Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Christopher Hitchens may be dying of cancer but he has lost neither his gifts for observation nor his caustic wit. In his latest Slate column he takes a look at Glenn Beck's rally on the 47th anniversary of MLK's most luminous moment. He frames it first in terms of race:
One crucial element of the American subconscious is about to become salient and explicit and highly volatile. It is the realization that white America is within thinkable distance of a moment when it will no longer be the majority. This awareness already exists in places like New York and Texas and California, and there have even been projections of the time(s) at which it will occur and when different nonwhite populations will collectively outnumber the former white majority. But it also exerts a strong subliminal effect in states like Alaska that have an overwhelming white preponderance.Until recently, the tendency has been to think of this rather than to speak of it--or to speak of it very delicately, lest the hard-won ideal of diversity be imperiled. But nobody with any feeling for the zeitgeist can avoid noticing the symptoms of white unease and the additionally uneasy forms that its expression is beginning to take.
I don't think most Glenn Beck followers or Tea Partiers are overtly racist. Some of them clearly are, of course, but for the average person following Beck and the tea parties on their "take back America" journey, I don't think they give much conscious thought to race at all. That does not mean it isn't operating on a subconscious level, of course, but even on the subconscious level I suspect that the focus on race is more effect than cause.
By that I mean that the archetype of a society being undermined by The Other, so skillfully being exploited by the demagogues of the right these days, are really only partly about race. It can just as easily be about religion, for instance. We know that many people revert to tribalistic instincts during times of turmoil and upheaval and that, I think, is what is really going on subconsciously for these folks.
It isn't that they're simply unreconstructed bigots, it is that the current insecurity they feel is making them afraid and fear leads to the need to put the blame on something external to ourselves. Fear becomes more manageable when combined with blame, especially when the object of that blame is someone notably different from us, like Muslims.
For example, so strong is the moral stature of the Rev. Dr Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement that even the white right prefers to pretend to emulate it. (This smarmy tactic long predates Glenn Beck, by the way: I remember Ralph Reed trying it when he ran the Christian Coalition more than 10 years ago and announced that he wanted to remodel the organization along the lines of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.) Thus, it is really quite rare to hear slurs against President Barack Obama that are based purely on the color of his skin. Even Beck himself has tried to back away from the smears of that kind that he has spread in the past. But it is increasingly common to hear allegations that Obama is either foreign-born or a Muslim. And these insinuations are perfectly emblematic of the two main fears of the old majority: that it will be submerged by an influx from beyond the borders and that it will be challenged in its traditional ways and faiths by an alien and largely Third World religion.This summer, then, has been the perfect register of the new anxiety, beginning with the fracas over Arizona's immigration law, gaining in intensity with the proposal by some Republicans to amend the 14th Amendment so as to de-naturalize "anchor babies," cresting with the continuing row over the so-called "Ground Zero" mosque, and culminating, at least symbolically, with a quasi-educated Mormon broadcaster calling for a Christian religious revival from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
And Hitchens makes this clear observation:
In a rather curious and confused way, some white people are starting almost to think like a minority, even like a persecuted one. What does it take to believe that Christianity is an endangered religion in America or that the name of Jesus is insufficiently spoken or appreciated? Who wakes up believing that there is no appreciation for our veterans and our armed forces and that without a noisy speech from Sarah Palin, their sacrifice would be scorned? It's not unfair to say that such grievances are purely and simply imaginary, which in turn leads one to ask what the real ones can be. The clue, surely, is furnished by the remainder of the speeches, which deny racial feeling so monotonously and vehemently as to draw attention.Concerns of this kind are not confined to the Tea Party belt. Late professors Arthur Schlesinger and Samuel Huntington both published books expressing misgivings about, respectively, multiculturalism and rapid demographic change. But these were phrased so carefully as almost to avoid starting the argument they flirted with. More recently, almost every European country has seen the emergence of populist parties that call upon nativism and give vent to the idea that the majority population now feels itself unwelcome in its own country. The ugliness of Islamic fundamentalism in particular has given energy and direction to such movements. It will be astonishing if the United States is not faced, in the very near future, with a similar phenomenon. Quite a lot will depend on what kind of politicians emerge to put themselves at the head of it. Saturday's rally was quite largely confined to expressions of pathos and insecurity, voiced in a sickly and pious tone. The emotions that underlay it, however, may not be uttered that way indefinitely.
This is the logical progression of the religious right's crying need to make themselves into an oppressed minority.
Politics
Comments
I still think Beck and pals need to experience true oppression. They seem to wish America was more like Saudi Arabia-- let's send them over there.
Posted by: Emily | September 1, 2010 11:53 AM
Being a minority can be a very good thing. Consider William the Conqueror's Norman barons, for instance: always in the minority, and perfectly happy to keep it that way (unlike the Italian nobility which rapidly became the majority by forgoing primogeniture and entailment.) Consider the Aryan conquest of India: the conquerors went to enormous lengths to maintain their minority status, instituting social mechanisms to preserve it that are still operating millennia later.
I see no overwhelming obstacles to the WASP upper class in the United States prospering for a very long time as a minority. I don't know whether there will need to be de jure changes to do it, or whether the current system of behind-the-scenes privilege and patronage will suffice, but it's certainly possible.
Alternately, the Roman approach of adopting potential threats to the system into the system (already to be found in, for instance, Harvard's scholarship system) may win the day.
Currently, if I had to place bets, I'd put my money on something like the class system of the post-Reconstruction South: an economically exploited WASP underclass kept in line by economic crumbs and the carrot/stick combination of a fragile social superiority under constant threat from the more numerous Others.
