The right-wing cesspool

It can be a very dangerous thing for an ideological zealot to gain a large and uncritical audience, whether you’re talking about Adolf Hitler, Muqtada al-Sadr, or Ann Coulter. The kind of solipsistic, eliminationist rhetoric these people trade in has a particular appeal to disaffected angry young men who are socially isolated and bursting with undirected rage.

When I was in HS I looked around and decided that I could be one of two types (there may be other types and I made a false choice—but those options didn’t come to me then.)

Type 1: Build a relationship with people based on some sort of group and social dynamic—groups led by the lead athlete, the lead cheerleader, the lead nerd, the popular JAPs and so on. This type of relationship is subservient to group think, and although it can be rewarding, it can also be crushing when ostracized for behavior not sanctioned by the group. This type of group can be led by a strong and vocal personality, often rotational.

Type 2: Build a relationship of peers. Less obsequious, and consequently more distant. As a peer I’d know that not all things about people I interact will be to my taste, nor my habits to their. However, they held no ability to ostracize me or I them because we held no social sway over each other. It is a more challenging dynamic and probably unsuitable for some that require constant approval for their self-image. I’d say that these relationships are based more on courtesy than friendship. They don’t require agreement.

Surprisingly, in my experience type 2’s were just as numerous and as long as one acknowledged the inherent challenge in maintenance required in relationships, they had no trouble meeting social needs. There is a qualitative difference in living the life through group think vs. through an internalized state of cognitive disassociation.

The liberals have their own versions of these unhinged followers. I’m not sure that in the long run they’re any less dangerous.

Yeah, but I’m not making a distinction that numbers count as much as effectiveness in some areas of public policy, nor in the quality of unhingeness of the liberals.

If public policy is executed based on how popular something is, we’ll get want over need. Consumerism, capitalism, exploitation.

If public policy is executed based on social science we’ll get need over want. Socialism, collectivism, allocation.

Want = freedom. Need = economy. Want = Right. Need = Left.

Our willingness to accept the two models depends on our ability to counterbalance freedom with rationality. In either case, to insist on acceptance of one over the other without laying the groundwork for acceptance leads to unhinged behavior.

For me anyway—ymmv.

Consensus is a point in time. It probably is simplistic.

Looking at Greenwald’s post on lovely Pamela:

But right-wing hate-mongering that is fueled by religious extremism (Christian and Jewish) is infinitely more dangerous and significant in the U.S. A strong argument can be made that religious fanaticism constitutes a significant motivating force for much of our foreign policy and certainly for the support of many people for those policies, including—to one degree or another—the President himself. Yet that topic makes the media very uncomfortable and it is therefore almost never discussed. It ought to be.

What do you think may be missing here? He seems to lay a significant amount of this at the feet of religious fundamentalists, but I sense avoidance in his word choices. Can’t put my finger on it, but something’s missing…it’s like significant motivating force is some value less than 100%, greater than zero, but unwillingness to quantify the leftover or attribute it.

You know, religious_fundamentalists + x = foreign_policy_practiced. That mysterious x. Since I’m Not_Z, maybe I’m x?

I am amused by the notion that pundits lying and inciting their base into violence is suddenly new and unexpected. Is this only unacceptable when pundits incite their base into local hatred resulting in abortive anthrax threats, or is it just as unacceptable when they incite hatred resulting in chillingly effective intervention and bombings of other countries?

The Malkins and Coulters are, and must be, free to say what they please — but they must also be exposed as the moral cripples that they are.

Yes well, righteous indignation and the satisfaction of fingerpointing will certainly let me eat dinner in peace, although it may be of less utility to the many people dead or maimed elsewhere as a result of incitement of the local base.

I don’t see the political landscape as the one-dimensional spectrum you describe, NZ. I think it is at least two-dimensional, and probably many-dimensional.

Actually Greenwald linking to Jonathan Schwartz linking to Jefferson, comes to my defense of simplicity. They got my back although much better documented than my meanderings were.

