Bloodless Coup

I really like Neiwert, I really do, and I don't even disagree with the basic thesis here. I do think, however, that it has more to do with the populace's general disengagement from the real work of citizenship -- actually evaluating the details and reaching an informed decision, rather than relying on the self-serving edicts of one orthodoxy or another -- than it does with one party or the other. What -- liberals didn't rally around Clinton despite his obvious myriad failings?

I don't dispute that things look different now, but I'm not sure the trend is quite as clear as Neiwert suggests -- or rather, I don't think it's quite as party-specific. People have always fallen for charisma (q.v., Clinton), and while Bush lacks the sort of charisma that appeals to Yankee elitists, he appears to have a variety of charisma that appeals to the heartland. Both were so transparently calculating that it was hard for people who thought critically of them to take either of them seriously. I defend Clinton because his policies worked, and he, like all good presidents, knew when to recalibrate the things that weren't working. I villify Bush because he, like some bad presidents and truculent infantile buffoons everywhere, doesn't acknowledge his mistakes and thus can't recalibrate (because nothing's wrong, just ask him).

Mostly, I'm bothered that Neiwert is spouting that tripe about Patriot Act II's supposed invention of uniformed secret service agents. The statutory provision in question, as you might have read in any number of left-leaning temperate blogs (it's bedtime; I'm not going to look it up right now), is nearly a verbatim copy of a statute that's been on the books forever and was merely pulled under the Patriot Act umbrella. It confers basically no new power on the Secret Service. There is some novelty involving the technicalities of how it can assess the risk level of certain protests at public events, and taht is not undisturbing, but if these are proto-brownshirts, I hate to tell you but we've had them for a long time. And given Neiwert's usually thorough research, that he's just tossing this meme around suggests that he, too, isn't above playing fast and loose for rhetorical effect. Which I suppose I knew, but I hate to see it made so painfully clear.

No, I really wasn't just slinging it out there for rhetorical purposes; and your reasoned explanation also appears at the bottom of Jeralyn's post. Still, as that post notes, it is in fact an expansion of a force already in place.

It's one of those things like Halliburton getting an open contract to build mass detention centers. As I explored a little bit ago, there are reasonable explanations for these kinds of actions, but the echoes are strong enough to worry anyone who has observed the right's growing authoritarianism. Certainly, they warrant strong oversight.

And that was my point, which was in essence to somewhat soften the caveat presented in the previous paragraph: The cultlike behavior of Bush and movement conservatives, even where it does not specifically fit the model of a mature political religion, nonetheless echoes it in many cases.

I had a bushel of other examples from that same list. As one of my commenters pointed out, for instance, we have seen loyalty oaths being used -- signing one was required for entry into Bush campaign events in 2004.

Still, I can see I should have made my point clearer. But, you know how it goes with long posts; it was getting wordy enough already.

I couldn't be in more agreement with you that engaging the electorate with good information is absolutely essential for derailing these trends.

The problem then becomes the pollution of the information with deliberate misinformation and propaganda, which has become pervasive. But that is a discussion for another day.

One of the reasons I appreciate what you have done with the post I referenced (and a long list of others) is calmly pick at the information to get at the individual strands, and then reflect about what they could mean individually and when taken together.

Unlike Moon, I didn't get the idea that you were saying "the Brownshirts are here!" but rather rationally discussing that we should be able to see how certain elements could have darker consequences than the use for which they are drawn out on paper. It's worthwhile to have a healthy suspicion of of the attitude that only saintly democrats (small "d") will ever hold power.

I think it's important to think through all the possibilities, even the improbable ones, that could be generated from a policy or policies. "Nobody saw it coming" isn't a very good excuse.