Whether explicitly or covertly, however, I have considerable confidence that the United States is in no serious danger of an outbreak of democracy.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 1, 2010 11:57 AM
"More recently, almost every European country has seen the emergence of populist parties that call upon nativism and give vent to the idea that the majority population now feels itself unwelcome in its own country. The ugliness of Islamic fundamentalism in particular has given energy and direction to such movements. It will be astonishing if the United States is not faced, in the very near future, with a similar phenomenon."
Um, it already is. What does he think the Tea Party is?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | September 1, 2010 12:20 PM
The last dying gasp of the middle class white male.
Posted by: Rob | September 1, 2010 12:26 PM
The examples you point out wouldn't really work in a democracy though. But it's mostly beside the point. As a quick aside, there is little prospect of white people being displaced as a plurality any time soon, and more importantly, people of Hispanic descent are already nominally "white", and people of mixed race (when one parent is Hispanic or Asian at least) usually call themselves white and are accepted as such. So if anything, the proportion of "white" people is likely to go up over time, they'll just have somewhat darker complexions and more Asiatic features. Something similar has happened in Brazil, where nearly half the population considers itself white even though the proportion of European ancestry is probably far less.
But as Ed points out, the racial angst of the Right isn't rational. It's based on the need to channel anxieties toward perceived enemies, a large portion of whom are simply made up.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | September 1, 2010 12:35 PM
I actually had my mother in law remark yesterday that Christians were discriminated against more than any other group in the US! Normally we don't touch subjects like that but I just had to say "you must be joking."
Posted by: DougH | September 1, 2010 12:42 PM
Ed stated:
It'd be interesting to see some surveys that are sophisticated enough to actually determine how much racism is playing in getting conservatives politically active. Fox News has recently greatly amped up their racism against blacks and obviously Muslims. I've always been surrounded by social conservatives who require a mere question or two to come out and promote a blatantly racist perspective. From my perspective is merely turning up the heat on a pilot flame long lit.
What's ironic to me is that this President and his party continue to mostly ignore political agendas coming from distinctly black groups while blacks continue to increase their net financial contributions to this country while becoming increasingly less dependent on government welfare programs. There's never been a time where there's less fodder to go after blacks than now, which I think argues how deep and blatant racism is within the social conservative movement.
The video of the Beck rally I saw from New Left Media linked in this forum a couple of times the past few days portrayed people who were clearly projecting their racism and zeal for divisive policies onto the president whose demonstrated none of the actions or behaviors he's falsely accused of, behavior continually demonstrated by Glen Beck including on Fox News Sunday this past week.
So Ed, I understand your perspective but believe it's far more consciously overt than you are asserting. These racists argue they're not racists as they simultaneously promote racist arguments while also falsely projecting racism on those who in no way deserve such criticism. They just can't keep completely quiet, their passion compels them to speak-out even though they abstractly concede racism is wrong (which is why I think they are projecting their own on the President).
I have never encountered an electoral season like this one. Fox News specifically is looking at every possible 'other' to attack and have apparently decided to get a 2004-like voter turnout by going after target-rich 'others'. This year's others are Muslims, illegal immigrants, and blacks. Gays and atheists seem to be largely getting a pass. I'm surprised Fox, Beck, and their minions feel comfortably being as overt as they are in attacking black Americans. To the point it appears Fox is seeking violence in the streets to help both their political ambitions but more important to them their profit margins. Fox's version of Heaven appears to be black, Muslim, and Hispanics being physically attacked or attacking.
Perhaps its because the RNC is so weak and the monied financial constituents are using other avenues to fund this election; this electoral fight appears to be the Democratic party vs. Fox News. The GOP is merely an artifice which administrates the distribution of funds for the upcoming general and serves to enhance single-party voters to turn-out. All generated by Fox News' influence rather than GOP party platforms which now go largely ignored; in fact so ignored the GOP is increasingly losing its grip even on its own primaries.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 1, 2010 12:52 PM
Which is what you see playing out in the Republican Party right now: the unwashed hordes trying to take the bit in their teeth. I don't consider it wise to assume that a demographic which has so many times demonstrated its willingness to vote against its own interests wouldn't just as cheerfully vote themselves into de jure peonage.
Seriously, how many Supreme Court justices would it take?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 1, 2010 12:52 PM
Xtians confuse people raising the bullshit flag with oppression and discrimination.
Posted by: Steve | September 1, 2010 1:01 PM
@5
I agree. Rodriguez is quickly becoming as American as Cuomo or O'Toole. Another horde of swarthy, smelly, not-fit-for-democracy, morally corrupt, criminally inclined untermenschen are joining the majority. The "beige-ing" of America is upon us, and the expansion of the "we" can only be good. Of course, it is not good enough, as exemplified by my Puerto Rican relatives who are now fully fledged upstate New York rednecks.
Posted by: dcotler | September 1, 2010 1:03 PM
Attacked is at least as good as attacking. After that, a little judicious editing and some talking-head spin and you can play it as "mob attacks our courageous police."
You're old enough to remember that script from the 60s, as I recall.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 1, 2010 1:06 PM
I think it's clever of Beck to describe his agenda in religious terms ("Get back to God", etc), because I think he's confident that his followers will think that he's taking about God in a Judeo-Christian context. Therefore, they can exclude Muslims under the guise of them not being compatible with their religious worldview instead of relying on more in-your-face "Brown Man" arguments.
Posted by: swedishskinjer | September 1, 2010 1:11 PM
Not around here (Arizona.) I know too many Hispanic-named people who are getting hassled on a regular basis. Including one whose maiden name was Wycke.
This, I'm told, is totally new to people who've lived here all their lives (and several are over 50.)
