Ultra-conservatives and American Political Culture

[Dracon II]

Hi... I've just been reading book reviews on "Human Events"... in particular Michael Savage's "Liberalism is a mental disorder", Ann Coulter's "How to talk to a liberal (if you must)", and Thomas Wood's "The Politically incorrect guide to American History"

http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6621

http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=c6550

http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=c6550

.... Probably some of the most pestiferous bile I've ever sampled.... (although some of Wood's claims might be true... I'm not an expert on American history).

How do these polemics sit in american political culture, are they taken seriously? They sound like the kind of stuff teenagers would be reading. And I thought Michael Moore and John Pilger were bad journalists....

Being an outsider, I find the left/right divide quite interesting.... there really is no serious debate over socialism in the US; the closest the US came to socialism was the New Deal. Welfare statism is not socialism. I think that perhaps the ad hominems, the hyperbole and the enormous clout given to the cultural side of the right/left debate in the states is due in part to the fact that the differences aren't really that great and that there is not a great deal of change at stake. Each side of the debate seems to want to paint the opposition as extremist, despite the incredibly moderate differences that exist in mainstream US Politics. Real left/right divisions are not a problem that the US, or Australia have to deal with, they are in essence European problems... and even there it is not what it used to be.

I'm interested to understand this political culture, because it seems to be on the ascent in Australia as well. The hystericization of politics of which these books are symptomatic seems to me that there is a real danger of extremist politics becoming more of a force in US Politics.

Oh, and please, for the love of god stop calling leftists "Liberals"... it's just plain ridiculous.

For the record, I'm not making a statement against conservative journalists in general... there are reasonable ones out there I'm sure. I watch the Newshour everyday on SBS and I find the Shields and Brooks debates quite informative and balanced. David Brooks is a good pundit, in my opinion, despite his partisanship... I can respect him because he doesn't resort to emotion and actually tries to properly argue a point.

[DRoseDARs]

Sadly, yes. Some people do take these wackjobs seriously. Witness the fact that they are even given so much (let alone any) airtime on TV, the lecture circuit, and the bathroom amenities they call books.

[DanS]

Realize that a lot of these pundits are really entertainers.

there really is no serious debate over socialism in the US

Of course not. Socialism has no credibility here, despite many socialist policies from the government. It's unfortunate that the politicians push these policies.

[MrFun]

Re: Ultra-conservatives and American Political Culture

Originally posted by Dracon II

.... Probably some of the most pestiferous bile I've ever sampled.... (although some of Wood's claims might be true... I'm not an expert on American history).

How do these polemics sit in american political culture, are they taken seriously? They sound like the kind of stuff teenagers would be reading. And I thought Michael Moore and John Pilger were bad journalists....

Being an outsider, I find the left/right divide quite interesting.... there really is no serious debate over socialism in the US; the closest the US came to socialism was the New Deal. Welfare statism is not socialism. I think that perhaps the ad hominems, the hyperbole and the enormous clout given to the cultural side of the right/left debate in the states is due in part to the fact that the differences aren't really that great and that there is not a great deal of change at stake. Each side of the debate seems to want to paint the opposition as extremist, despite the incredibly moderate differences that exist in mainstream US Politics. Real left/right divisions are not a problem that the US, or Australia have to deal with, they are in essence European problems... and even there it is not what it used to be.

I'm interested to understand this political culture, because it seems to be on the ascent in Australia as well. The hystericization of politics of which these books are symptomatic seems to me that there is a real danger of extremist politics becoming more of a force in US Politics.

Oh, and please, for the love of god stop calling leftists "Liberals"... it's just plain ridiculous.

For the record, I'm not making a statement against conservative journalists in general... there are reasonable ones out there I'm sure. I watch the Newshour everyday on SBS and I find the Shields and Brooks debates quite informative and balanced. David Brooks is a good pundit, in my opinion, despite his partisanship... I can respect him because he doesn't resort to emotion and actually tries to properly argue a point.

You should have seen the bitter partisan fighting in the 1790s -- ah, those were the days.

[Agathon]

Americans live in fantasy land. Why expect their political culture to be reasonable. Living next door to them is bad enough.

[Ted Striker]

Dracon II,

Even though many Americans will tell you they despise Socialist programs, some of the most popular socialist programs are completley untouchable because it's politically impossible to get rid of them. These 2 programs are Social Security and Unemployment Benefits. I support both programs and find that a safety net is important, and I think that this safety net needs to be expanded to include basic health coverage.

Conservatives will teach the horrors of these programs, but many of them will benefit from them at one point or another. Instead, they will pick on programs for the poor, such as food stamps and Welfare. The people who benefit from these programs have no power to fight back, and what I find particularly annoying from conservatives is how they character assassinate these people.