I have trouble with several of these points. First, the idea that conservatives talk about solving problems of which people tend to be afraid. Yes, it's true, they do, and so do any politicians, because it's their responsibility to guide the polis ship away from dangerous waters or risk being voted out the next term for not responding to the polis' awareness. And it's key to remember that fears are awareness, we're not talking about irrational fears here, as was proven on 9/11. Americans don't want people to die like that, we want control over death that fits in with our personal value system. And it's also key to remember that liberals play on fears as well, throwing around concepts like authoritarianism, king, and emperor; they just play on the fears of their own political base, or rather are responsive to them, as conservatives are responsive to the fears of our political base.
Second, Seligman's research suggests that loyalty is a character strength which has been valued throughout most human civilization, a fundamentally human thing more than a fundamentally authoritarian thing (of course, you could make the argument that most of human civilizations have been authoritarian). In either case, remember that these are two competing types of loyalty, one in a particular idea of government without personal loyalty being a factor, the other being loyalty to a person. Then it becomes clear that this is simply two kinds of attachment, such as the attachment of an atheist to a world without God, and the attachment of someone spiritual to a world with God. They're both fixed, dogmatic perspectives, and because of the ever changing nature of life to which they aren't flexible, there will be situations in which each of them work better than the other.
Third, as far as demonization of other, remember that your party is also capable of extensive hyperbole on this regard, suggesting that Republicans are racially prejudiced war mongers when the numbers just don't bear this out. As far as messianic tendencies, do you remember John Kennedy? He wasn't a Republican. And let us not forget that liberals are as keen on control of education, keeping prayer and intelligent design out of schools, as Republicans are on getting them in. It was a democrat, not a Republican, who came up with "The Great Society," as far as your utopian end state argument. As far as your whole argument on ideology, remember that your post itself shows "a genuine desire on the part of individuals to convert others to [your] cause."

Morris, you can guide a ship away from dangerous waters right onto a beach. In all the necessary reaction to a real threat, it's important not to create new ones inadvertently.

Morris, you write: "First, the idea that conservatives talk about solving problems of which people tend to be afraid. Yes, it's true, they do, and so do any politicians, because it's their responsibility to guide the polis ship away from dangerous waters or risk being voted out the next term for not responding to the polis' awareness."

It's the crafting of what you so blithely compliment as "awareness" that's really at issue here, and the Republicans do a far better, far more overt job of generating a sort of millenarian fear than the Democrats do, in large part because they try. Creating, by hook or by crook, the fear of terrorists behind every closet door, the fear of a runaway government intent on taking every penny of your earnings in taxes, the fear of a godless culture hedonistic and disdainful of life, these lie at the heart of the Bush agenda. There's nothing forward-looking about it, nothing new proposed, it's revanchism plain and simple. While democrats may exaggerate the consequences of continuing to turn a blind eye to the excesses of the Bush administration's executive power grab, it's not an entire party line, it's a rhetorical gesture. And while, say, Newt Gingrich was prone to the same rhetorical excesses, neither his rhetoric nor that of the Democrats now reflects party values to the extent that the apocalyptic vision of the right founds the GOP's current agenda and undergirds its serial endeavors to transform the relationship between government and the people.

You continue to identify certain more general properties the parties share and offer a perfunctory two-wrongs-cancel-each-other-out zero-sum analysis, but this stuff is rarely zero sum. They may be playing the same game, and they may even be playing by many of the same rules (gerrymandered districts; soundbite politics, Gallup-tested and mother approved), but just because the parties' rhetoric tends to sound like yin and yang mean they're really different sides of the same coin. Surely you'll acknowledge the possibility, even if you won't concede its realization in the current state of things, that at any given time either party might wander far more afield of the Framers' vision for the United States than the other party has. And if you concede that, it's never going to be enough just for you to say it's zero sum. You're going to have to marshall evidence to prove it.

By the bye, Your citation to J.F. Kennedy doesn't impress me at all. Abe Lincoln freed the slaves. What has the modern GOP done for black people, aside from occasionally acknowledge that they exist?

Mr. Neiwert -- thanks for the thoughtful elaboration on the points I raised.

Moon,
I pointed out how in most respects the Democratic party has behaved in the same ways the Republican party has that are suggested to be like a religion. I'm not going to get into some debate over which party's done what more than the other, or how one party did it less but it caused more damage than the other, because that's a distraction from the point, that both parties do this stuff when it serves their needs. Obviously, this is on its face an appeal to those who hate religion, because otherwise calling conservatism a political religion wouldn't be significant, and so it's an appeal to the extreme left of the party that laments the way conservatives appeal to the extreme right of the party. If you wonder about what the GOP's done for blacks, let Don King tell you:
"My issue is the inclusiveness of African-Americans who have been excluded. When George Bush says he wants one America he is reaching out to African Americans. He struck a chord that goes to the root of racism by appointing qualified people to top positions. Colin Powell as secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice [as] national security adviser, and in so doing he gave a new sense of dignity to those who have been disenfranchised, who have been left out, giving the very thing we've been seeking for 240 years ... by appointing blacks in important positions. Not that they are toadies or sycophants or Uncle Toms, but qualified people who just happen to be black ... symbolizing ... one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Four more years for George W. Bush."