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 1, 2010 1:11 PM
I think this is exactly right. At a Southern Baptist Church in a deep South state, just a few days ago I listened to a group of white older women bemoan the fact that Colin Powell had not run for president. They all agreed that they trusted him and thought he would be just the person to lead the country. At the same time, they expressed deep distain for President Obama. When I asked about specific policies, etc. that they objected to, they could only say that he seems socialist. A couple of days later one of the women sent me a link to this article, which, she said, explains just how she feels. It's very revealing, I think, of the attitudes of many of the more non-racist tea party people.
And I think it's exactly that he's-a-stranger feeling that the Democrats have done little or nothing to overcome, and that has enabled the widespread acceptance of the anti-Obama and anti-Democratic-legistalation lies (example, the health care Death Panels).
Posted by: JuliaL | September 1, 2010 1:30 PM
these insinuations are perfectly emblematic of the two main fears of the old majority: that it will be submerged by an influx from beyond the borders and that it will be challenged in its traditional ways and faiths by an alien and largely Third World religion.
Ignoring the third world bit, these fears are perfectly understandable, because such events have actually occurred in the U.S. Early on the puritans lost their ability to make and enforce puritan values because of immigration of non-puritans. There's probably numerous other cases too. That move away from puritanism continues even now. That's just one of those things about democracies - every new voter dilutes one's current political power.
I think the right is stuck in one of those 'doomed to repeat the history you didn't learn' cycles. The history lesson is pretty simple - demographic change happens. You either learn to live in an ever-changing world or you go the way of the puritans - fight it and become a side note in someone's 'history of the 21st century' class.
Posted by: eric | September 1, 2010 1:33 PM
Just because you don't know what a harbi is doesn't mean you aren't one. (Don't click through unless you have a strong stomach.)
Posted by: Cynical | September 1, 2010 1:47 PM
Rodriguez is quickly becoming as American as Cuomo or O'Toole.
But it is important to remember that Italians and Irish (as well as certain other ethnic groups originating in Europe and the Mediterranean) have really only been considered white since about World War II. Before then, they faced the sort of discrimination that is now being directed at Hispanics.
DCS is correct that in some parts of the country anti-Hispanic bias is increasing. For example, you probably don't think of Jerry Garcia as being Hispanic, but the evidence is right there in plain view: his surname. It was never a problem during Jerry's lifetime, and AFAIK neither Jerry nor anybody else made a big deal of it. But I have to wonder whether he would face such issues if his band tried to play a concert in Arizona these days. I know several other examples of people who look white but whose surnames imply Hispanic or Asian ancestry. (It's not limited to the US. I know Brazilians with German surnames, Germans whose surnames imply Slavic ancestry, and Vietnamese with Chinese surnames.)
I grew up near Miami during the time when Hispanics became a majority of the city population and a plurality of the county population. There was some nativist sentiment at the time; a popular bumper sticker asked the last American leaving Miami to please bring the flag (I also remember a counter bumper sticker saying, "Hold Your Ground! The Flag Stays!"). At the time, the sensible majority was able to brush off the nativists. But those nativists didn't have the support of prominent national media figures, unlike the nativists in today's Arizona.
Posted by: Eric Lund | September 1, 2010 2:00 PM
She's just a closet racist like everyone at that rally.
Posted by: mc in dc | September 1, 2010 2:51 PM
Re: Tea Party & racism. I heard one wingnut on TV say OK, not all Muslims are terrorists, but every one of the 9/11 terrorists was a Muslim. OK, let's apply parallel reasoning to the Tea Party. I know some Tea Party sympathizers who are not racists. I also know a few people who are indisputably, obviously racist, and every one of those people, without exception, identifies with the Tea Party. Therefore, if Islam is linked to terrorism, by precisely the same reasoning the Tea Party is linked to racism. Or you can argue that neither link is valid. Take your pick, Tea Partiers, but you can't have it both ways.
Posted by: Georgia Sam | September 1, 2010 2:52 PM
JuliaL
Thank you for the link. Somehow that managed to be a deeply disturbing read, despite being devoid of any actual content. Actually, it might be its very lack of content that makes it so disturbing. Obama is just bad for completely undefined reasons and gut-level feelings trump reason. I've never seen this attitude articulated in print so nakedly.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | September 1, 2010 2:58 PM
Of course they can. What you're missing is that RWAs simply don't have a problem with cognitive dissonance. That's one of the benefits of highly compartmentalized thinking [1].
[1] Insert obligatory Inigo Montoya quote.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 1, 2010 3:27 PM
JuliaL "A couple of days later one of the women sent me a link to this article, which, she said, explains just how she feels. It's very revealing, I think, of the attitudes of many of the more non-racist tea party people."
Reading the full article, all I see are bad arguments built on a foundation of partisan hackery & FoxNews/GOP talkingpoints (Rev. Wright! Bill Ayers! Saul Alinsky! Kevin Jennings! Van Jones! Louis Henry Gates! He apologized for America! He bowed to a foreigner! Obamacare! A guy from San Francisco defended Obamacare! He sided with the illegals!).
So, basically, the only differences between a non-racist Obama opponent and a racist one is their Teabagger signs are spelled more goodly and have less pictures of Obama bin Laden or Obama witchdoctor.
A thousand words wasted, essentially, to say "He's not one of us".
If his screed qualifies as "American Thinker", then America is in far worse trouble than anyone realizes.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 1, 2010 3:31 PM
...the comments are even worse...
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 1, 2010 3:48 PM
I have been around for quite a few years.
I have seen demonizing of politicians for good and bad reasons. But never have I seen such a degree of out-right GENERAL unmitigated dissatisfaction and derision without balance.