How, exactly, does one quantify “significant motivating force”? I know of no accepted unit of measurement, nor anyone who claims to have developed a reliable measurement technique for what is so obviously an intangible. Frankly, you seem to be blaming Greenwald for not doing what no one could possibly do.

Uh, no. There are specific roles in punditry. Greenwald writes the article, I observe and comment on it—but Greenwald has the choice of words that he uses to articulate the talking point—instead he appears to point in one direction while short shrifting or obfuscating the premise. He could start by telling us what he thinks the constituent portions of influence amount to, but he allows us to either accept his premise or engage in political sodoku by filling in parts so that they’ll add up.

Eliminationist rhetoric it may be the rage on the right, but to highlight FreeRepublic, LGF and Pamela is NOT to highlight religious fundamentalism influence on foreign policy.

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from going to Greenwald’s site and asking him to elucidate.

Greenwald’s got enough traffic; it was you that highlighted his observations regarding Pamela—I thought the observations were game here.

This discussion goes to my first posting of following the cool kids (Greenwald in this case) or critically examining what everyone says (even your fellow travelers). Demagogues wouldn’t have much of a following if the religionists or eliminationists deconstructed their messages critically. But they don’t—they seek affirmation and confirmation.

You complain that Greenwald doesn’t “quantify” something that is inherently unquantifiable.

I eschew having to put smilies or sarcasm markup in my posts.

So, to be clear, I opine that Greenwald uses loaded terminology such as religious fanaticism constitutes a significant motivating force for much of our foreign policy and certainly for the support of many people for those policies, including—to one degree or another—the President himself to get a specific and directed point across, and that his position and quotes are invalid on the face based on your blog content. LGF and Pamela are not religious fundy blogs. And neither are Malkin/Coulter/Ingraham/Freepers religious fundies. Collectively and individually they are nationalists.

I routinely read enough Greenwald to know that there are gullible types in the Greenwald camp as there are in the Malkin/Coulter/Ingraham/Rush camps; they are just motivated by different morality (oh but how morality seems crystal clear to the beholder).

I also routinely read Orcinus that you reference. Interesting and somewhat shallow on the blog, a bit better in his other writings. Yes, he does a good job of documenting what he defines as the resurgence of the American Fascism, but is it quantitatively or qualitatively better or deeper than Morris Dees lifework?

Seems to me like what you really want is to do is just… complain.

Yeah, I can see how it would seem that way to you but I don’t think that deconstruction mandates involvement of original author. In fact that changes the process.

Well, enough complaints on this topic for me—don’t want to overload the TRK hosting servers with needless traffic and don’t want or see a need to either suck up to the popular clique around Greenwald or challenge his message to his personal clique of gullible dimwits.

tata.

Snarky? Intellectual courage? The courage to point fingers at addled stupidity?

Oh, meatbrain—that’s why I appreciate your site. What are complaints here, would be transmogrified on his site into a discussion for the ages. Thanks, bud.

It’s not clear how you got from “something’s missing” to “addled stupidity”.

Well, I was referring to your courage in pointing out the addled stupidity in your many posts on Jay, and was just asking if that’s what i should be doing.

I may not have the proper courage, but at least I know nationalists from religious fundies.

Heck, we’ve been here before haven’t we? What was it last time? I think I knew the meaning of decimate? And there was the question if US Airlines have bestirred to their pre-9/11 girth? Bestirred to bankruptcy.

Heck, meathead, Ok. You’ve done bestirred me. I think might just go on over to Glen’s house to ask him about those missing elements influencing US foreign policy. Do I have to use Not_Z if I go over there? What’s the protocol on these things? Should I announce that meathead done sent me? Should we use a secret sign?

Watch for this question in the comments:

So Glenn, why do you think that Bolton gives hour-long interviews to Pamela on his break from vetoing Isreali-Lebanese-Palestinian violence resolutions. Does Pamela from paragraph one have a lot of sway over the religious fundies that you blame for eliminationist rhetoric in paragraph five?

Look for it; it’ll be there. Of course if it doesn’t show up it may be cause I get banned and I have to hang out here where the tumbleweeds blow by. I’ll be there though. If I have to go five proxies.