i'm sorry, did you just quote don king, that paragon of civil rights, that exemplum of black america? i mean, i knew it would be hard (outside the associate justice of the supreme court fond of villifying the very policies that elevated him to such a lofty bully pulpit) to find a prominent black man to speak well of contemporary GOP policies, but i had no idea just how hard-up you'd really be.

{shakes head}

next thing, you'll be quoting ted nugent on why poor white america should vote for a man who has no more interest in their plight than he does in that of urban black youth.

Moon,
I quoted Don King because what does he have to gain from supporting Bush, what does he have to lose for it? The "paragon[s] of civil rights" in our generation have been known to profit off their positions as paragons of civil rights, but I don't see the NAACP offering Don King a job anytime soon, so he is someone who can give an opinion that is not tarnished by personal position or ambition. This is the liberal way, ad hominem attacks rather than responding to the substance of a person's argument. The arrogance that somehow black conservatives don't count, don't deserve to be black, don't deserve to have their opinions listed as black opinions is the exact kind of prejudice liberals claim to be fighting.

responding to what argument? king may have some business acumen (and let's not forget that he's achieved his position, including far more profit than any civil rights icon i can think of, exploiting young black men ill-equipped to look out for their own long-term interests; he's not even a paragon of virtue with respect to his clientele, notoriously putting himself first in his dealings with the people he's supposed to be promoting). he's spouting the usual tripe against affirmative action; there's nothing new to his tokenism. clinton also appointed lots of black americans to high positions. so what? condi and powell don't erase the damage done to black communities by GOP policies. king disregards the slashing of social programs that predominantly benefit poor blacks to put a few more dollars in the pockets of the rich, king most certainly included. i'm not interested in what he has to say on the topic. the only thing remarkable about him is his wealth.

Moon,
I'm trying to figure out what you're saying here, because it sounds like you continue personal attacks rather than dispute reasoned argument. That is what you're saying, right, that because you don't like Don King, because he's rich and you disagree with his position on social programs and supporting Bush, you think obviously he can't have anything worth anything to say. So the long and the short of it is you agree that you'd rather attack someone's character than dispute what they have to say. And who exactly did Clinton appoint to be the first african american secretary of state, because I seem to remember someone pretty white holding that position while he was in office? Just name me the first President to put an African American four steps away from the Presidency, because I think Clinton placed Ron Brown more like ten steps away. I find it amazing that in the same comment in which you lament the poor facing hardships, not having a fair shake because of their economic status, you give economic status as a reason to ignore what Don King has to say. So it's okay to be prejudiced, but only if it's against the rich?

Why not just quote Ted Nugent on gun safety?

i wrote: "he's spouting the usual tripe against affirmative action; there's nothing new to his tokenism."

if you want a more robust response, find me a more robust commentator. i offered a simple sentence to refute the simple sentence (or two, maybe, who cares) you quoted from king. you want i should write a monograph to consider the merits of king's pithy refutation of affirmative action based on two extraordinary exempla, the merits of which are familiar from high school discussions on the topic? why should i do more work than he has, or you have, to consider the issue?

i'm very happy bush put someone black four steps away from the presidency, and i'm happy about condi, too. but you haven't said a word about the slashing of social programs, the beneficiaries of those cuts (including king), and the stark diametrical distinction this draws with clinton who managed not to piss on the poor while balancing the budget and reforming welfare in ways that would have made republicans jealous if they weren't so busy steaming over his sex life.

bush did more for don king. clinton did more for the poor. and since most blacks are a hell of a lot closer to poor than they are to the cabinet, i'm pretty sure my reasoning on this point should be clear enough for you to continue singling me out for ad hominem treatment regarding my supposed ad hominem attacks. it's a lot easier than explaining to me how bush's policies are demonstrably better for the poor than clinton's.