Sure President Obama has disappointed and beyond disappointed. But he is not Satan - and he has done remarkably well under several measures. And the environment is an extremely tough one - when obviously you have enemies - and I mean real enemies - within the structures that are at his disposal to effect change and correct problems.
Save your breath - I am not apologizing for the President - nor defending his missteps or equivocations - rather I am saying he is a mixture or good and bad - and to me obviously better than most alternatives we realistically have. He does not deserve such scorn in general.
It is very telling that the TP and TP-like bodies are so dominant in the discourse - and that the President in the media seems to do nothing if not perfect at least good.
Also very telling is that big businesses really have done mostly things selfishly and nothing more is expected of them - "that would not be American." To me it speaks to the fact that we are becoming more and more manipulated and marginalized as citizens.
Here is a measure of our sanity: how many people rail against our Corporate and Private tax structures because "we are taxing ourselves into the ground" -- but have no real notion of (or tune out) the facts of that matter. Same for any number of so-called issues.
We so easily succumb to straw men setup for our enjoyment and tension release played out in a parallel surrealistic world like a medieval Roman Carnival designed by the powerful to give the allusion power to the servants who after their fling are - well - still second and third class class servants.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | September 1, 2010 4:06 PM
Way to go, Cynical - keep beating that drum! "Hate the Muslims!" "Fear the Muslims!" Burning construction equipment isn't enough. We need some good old-fashioned lynchings.
Posted by: Taz | September 1, 2010 4:43 PM
For some reason, I thought that this particular bite was snark from you, as I thought the conservatives eventually killed that one when they realized how fucking stupid it was. I shouldn't have been surprised.
You forgot "distinguished service in Kenya", though.
As for Ed, I highly doubt that most 'partiers are conscious racists, too. For example, they did react to the Mark Williams bit of idiocy quickly, and made no apologies for him.
However, to paraphrase Lee Atwater, "First you say n*****, n*****, n*****, then you talk about busing rights, and now you ask for the President's birth certificate." Whether or not you are actively thinking "this person is inferior/violent/whatever", you can still be a bigot by claiming that Obama is a Muslim, that his birth certificate was forged, that all Muslims are violent, etc. I've honestly tried my damndest to see how these people (the video Heath referenced) are making arguments not based out of fear of other cultures, but I'm certainly not seeing any excuses (with the possible exception of illegal immigration, but even there the dialogue is toxic).
Posted by: Objective Scrutator | September 1, 2010 5:32 PM
Then please look again. I think the point of the article is not that the things you mention are arguments for something, but that they are illustrations of just a few of the specific things that seem scary once someone has already felt that Obama seems like a stranger.
Perhaps the difference is that the more non-racist ones would have voted for Colin Powell. He had the next-door quality that made him seem to more people like someone familiar to them, while Obama's academic reserve makes him seem to many people like someone they don't recognize and who wouldn't even want to know them.
More accurately, to say "we dislike him not so much for any particular policy and not so much because of his race but because his culture seems foreign and unpredictable and thus scarey." And that's useful information.
Conflating everyone's dislike of Obama with racism is convenient and easy. I think it isn't accurate, and it blinds us to one direction that we might be able to go to reduce some of the fear and rejection. But I accept that you apparently don't see any such distinction, and therefore apparently see no way to improve the situation.
Posted by: JuliaL | September 1, 2010 5:32 PM
I read the article that JuliaL @14 linked to. The author doth protest too much that this isn't about racism, but there is more to it: Very few Americans have ever traveled abroad, and many of the ones who haven't are proud of the fact. Obama has one foreign-born parent, and he spent a significant fraction of his childhood living in Indonesia. Which means that Obama has direct experience with other cultures, and in the eyes of these Tea Party types that automatically makes him suspect. The rest of the article is flailing for excuses to back up the predetermined conclusion. To the author of that screed, the notion that the (white) American way of doing things might not be the best way is inconceivable[1], and Obama's background is sufficient evidence to anyone looking for such evidence that he might not agree.
[1]As Vizzini understands the term. On this question I side with Inigo Montoya.
Posted by: Eric Lund | September 1, 2010 5:34 PM
Objective Scrutator, in the interest of at least attempting to present his bad arguments fairly, the full bit was:
"Bizarre"? No. "Totally unnecessary"? No (it's their handshake, for God's sake). Deep? Yes (although, not being Japanese, the specifics of the bow escape me. If memory serves, he bowed too deep, indicating the the Japanese are our masters! Oh noes! Instead of bowing at all McCain would've punched him in the face!*)
* Okay, even trying to be fair, I can't. Their arguments are infuriating. There are good arguments against Obama's administration, but they don't use those arguments. They can't. They're generally for those things.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 1, 2010 5:44 PM
mc in dc,
You read a couple of lines about someone you never heard of before and immediately claim to know this person better than I do, though I've been close to her for fifty years. You make a derogatory comment about her character while knowing nothing about her except that she would have voted for Colin Powell and that Obama's personality and culture seem strange and unfamiliar to her. She's no racist. But you're demonstrating another kind of bigotry.
Posted by: JuliaL | September 1, 2010 5:48 PM
Eric Lund,
Precisely so. That's how I understood the article.
For at least some of those who so dislike Obama, apparently the discomfort came very early, and after that reinforced by confirmation bias.
Posted by: Julia L | September 1, 2010 5:56 PM
@1 Emily:
This is an interesting idea, Emily. I have a few tentative thoughts loosely derived from Wilfred Bion's understanding of groups.
