Category Archives: NADA – New American Dark Ages

New American Dark Ages

Lower than Duhbya?!

Make-Believe Reagan : Rolling Stone, by Matt Taibbi

It’s only after you run into this lobotomy act ten or eleven times that you start to see the dark essence of Fred Thompson. He is hard to dislike on a personal level: Unlike the overconfident district attorney he plays on Law and Order, the real-life Thompson comes off as a halting, humble, accidental celebrity who’s really just dern glad to be here. And his personality seems consistent with his Goldwater-era ideology: A believer in limited government, he seeks to achieve his ends by getting his frankly limited self elected to the White House.

His politics, though, are another matter. As a political animal, Thompson embodies the twisted core of the Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh era: He looks you right in the eye with that aw-shucks face of his and tells you shit that just isn’t true about who we are as a country. In his first few days on the campaign trail, he paces back and forth in front of crowds of Iowans and assures them without blinking that “we have the best health-care system in the world” — and you sit there wondering how the hell he can get away with saying that when America’s infant mortality rate is behind fricking Slovenia’s.

But by then Thompson is talking about how France and England are desperate to copy our market-based system of health care. And then he’s on to Iraq, where we “went in for the right reasons” because Saddam was planning a “nuclearized Middle East” that “would have defeated all of us,” assertions that leave the bad-news-weary crowd dewy-eyed with approval. Thompson represents the essential bullshit at the heart of modern conservatism: The fantasy that we are the benevolent envy of the world must be believed at all costs, no matter how much waste or mayhem or loss of young lives is suffered in deference to it.

That’s what Thompson is selling: a double dose of Middle American delusion. He’s a Grade A nice feller who isn’t running for president, even though he is, in a country that doesn’t launch unilateral and unwarranted invasions, even though it does. …

Standing on a riser in front of his bus, Thompson lays his Goldwater rap on the Decent Folk who have come to the park, telling them that the best thing government can do for the poor is to help them help themselves. “A government big and powerful enough to give you everything,” he declares, “is also powerful enough to take away anything.” The crowd cheers. [mjh: This is a direct quote from Raygun. Does his audience know or care?] …

What Thompson offers is a chance to drag the presidency itself into that bubble, leaving ugly reality behind. His campaign is basically a referendum on what America wants out of its president. Do we want an executive who solves problems and tackles issues, making decisions that are grounded in reality? Or do we want a lead actor to star in a television show about a fantasy America of our own creation, an America where poverty and war and insecurity can be solved simply by keeping them off camera?

That is a heavy, heavy question, a theme straight out of dystopian fiction, and those of us who would vote for reality should be chilled by Thompson because we know that even if America votes for the fantasy, someone is still going to be running the reality.

In the case of Thompson, that someone would be a slick frontman who might play the part of a Goldwater small-government Republican but in reality has made his living as an extravagantly paid pimp for government welfare. As a professional lobbyist in the 1980s, Thompson worked on behalf of Westinghouse, which was seeking billions in federal subsidies for nuclear power plants. (He conveniently leaves that part of his past out when, in his campaign speeches, he mentions nuclear power as one of the “other fuels” that “have to be part of the solution.”) He also lobbied for the deregulation of the savings-and-loan business — a Reagan-era move that helped lead to the infamous collapse of the industry. And between 2004 and 2006 he earned $760,000 lobbying to cut the asbestos liability of Lloyd’s of London.

Thompson is frequently compared to Ronald Reagan, with plenty of justice. Like Thompson, Reagan projected for voters a fantasy America, one that didn’t need to feel bad about Watergate and could still kick ass, despite having just been whipped by 2 million pajama-clad Vietnamese. But underneath Reagan’s goofy cowboy act was a raging ideologue, a deadly serious political force that also pitched to voters grandiose dreams of endless riches and world conquest. The dream America bought from Reagan was wrongheaded and stupid, but it was at least a big dream, a dream commensurate with the breadth and power of the American empire. The people who bought it were mean and overconfident, but they were at least still living on planet Earth.

What Thompson is selling is escapism, pure and simple. He’s selling America not as a vast adventure epic but as a timid, forty-seven-minute made-for-cable movie about a folksy small-town dad — a fantasy that makes no sense at all in the context of a massive militarized oligarchy currently occupying half the world’s deserts on borrowed money.