Conservatives believe that people who are in a bad spot in their lives are there because they deserve it. Either they are lazy, or made a bad decision. This is the most morally repugnant part of the philosophy that I find disgusting. This is illustrated by the urban legend that used to go around about "black welfare mothers who have another baby so they can get another welfare check."

You are right, there are no liberals anymore, they all died out by 1970. I do think that many of us support the Progressive ideals that were put forth by FDR, and my personal favorite, Robert F. Kennedy.

But back to your original point, there are many who look up to those people you mentioned in your original post.

[DanS]

such as food stamps and Welfare

Are you kidding? Food stamps is untouchable. It's ag welfare.

[Ted Striker]

As a part of the 1996 welfare reforms, food stamp usage declined, not because more people didn't need them, but because the program itself is not being administered properly. The number of children living in poor households fell, however food stamp participation declined at a rate that was excessive in relation to this trend.

Food stamps will also always be tied to any mention of welfare.

[Ted Striker]

I forgot to mention that the 1996 reforms also cut food stamp benefits for legal immigrants and limited childless households.

[Berzerker]

Socialism has no credibility here, despite many socialist policies from the government.

[Berzerker]

Liberals and the military: "The only time liberals pretend to like the military is when they claim to love soldiers so much they don't want them to get hurt fighting a war"

Soldiers need more of that kind of love, pretend or not.

Media bias: "Fox News should agree to admit it is conservative if all other media outlets will admit they are liberal"

But the fact Fox doesn't admit it's bias makes it even more repugnant than liberal media, Fox condemns media bias and pretends shilling for the GOP is "fair and balanced" because some liberal media shills for the Dems.

Modern anti-Christian bias: "There is no surer proof of Christ's divinity than that he is still so hated some 2,000 years after his death"

If Hitler is still hated in 1950 years does that make him divine? Btw, Ann, I rarely if ever hear a bad word about Jesus, it's just the nutcases who use his name to promote their BS - like you.

The Episcopal church: "The Episcopalians don't demand much in the way of actual religious belief. They have girl priests, gay priests, gay bishops, gay marriages -- it's much like the New York Times editorial board"

Interesting how Ann's mind works, excluding people is an actual religious belief but not including people.

Hugh Hefner: "Like the Democrats, Playboy just wants to liberate women to behave like pigs, have sex without consequences, prance about naked, and abort children"

Don't worry Ann, we dont want to see you prance around naked.

The parties: "Both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do"

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. How many times have you been fooled, Ann? And yet you shill for the GOP...

Liberals and Christianity: "The only religion that can be constantly defamed and insulted is the one liberals pretend to be terrified of"

Umm...what exactly about Christianity has been so insulted? Is it what Jesus taught or is it the "good Christians" who go around killing people for not being Christians? To call oneself "Catholic" is akin to claiming membership in the Nazi party. Does that defame Jesus or does it give us an idea how brutal some people have been in Jesus' name?

Ronald Reagan: how he differed from all other modern presidents

Never vetoed a spending bill? Oh, wait, our current "conservative" in the White House hasn't either.

[Dracon II]

There seems to be a lot of money to be made from polemical "journalism". Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc etc... those "Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man" guys (I don't care what's in the book.... that title is horrible), etc etc.
If this is modern conservatism... then they're in trouble. The stuff that they say, especially that Savage guy, strikes me as mildly "fascistic". They all talk about rescuing America from a decadent culture and social malaise, and they all single out the same enemies, turning them into straw scapegoats. If such simplicity, acidity and dogged certainty combined doesn't constitute an "authoritarian personality", I don't know what does...

Fascistic style politics differs according to the national culture in which it is situated. Just because they're not like NAZIs, doesn't mean they don't pose a similar danger. Thankfully I think the US Political system is secure enough, and the democratic political culture strong enough, to immunize against fascism somewhat.... but the combination of fear, crisis and widespread acceptance of tripe like Coulter's would be a deadly combination.

[Ted Striker]

I wish I shared your optimism Dracon.

Hopefully something will change soon. It just seems to keep getting worse.

[Dracon II]

Well... the USA might have a strong current of ultra-conservative moral nationalism... but there is also a strong counter-current.

[ajbera]

Before anyone starts on the old "conservatives want the poor to starve" crap, recognize that conservatives believe in helping the disadvantaged, it's just not the government that's supposed to be doing the helping. If you're in trouble, you shouldn't go to the government for assistance, go to (1) your family, (2) your church, (3) get private monies from a donation-sponsored source.

You can argue about whether this is the good and proper way to do things, but to claim that the conservative stance is that the poor & disadvantaged should get no help whatsoever is wrong.

This doesn't count hysterical/histrionic extremists like Coulter and Savage (Hannity's actually not too bad.) But I use folks like the crew at National Review as my benchmark of what conservatism is/should be.