Groups tend to aggregate the normal madness of individuals and this can play out in a number of ways. If you think of the group as the mediator and processor of projected individual anxieties, a problem arises when the group is forced to contend with the reality that members are, in fact, free of any real threat or persecution. We often think of scapegoats arising when the group is under stress from real life challenges, but they also arise from the stress associated with the lack of challenges--the lack of a more immediately real survival threat that can bind projected bad impulses, at least partially, to something real. If we have Hitler to hate and a problem with Hitler that must solved, projected bad impulses can at least be targeted toward a real problem. Hitler serves as the witch.
When there is no real threat, the group must invent witches to relieve the anxiety of having no real problems to bind anxiety. So groups that form to alleviate anxiety over real threats can get quite crazy when threats diminish. This might explain some of what we are seeing today, 9 years post 911.
In the short-run, 911 paradoxically alleviated a great deal of anxiety for a lot of people. There was a real threat and a compelling target for projection of bad impulses. In the aftermath, people were nicer, perhaps because of the reality-binding supplied by a real threat. People even tended to be more reasonable about Islam itself in the short-run.
Now, with the 911 threat diminished by 9 years without a comparable attack, fears of Islam seem to be escalating. Not only are fears of Islam escalating, but fears of all kinds of bogeymen are escalating to bind anxiety. The targets are less based in reality, more crazy, as time goes on.
Think about the communist witch hunts of the 1950x. Though the threat of nuclear annihilation in the 1950s was real, the conditions of life in America were extraordinarily good compared to WWII and the 1930s when real, more imminent threats to survival were part of American life. In the fifties, when collective burdens were lifted, Americans started looking under every rock for commies and subversives persecute.
A group that becomes the mediator of anxiety without any real world work to do can become quite dangerous. There is no real enemy, no real challenge and no real work to orient the group to reality.
So I've wondered if this is accounts in part for the current collective anger of what is perhaps the most comfortable "persecuted" class in human history. The lack of real threat and real work is, to me, the danger of a group forming around Glenn Beck. His claims that he has no political agenda are frankly more alarming to me than a group with a political agenda and real problems to tie their projections to reality. In Beck's case, projected dishonorable, evil impulses select scapegoats without any reality basis whatsoever.
Posted by: Dr X | September 1, 2010 6:01 PM
JuliaL "Conflating everyone's dislike of Obama with racism is convenient and easy. I think it isn't accurate, and it blinds us to one direction that we might be able to go to reduce some of the fear and rejection."
I don't remember doing that (if I did, it was my Tyler Durden). My point was that the non-racist Teabaggers' arguments are the same as the racist Teabaggers' ones, less the "secret Kenyan Muslim". That doesn't make them any less rational. And, make no mistake, there is a nasty Nativist undertone to the Teabaggers.
"But I accept that you apparently don't see any such distinction, and therefore apparently see no way to improve the situation."
I do apparently see no way to improve the situation. Pointing out the facts does not work (they're the Creationists of politics). Nor does arguing from emotion (as you're not part of "us", making you part of "The Other" and your empathy the wrong kind, since it applies to "us" and "The Other" instead of just "us"). How can you sway someone who clings zealously to a fantasy? How can you dialogue with someone who digs his heels in harder when you debunk the bad arguments? How to you converse with someone who always, after you've (patiently and politely) explained how they've been told Y and that Y is wrong, has a "Okay, but what about Z?". How do you argue someone to rationality when they willingly let themselves be ruled by the reactionary mind? How do you play chess with someone who's playing checkers?
Normally, I'd say "We can grab the low-hanging fruit", but they keep purging them anyway.
...
Okay, I lied. There is a way to improve the situation. In 2012, vote for Cantor/Bachmann. Then the Teabaggers will simmer down.
...
I'm not being snarky (except for the snark. The snark was snarky). I really want to know. How do you argue the facts to people who insist on using a different set of facts?
Dr X "A group that becomes the mediator of anxiety without any real world work to do can become quite dangerous. There is no real enemy, no real challenge and no real work to orient the group to reality."
It's like the human immune system when faced with the too clean environment of the 1st World ("Danger! Attack the bowels!").
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 1, 2010 6:47 PM
Wups. That should be "That doesn't make them any less irrational". I hope my point was clear. Whatever that was.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 1, 2010 6:50 PM
Way to go, Taz—keep slaughtering that strawman! Use "islamophobe", explicitly or implicitly, so you don't have to address facts like Muslims cutting the heads off little girls to celebrate Ramadan. And heaven forbid anyone mention the current manual of Islamic jurisprudence from (Egyptian, "progressive") Al-Azhar University in Cairo teaches that war against "infidels" is the obligation of every Muslim (click the name link if you care to experience cognitive dissonance).
Posted by: Cynical | September 1, 2010 7:02 PM
*weep* *weep* "I have all the power and influence in my society. Have pity upon me." *weep* *weep*
Posted by: William George | September 1, 2010 7:12 PM
Cynical - Talk about cognitive dissonance. You accuse me of slaughtering a strawman, then you write "so you don't have to address facts like Muslims cutting the heads off little girls to celebrate Ramadan" - the same old bullshit implying anyone who speaks up for the rights of Muslims in America is giving tacit approval to any and all barbaric acts committed by any Muslim anywhere. Do you really think Muslims in this country support that? But there's no room for nuance in your view, is there? You keep linking "Muslim" with evil and hateful anytime the word is mentioned, but I'm sure you'll be shocked when the violence escalates.
Posted by: Taz | September 1, 2010 7:17 PM
If the fantasy you refer to is that Obama is not one of us, you can work to separate the issue of the political changes you want to see from the issue of Obama as a person. I've gotten a few hard-core anti-health-care people to change their minds on some of those issues by just agreeing that I don't care much for the personalities of the president and his wife either (which is true, though of course irrelevant to political issues), and focusing on the conservative values of providing health care for everyone through insurance in preference to doing it through much less cost-effective methods like free care in emergency rooms for those with no insurance at all.