The people who are buying this fantasy are buying out of fear, because they can’t bear to look anymore. They’ve simply given up trying to deal. If Thompson wins — and he very well might — that’s what it’ll be: total surrender. The lowest we’ve ever sunk.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16546031/makebelieve_reagan/print

the erosion of majority rule

Harold Meyerson – The Silenced Majority – washingtonpost.com

In the past several years there’s been great concern about the erosion of individual rights as a consequence of the Bush administration’s “war on terror” and war in Iraq. I share this concern. But the administration’s critics, myself included, have been remiss in noting a development even more corrosive to American democracy — the erosion of majority rule.

A fundamental premise of democracy is that elections matter. That belief is being tested today as it seldom has before. In 2006, the Republicans were swept from power in Congress because the American electorate had had it with the war and with Congress’s unquestioning acquiescence to President Bush’s blind and obdurate faith in the eventual success of the American mission. In responding to the election by sending more troops to Iraq and keeping these troops there until the limits of our manpower compel their return next year, Bush merely doubled down on his unwinnable bet on his unwinnable war. …

If Democrats are to win in 2008, it will be because they represent a decisive break, not a partially veiled continuity, with George Bush’s policies, and with his war policies most of all. The Democratic candidates, Clinton especially, need to assure voters that their voice matters more than those of the Beltway theorists who supported the war at the outset and still can’t contemplate ending the occupation. They need to assure voters, in short, that they take democracy in America seriously.

Deep Thinkers Limbaugh and Goldberg

If you want to enrage conservatives, say anything about Lush Limbaugh. Really — anything other than the worship he expects from his self-described Dittoheads. Lush is a petty, bombastic and bloviating scold — among the worst of a large ilk. Is there anyone on the left who is his equal in power? No.

Now, it happens that I believe Lush has said countless things worse than his recent “phony soldiers” fart. He intentionally sticks his thumb in somebody’s eye every show — it’s why frustrated, impotent and mean-spirited people love him. Was he caught judging all soldiers who oppose the war? Of course: Lush is pure judgment, god’s wrath. But, who cares what Lush says or thinks?

I’m inclined to say the same about Jonah Goldberg of the National Review and liberal-rag, the Albuquerque Journal. But, I have to highlight one small piece from a recent Goldberg column as this week’s WTF?!

Jonah Goldberg on Rush Limbaugh & the Dems on National Review Online

All that matters is that Democrats get a free hand — thank you, mainstream media — to do what they’ve spent years denouncing as the worst, lowest form of politics. And, unlike Republicans in most cases, the Democrats actually know they are lying. They just don’t care.

Did Goldberg really say Republicans don’t know when they are lying? (While impossible, it might explain some of the madness.) Or is it just that Republicans don’t lie and Democrats do? As Republicans look at the world, which is worse, an anti-patriot (traitor) or liar? Never mind — who cares what these self-appointed judges — these corporate tools — think. mjh

Conservatives for Government Spending

Oh-my-gawd! In the following paragraph, Charles Krauthammer, paleocon, stresses the value of the Federal government spending LOTS of money. I agree with him, but never expected him to agree with me. Is the sky falling? Aren’t there any real conservatives anymore? (Kidding.) mjh

Charles Krauthammer What Sputnik launched

We had no idea how lucky we were with Sputnik. The subsequent panic turned out to be an enormous boon. The fear of falling behind the Communists induced the federal government to pour a river of money into science and math education. The result was a vast cohort of scientists who gave us not only Apollo and the moon, but the sinews of the information age — for example, ARPA (established just months after Sputnik) created ARPANET, which became the Internet — that have ensured American technological dominance to this day.

Liberal Media? Yeah, right.

I’m so tired of conservatives endlessly invoking “the liberal media.” I wish I could just roll my eyes, but I need to address conservatives directly about this intentional self-delusion.

By “liberal media,” do you mean Rupert Murdoch, the billionaire media tyrant? Do you mean Fox News, founded by ultra-conservative Roger Ailes? Do you mean Lush Limbaugh, who has more listeners and sponsors than any other drug-addict in AmeriCo? Do you mean billboard-owning, record-smashing Clear Channel? (Can conservatives name a liberal counterpart that truly matches each of the previous examples in influence?) Do you mean the self-reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times, home of the aptly named blowhard Tony Blankley? Do you mean the Wall Street Journal?

I could add a list of conservative columnists who appear every day in more newspapers than any liberal columnist. Columnists who directly influence the current administration, like Krauthammer and Thomas. And I can cite a study to that effect, knowing there is a study proving anything and we all pick and choose. (Liberals admit we are all flawed human beings. Today’s conservatives divide the world between good — themselves — and evil — everyone else.)

