cost himself untold millions for being a prick TWO (count 'em, two) drug addicts. one who was found in a motel room with two 15 year old prostitutes and a pile of crack. The other who uses his domestic help to obtain illegal quantities of drugs after he couldn't satisfy his addiction by seeing a half a dozen doctors!
It struck me then that of the three, TO WASN'T that bad.
Limbaugh, lecturer on family values, despite never having children and marrying three times. Limbaugh, expert on the folly of government programs, who accepted unemployment (from the government) when he was out of work) and whose very fortune is attributable to radio (a government regulated monopoly), the govt's decision to end the Fairness Doctrine (rightfully so), and the government's decision to loosen corporate ownership of radio (allowing his show to explode into vast new markets). Limbaugh, expert on defense, rabid anti-Communist, who claimed to have flat feet so he could go 4F before his draft board.
PS If the last argument sounded like a "chickenhawk" accusation, then let's just clear the air: it was.
One doesn't have to be partisan to loathe Limbaugh or Michael Savage (strangely defending Limbaugh last evening and asserting Haditha never happened....PW positions as always). Sure, it helps, but, then again, reading the transcript on his website helps (which is what I did).
If you read that and could not see how that was in reference to the Jesse McBeth and Beauchamps of the world, then ... we will just have to agree to disagree. I will not suggest that you are inclined to read something into that which was not there, because that would be unfair to you. We have differing views, and I accept that. Rush's view on this matter, his specific intent, he has made clear. Should you continue to wish to mischaracterize it, because of your hatred of him, so be it.
Post a Comment