Posted by: JuliaL | September 1, 2010 8:34 PM
Cynical, #35:
Religious fundamentalists committed a murder. Religious fundamentalists can be dangerous. What is the conclusion that we should get from this? I conclude that we need to maintain a secular state that will punish the crimes of everyone, even those crimes committed due to fundamentalist beliefs.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2010 8:38 PM
Hey, Cynical,
How about African Christians targeting children for being witches? By your logic, that proves that we should fear all Christians, no?
Posted by: James Hanley | September 1, 2010 9:00 PM
And there is the Hindu practice of Satī
Posted by: Dr X | September 1, 2010 9:31 PM
I think that the Saudi king ought to have genuflected to Obama. If Obama had asked him to do that, it would have removed all doubts of his Islamist heritage, immediately made his birth certificate valid, and proven to the world that America and Saudi Arabia are both Christian Nations. Prostration would have been too multi-culturalist.
See: good arguments on the individual mandate. Or, hell, any argument on the actual merits of the individual mandate at all. They could have killed the bill if they had tried to initiate a scare campaign against the individual mandate, but they decided to compare Barack Obama to Philip Bouhler, and if asked for a specific issue, that debate is what people will remember Republicans for, both paranoid 'partier and non 'partier. (Incidentally, I think that one can easily reconcile death panels with multiculturalism, yet not to adherence towards Godwin's Law or intelligent debate.)
Posted by: Objective Scrutator | September 2, 2010 12:57 AM
"How about African Christians targeting children for being witches? By your logic, that proves that we should fear all Christians, no?"
We should also fear all pro-lifers because of the actions of Paul Hill and the Army of God.
We should also think all Christians are flat earthers because the Spherofascists are suppressing interesting and controversial theories.
Posted by: Objective Scrutator | September 2, 2010 1:00 AM
Modus:
"...How can you sway someone who clings zealously to a fantasy? How can you dialogue with someone who digs his heels in harder when you debunk the bad arguments? How to you converse with someone who always, after you've (patiently and politely) explained how they've been told Y and that Y is wrong, has a "Okay, but what about Z?". How do you argue someone to rationality when they willingly let themselves be ruled by the reactionary mind? How do you play chess with someone who's playing checkers?
Normally, I'd say "We can grab the low-hanging fruit", but they keep purging them anyway."
You've expressed perfectly my experience with every passionate liberal and conservative. Somehow I am doubly wrong on every issue... stinking checkers playing low hanging fruiters...
Posted by: Rich | September 2, 2010 1:30 AM
Rich, that's what you get for trying to split the baby. You monster.
I realize that I'm perfectly objective, but the weight of actual, verifiable facts tend to be on the side of the liberals*. (Granted, it helps that the other side has gone out of their minds)
* Noted exceptions include various woos; crystal woo, doctor woo (homeopathy, "alternative" medicine). I'm told there are still Utopian liberals around, as well, but nobody seems to have personally seen them. They're like Bigfoot, if Bigfoot spiked trees (protecting the forest by crippling loggers), drove a VW van (protecting the environment one quart of burned engine oil at a time) and drank hemp soda ("You can really taste the hemp!").
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 2, 2010 2:28 AM
We know that many people revert to tribalistic instincts during times of turmoil and upheaval and that, I think, is what is really going on subconsciously for these folks.
You lost me here, Ed. When exactly was this golden age when there was no turmoil and/or upheaval?
Posted by: old | September 2, 2010 3:07 AM
old - During booms nativism tends to evaporate as everyone gets on with trying to get as rich as possible; when the bust comes, as unemployment rises and the money disappears, out come the nativist agitators to stir up fear and hatred.
Sound familiar? - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | September 2, 2010 3:40 AM
Cynical:
Closer to my own date of birth there was a play written called 'A Christian Turn'd Turk'. It's quite a fun read if you don't mind a bit of mindless Muslim bashing. Of course, that kind of knee-jerk reaction was as misplaced then as it is now, but I'm sure you don't let reality cloud your bigotry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christian_Turn'd_Turk
As you can see, you're stuck in 1612 whilst everyone else (even your humble correspondant!) has made it to the twenty first century. You are a relic, a sad, lone figure fading into nothingness like Echo, which is appropriate as you can only recite the outdated talking points of others. History will forget you.
Posted by: Coryat | September 2, 2010 6:03 AM
Dingo,
Even in boom times there is turmoil and/or upheaval. Look at the nineties in the U.S. the economy was doing pretty well and the internet started to take off, and we still got a guy who thought he could change the world by blowing up a federal building in Oklahoma.
Posted by: old | September 2, 2010 6:20 AM
"A couple of days later one of the women sent me a link to this article, which, she said, explains just how she feels. It's very revealing, I think, of the attitudes of many of the more non-racist tea party people"
It took her a couple of days to find something that wasn't overtly racist. Scratch a teabagger and you'll find a KKKlansman or someone who'd be okay with being one.
Posted by: democommie | September 2, 2010 8:27 AM
Whitey still rules in all the places I've lived in, so I don't know what Hitchens is talking about - maybe I should look at some census figures. In Az I grew up with the "brown threat" and there were always stories about how the Mexicans will outnumber whitey in no time at all. But back in those days those were minority views and we had a name for that minority: idiots. I haven't been to Az in 25 years but I'll bet the brownies aren't the majority in Phoenix, Tucson, Prescott or Flagstaff. There are some places I've been where whitey is the minority, but that's been the case long before I was born - for example, Chinatown in San Francisco. In fact when I was last there I thought "gee, there are more whiteys here than I last remember". It's peculiar to be concerned with which skin color prevails in any particular place. After all, the folks that (some of ours) ancestors drove off their lands in the USA all had nice brown skin. We're still all the same humans and in large cities where there has always been a historical mix of people, people tend not to have these notions that skin color is meaningful. I suspect it's largely a societal artefact - different people are not to be trusted. As a city has more of a mix of people fewer people teach that nonsense to their kids.