Are conservatives who truly believe there is a dominant “liberal media” (as opposed to those who simply espouse that cynically to rouse the rabble) willing to think more deeply about this? Who pays for “the liberal media”? Most is driven by advertising. Who pays for ads? Mostly, businesses, especially big, national corporations. What political policies do corporations favor? Minimal regulation and minimal taxes. Aren’t those the primary planks of the Republican Party?

So, if the dominant media is liberal, why is it funded by corporations? Perhaps, they are simply stupid. Or, perhaps, it is in the interest of corporations to spend money on liberal media. Though cynical, that would be true if liberals partake of more media or are more responsive to advertising or spend money more loosely than conservatives. So, there might be more liberal media-consumers or a liberal minority might be the majority of customers of conservative corporations.

Conservatives believe America is a genuinely conservative nation and has always been so. They often speak of the liberal media, liberal politicians and the liberal judiciary as if liberals were a minority occupying the Silent and Moral Majority, bedrock conservatives. (An unfortunate consequence of this salt-the-earth war tactic is that conservatives steadily undermine confidence in all aspects of government.) How did this liberal minority come to dominate the conservative majority? Well, albeit by circular logic, the liberal media is a big part of keeping conservatives down. (Re-read second paragraph above.)

OK, leave aside how a natively conservative majority came to be dominated by a liberal minority. (I’m sure it involves the Civil War and forced integration; I imagine others blame Mexicans, gays, and Jews.) Three times in my life, I have seen the rise of the conservative tide. Conservatives believe it started with Goldwater. In fact, it started with Nixon and the odious criminal, Spiro T. Agnew. Today’s conservatives would not elect anyone as liberal as Nixon (choke-sputter-gag), who would be labeled a tree-hugger, communist sympathizer and dove/quitter. They would, however, gladly nominate Agnew for president; much of the “liberal media” nonsense originates with Agnew. It is also in those days that the power-hungry recognized the value of playing up the notion of native conservatives occupied by liberal outsiders. As vile as Nixon/Agnew, et al., were, they can’t hold a candle to Tricky Dick Cheney and Duhbya, though in the current case, it’s the veep who is dangerously powerful. As you may know from Wikipedia, conservatives over-reached and trusted the wrong guy, who was dethroned. (The liberal media — especially, the Washington Post and the New York Times — did play a key role, which inspires much of today’s enmity. And conservative columnists like James Jay Kilpatrick defended the Crook until he boarded the helicopter for the last time. Could Fox News have saved Nixon? Certainly, unlike today, Democrats weren’t stopped by “let’s just wait until his term is over.”)

The revenge of the conservatives was Morning In America, starring Ronnie Raygun, who might as well have been Jesus. Although there were no free speech zones then, it was a tough time for liberals. But, on a national level, we were merely drowned out and ignored for a decade. Things would get much worse.

The third wave of conservatism starts with Newty Gingrinch and collapses with King George. And yet, with all the power — an enflamed citizenry, both houses of Congress, the Presidency, an increasing percentage of the judiciary, Fox News, Rupert Murdock, more money than god, ad nauseum — with all this power and the smug certainty that they would hold that power for a generation, what happened?

Do conservatives blame Iraq on “the liberal media”? No, just the fact that all the Good News (gospel) out of Iraq is being filtered out by the same. While I’m stunned by those who believe we are “doing the right and honorable thing” in Iraq (and, next year, Iran), I’m outraged by the wimps who simply say, “Duhbya deceived us — he’s not really a conservative.” I know, he’s just an over-privileged party boy who has lead a pampered and sheltered life in which — inexplicably — people have helped him overcome his incompetence and ignorance every step of the way. (At least a few of those people have profited mightily by doing so. And what better way to prove government is bad than elect incompetents?) Now, the “true” conservatives pull a Peter on Jesus H. Duhbya — I don’t know him. Know him? You crowned him! Anyone half-awake in 2000 could see Duhbya’s unworthiness. Blame the liberal media? Blame conservatives!

Pulling back from my historical screed: How did the liberal media weather 40 years of mostly conservative rule and a purportedly conservative majority populace? Could it be that the media isn’t liberal or that the majority of media-responders are?

Why do conservatives continue to rail mindlessly against “the liberal media.” What do you blame the liberal media for? And would you rather have a conservative Pravda and Isvestia? Should media be a tool of those in power? In fact, isn’t it.

I would be interested in a coherent response from Deep Thinkers. (1) What is your evidence of a dominant liberal media? (Please cite someone other than Lush Limbaugh.) (2) What sustains that alleged dominance? mjh

PS: I believe the world is not black and white nor even shades of gray. It is brilliantly colored. The colorblind may not get that. I admit I’m flawed in reasoning and other respects. I admit I’m in the minority in almost everything I do. I admit there are some great conservatives and some shitty liberals. I admit we are all human. More unites us than divides us, but we’re obsessed with the divisions.

This Week’s WTF?!

ABQjournal Opinion: Letters to the Editor

Free Speech Should Be Respectful

Keeping protesters away from partisan group gatherings was not invented by the current administration. Others including the Clinton administration did the same thing. One difference was that conservatives did not try to disrupt gatherings or usurp someone else’s forum. Selective indignation may be convenient for espousing partisan positions, but it is hardly objective journalism or commentary.
    RONALD G. TOYA
    Albuquerque

Ronald forgets (or ignores) the gangs officially sent to Kerry rallys armed with flip-flops in organized disruptions designed to brand Kerry in the most simplistic fashion for the benefit of dimwits. Yes, that was a respectful use of free speech.

Let’s all admit we are all selectively indignant. We minimize our own flaws and those of people we like and maximize the flaws of those we dislike or of strangers. That’s human nature for you.

But in contemplation of freedoms, I would appreciate evidence of Clinton herding conservatives into free-speech zones or Clinton supporters on horseback and in body armor chasing conservatives down the block. Ronald?

peace,
mjh

You’re Free to Speak Until A Cop Says You’re Not

Jim Scarantino writes a moving account of his personal experience with the heavy-handed, repressive assault of APD on free-speaking citizens opposed to a senseless, unnecessary war. A war which at least a few of those same cops must agree now was a mistake. The spirit of the nation — thirsty for blood and brooking no dissent — was alive and on horseback just a few weeks ago. If we’re fighting ourselves on the streets of America, what exactly did fighting “them over there” accomplish? mjh

Note: Photos are from 2003 issues of the Alibi.

alibi . september 27 – october 3, 2007

The Real Side: Déjà Vu Not All Over Again City Hall tackles police misconduct against peace protesters By Jim Scarantino

I’d come from work, still dressed in a business suit. I didn’t know then that undercover police officers had slipped in among us. But I did sense trouble coming when suddenly the cars disappeared. To prevent motorists from reading our signs, police blocked traffic on Central. Down the street I saw troops of police assembling and what looked like a SWAT van. I decided it was time to go. I headed for my car with sign in hand.

I didn’t get very far before a young police officer stepped across my path and pointed a shotgun in my face. He was terrified and shaking. I’ve always wondered what had been planted in his brain to make him view a man in a suit displaying a plea for peace sign as a threat justifying leveling his gun at my head.

After what seemed a very long time, the officer let me go. When I got home, television news was showing children inside the Frontier washing tear gas from their eyes. Out in the street police in riot gear waded into the group of people who didn’t want Americans dying in Iraq. It didn’t look like my Albuquerque. It didn’t look like America out there on Central that night.

When I learned how this month Albuquerque police harassed and intimidated peace protestors outside Kirtland Air Force Base, I thought, “Here we go again.” Mounted officers in battle gear forced their way through fragile women leaning on walkers, mothers with strollers, even people in wheelchairs. An officer ticketed only cars with pro-peace bumper stickers. Another officer drove down Gibson shouting over his speaker “Go Bush!” Police hurled insults at the group. A protester was handcuffed and locked in a patrol car, windows closed, in full sun, for more than an hour. His offense, committed only after he had been seized, seems to be kicking out a window so he could breathe.

Jeanne Pahls of Stop the War Machine, a sponsor of the event, says the organization has conducted more than 30 other protests since 2002 without a single act of violence or criminal conduct by protesters. So why the show of force by APD against grandmothers, children and the disabled?

Once again, it didn’t look like America on the streets of Albuquerque.

– – – – –

mjh’s Weblog Entry – 03/25/2003: “Operation Slackened-jaw”
Regarding the encounter between police and demonstrators that turned violent on Thursday, 3/20/03, city councilor Sally Mayer said, “I think we need to thank the police for behaving as well as they did.”

See also mjh’s Weblog Entry – 03/29/2003: “alibi on APD” for more links on this topic.