Posted by: MadScientist | September 2, 2010 8:52 AM
Whitey still rules in all the places I've lived in, so I don't know what Hitchens is talking about
What Hitchens is talking about is that some people fear (and this fear, though overblown, has some basis in reality) that this will not always be the case. Certain national figures are stoking this fear and encouraging people to lash out.
As I mentioned upthread, I lived in Miami during the time the Cubans took over from Whitey, and I saw a small-scale version of this behavior at the time. I don't often agree with Hitchens, but he is exactly right on this issue.
Posted by: Eric Lund | September 2, 2010 10:40 AM
Taz:
Not any muslim anywhere, just the ones who follow the schools of jurisprudence which hold that kaffirs are not equal to Muslims, and "blasphemy" or "fitna" (which includes any kind of denial of Islamic doctrine or promotion of non-Islamic beliefs) is punishable by death.
Unfortunately for your position that's most of them, and the few sects which don't (like the Amadhi) are persecuted as heretics by the rest. Muslim-on-muslim violence in general runs at appalling levels even in nations which aren't nominally at war, like Pakistan. It's obvious that you didn't bother to follow any links above, because they go to information which makes mincemeat of whatever grounds you think you have for your position.
Thanks for the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
Shari'a calls for muslims to either support it (or at least not oppose it) or be killed as apostates. This makes it fair to ask how many support shari'a. 40% of muslims in the UK support shari'a (Telegraph poll, 2006), 81% of muslims polled in Detroit supported shari'a in muslim countries.
What kind of religion calls for killing anyone who leaves it? That's worse than the "fair game" doctrine of Scientology. The only organization I know that equals it is the Mafia.
Then there are other consequences of Islamic attitudes towards women, such as rampant homosexual pedophilia among Afghans. Imagine an entire country run by NAMBLA. You can add the "honor killings" of many women and girls who want to be free people instead of chattels under Islam (see Amina and Sarah Said, Shafilea Ahmed, Aqsa Parvez, and Aasyia Hassan [who was a textbook case of Islamic killing, beheaded by her estranged husband]).
Are you saying that the only thing keeping muslims from becoming instantly peaceful, loving and tolerant are those people who point to 1300 years of Islamic evil, hatefulness and violence, from the core Islamic texts to the actions of dozens of groups each claiming to be more faithfully Islamic than the next, right up to today? Next thing, you'll tell me that diseases like cholera and even gravity are "socially constructed".
Muslims could do plenty of things to address "islamophobia". They could renounce the inferior status of women. They could accept all members of all faiths as having equal worth and status. They could allow everyone to travel to Mecca, and build places of worship there. They could react to other faiths prosyletizing their members with "meh" instead of murder. They could renounce jihad, and the 1/8 of alms (zakat) which are designated to go to jihad... and make non-muslims eligible to receive social support from those alms.
Unfortunately, the muslims who've done this get called apostates and many of them have been killed by other muslims. This makes others understandably reluctant to go that direction.
Chiroptera:
That you refuse to make distinctions between religions which have strong theological support for violence, and those which don't? That you are willfully blind?
Hanley:
Yes, how about your red herring and attempt to change the subject? If you can't list off the top of your head how particular that is to the region (compared to a practice originating in the Arab national religion and now spread from Buffalo to Indonesia), you're hopeless.
Posted by: Cynical | September 2, 2010 4:51 PM
Cynical, #53: That you refuse to make distinctions between religions which have strong theological support for violence, and those which don't?
I make a distinction between individual people who are violent and those who aren't.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 2, 2010 4:55 PM
While ignoring any statistical propensities or unifying ideologies, thus treating every incident and perp as sui generis with nothing to learn from it.
Posted by: Cynical | September 2, 2010 6:57 PM
Christopher Hitchens rips a critic. Don't bring a C game if you are going to take on Mr. Hitchens (that's too kind, its D- at best).
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2010 7:01 PM
Cynical, #55: While ignoring any statistical propensities or unifying ideologies....
Well, I've actually known Muslims, had Muslim neighbors, Muslim coworkers, and Muslim friends. I've listened to what Muslims have had to say, and I've seen them live their lives, and I've seen how they behave to their fellow citizens and neighbors. I have no idea if their is a single Muslim "unifying ideology" -- I doubt it, though -- but if Muslims end up behaving pretty much indistinguishably from their Christian neighbors, then it doesn't appear that this "unifying ideology" means a whole heck of a lot.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 2, 2010 7:09 PM
When you find Christians calling for the murder of members of other sects like orthodox Muslims threatening Ahmadis in Surrey, let me know. Blowing up buses and subways (7/7) seems to be a particularly Muslim affair also, and what was the common element between Nidal Hasan, the Times Square bomber, the Ft. Dix jihadis, and the DC snipers? Yes, your friends and neighbors may have been normal and quite pleasant to be around. However, ignoring 5:51 doesn't exactly make them good Muslims; it states "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
(click the name link for more exposition on Muslim-kaffir relations per the Koran.)
BTW, one of the spates of vicious mosque bombings in Pakistan not long ago were attacks on Ahmadis (almost certainly by Sunnis). This is the sort of detail that the MSM refuses to report, which is one of the reasons most people in the west (including you) remain clueless.
Posted by: Cynical | September 2, 2010 8:05 PM
Cynical, #58: When you find Christians calling for the murder of members of other sects like orthodox Muslims threatening Ahmadis in Surrey, let me know.
So much for that "unifying ideology," eh?
-
However, ignoring 5:51 doesn't exactly make them good Muslims....
Actually, I could care less if they are "good Muslims." They are good people, and that is what matters to me.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 2, 2010 8:46 PM
I believe you meant to write "I could not care less", but in fact you do. If they were good Muslims and actually followed 5:51 and the rest, you would almost certainly have a very different—and highly negative—opinion of them.
What's the problem with this? When their orthodox co-religionists decide that you've got enough stuff to be worth robbing, or your daughter is sexy and is fair game because she doesn't cover herself "modestly", or they just want your house and don't care how they get you out of it, will they inform you and call the police, or keep quiet so they aren't accused of siding with the kaffir and being apostates themselves? If their Saudi-funded mosque (roughly 80% of the ones in the USA) hires a radical imam who preaches the necessity of jihad, will they inform the FBI? What matters is which side they'll be on when the chips are down.
You don't know what they will do when the heat is on. They have not yet been forced to choose sides. Depending where they fall, your opinion would probably change.
Posted by: Cynical | September 3, 2010 10:42 AM
Yes, the Sunnis are only about 90% of all muslims, and the Shia most of the remainder. I think it's very ironic that you take the minuscule sect of Ahmadiyya as proof that Islam is compatible with the West (which it may not be, as they appear to have questions regarding their ability to separate mosque and state just like the rest), yet you probably have a much more negative view of Christianity despite its much smaller fraction of fundamentalists.
Before you jump to conclusions, I'm wearing an atheist t-shirt to work today. I wish all the religions and cults would dry up and blow away, including all the strains of Marxism which pervade academia.
Posted by: Cynical | September 3, 2010 10:48 AM
While we're on the subject of taking sides, see this item about death fatwas against Geert Wilders. Which major muslim organizations are going to denounce it, do you think? CAIR? ISNA? How many campus Muslim-American Societies?
I predict that you will hear absolutely nothing from them.
However, if some act of terrorism or murder is committed, watch for the hand-wringing about the "backlash about this un-Islamic activity coincidentally committed by someone claiming to be acting in the name of Allah." It's all about them, you see.
Posted by: Cynical | September 3, 2010 11:23 AM
I just keep stumbling across things which are too relevant not to post. Here is a translation of excerpts from a debate between an Algerian woman and a Turkish woman on the subject of Islamic misogyny (link to original in the name). The Google translation is choppy but chilling pieces come through loud and clear:
Political Correctness has been elevated so far above truth, truth has become "hate speech". If this doesn't scare you or at least make you think, you're beyond hope.
Posted by: Cynical | September 3, 2010 11:58 AM
In the TOGOP idiotological purity has been elevated so far above truth, truth has become "hate speech". If this doesn't scare you or at least make you think, you're beyond hope.
There, asshole, fixed it for ya.
I know you enjoy coming over here and waving your cock, but it's really pretty pathetic. It's like some poor shlub who jerks off at the peep show and considers himself a ladies man.
Posted by: democommie | September 3, 2010 12:19 PM
Cynical, #60: I believe you meant to write "I could not care less"....
Actually, I meant to write, "I couldn't care less who you think is a good Muslim." Sorry for the confusion.
-
If they were good Muslims and actually followed 5:51 and the rest, you would almost certainly have a very different—and highly negative—opinion of them.
That's my point. My judgement of them is based on what they actually do.
-
What matters is which side they'll be on when the chips are down.
Yeah, it's best to ghetto-ize them now so they don't even have a choice. Good idea!
-
You don't know what they will do when the heat is on.
I don't even know what I will do when the "heat is on."
-
They have not yet been forced to choose sides. Depending where they fall, your opinion would probably change.
That is exactly my point. My opinion will change if and when they say or do something I find objectionable. Until they do, I will treat them pretty much like anyone else. And I will praise and support them when they say and do things I find commendable.
You see, we have a tradition in the West that we don't reward or punish people because of what they might do in some hypothetical situation. I realize that it's a tradition often honored in the breech, but I do think people should be rewarded or punished for that they have actually done.
-
#61: I think it's very ironic that you take the minuscule sect of Ahmadiyya as proof that Islam is compatible with the West....
If I did do that, that would be very ironic of me. As it is, my whole point is I take what people do and what they say to decide whether their attitudes are compatible with the Western ideals of liberal democracy.
-
...yet you probably have a much more negative view of Christianity despite its much smaller fraction of fundamentalists.
Actually, I judge Christians as individuals based on what they do or what they say.
Belief in a magical being who lives in the sky is, in my opinion, kind of nuts. But I acknowledge that people can have completely nutty beliefs in one aspect of their lives while they live completely rational lives otherwise, holding down their jobs, feeding their kids, paying their taxes, and helping out their neighbors.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 3, 2010 4:11 PM
Democommie:
Can't even get the terminology right. "Hate speech" is the leftist/Marxist label used to anathematize anything they don't agree with; "free speech" is what they agree with. I don't know what labels the GOP uses; they're pretty bad at dishonest framing of issues, though the loony base loves to talk about Jesus and such and how moving the creche from city hall to private property down the block is some horrendous attempt to purge Christianity from public life.
I'd love to hit this some more, but I'm off-line until around the end of next week.
Posted by: Cynical | September 3, 2010 4:30 PM
Cynical:
"I'd love to hit this some more, but I'm off-line until around the end of next week."
That sort of thing will happen when mom finds out that you've been downloading porn on her computer.
Posted by: democxommie | September 5, 2010 8:09 AM