Seriously troubling

by Prometheus 6
November 13, 2003 - 11:51am.
on Seen online

Orcinus

It is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that conservatives, subtly but unmistakably, are fomenting violence against liberals for the 2004 election. And if they succeed in doing so, America will be facing what has always been considered unthinkable here: a serious manifestation of fascism.

…I concluded previously that it seemed likely that any manifestation of fascism was some ways off, perhaps as long as a generation, if these trends were left unchecked. Now it appears that the timetable is moving much faster than that -- and countervailing forces are so far slow in coalescing, in no small part because of the utter, Stalinist ruthlessness of their opponents.

…This is not mere hyperbole; it is an exercise in eliminationism. As Buzzflash recently observed, talk like this is part of an increasing trend in conservative rhetoric: Pat Robertson wishing to "nuke" the State Department, Bill O'Reilly saying Peter Arnett should be shot, Coulter wishing Tim McVeigh had set off his bomb at the New York Times Building, John Derbyshire wishing for Chelsea Clinton's demise. Unsurprisingly, the same kind of talk is now heard on the "street" level, and it often pops up on talk radio. As we learned in Oklahoma City, eventually this kind of "hot talk" translates into all-too-real tragedy.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that conservatives are less and less inclined to rely on "intellectual" or political exchanges, and are turning more to an eliminationist strategy that seeks to demonize liberals and make them social outcasts -- and concomitantly, acceptable targets for violence because of the "damage" they cause the nation through their ostensible treason.

Already, this eliminationism is manifesting itself in the nation's military, where anyone deemed insufficiently supportive of the Bush administration is likely to face recrimination.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by phelps (not verified) on November 13, 2003 - 5:10pm.

Wow.That is a nut.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 13, 2003 - 5:49pm.

If you're talking about the guy behind Orcinus, you should know he's a "nut" that had documented every concern he has. Try reading the article Phelps.

Submitted by Sovereign Eye (not verified) on November 13, 2003 - 7:30pm.

"You don't have to wear a brown shirt to be a fascist". The rocked-ribbed, GOP stalwarts who turn a blind-eye to this ongoing viciousness are as culpable as the assholes that espouse it. Even more so, because they know better, and remain both silent and loyal to a party long gone round the bend. Just what kind of people do they think they're tangling with?

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 13, 2003 - 8:44pm.

They're not tangling with anyone.They're selling a load of crap to a population that's so hungry that it smells like steak to them. People who want to blame SOMEONE for what they're experiencing—fear and powerlessness, basically. People who have been trained to expect instant gratification and to accept scheduled obsolescence. People who hear "Would you use a skin cream that makes you look years younger? I would," and think they were just told the skin cream will make them look years younger. People who are afraid of a tax increase when the last cut gave them less than $10 per week, and even that was taken by the state they live in. People they have spent the last 20 years or more lying to successfully.

Submitted by Sovereign Eye (not verified) on November 13, 2003 - 10:31pm.

P6: Your points are indisputably well taken. Still, I am convinced the people of this republic possess a far more caustic understanding of what has been done in their name than most assume. I forsee a repudiation of the GOP in 2004 that will stagger both the world, and, perhaps more importantly, Madison Ave. More to the point, in terms of the forthcoming campaign, George Bush is an ignorant, cowardly pansy. He went AWOL/deserted during his time in the Guard; concocted a Big Lie about Air Force 1 being a known target on September 11, simply to excuse his craven disappearance that day; and pranced, with codpiece, across the flight deck of the Lincoln in celebration of his own PR machine. He has forbid the nation to justly mourn its war dead by barring camera's to bear witness to the final homecomings. He has lacked the simple decency to attend even a single funeral service of a KIA, that he himself sent in harms way. Indeed, he childishly taunted the very armed enemies that continue to slay our soldiers and their brave allies in that war torn country. "Bring 'em on". No amount of spin doctoring can possibly whitewash his disgraceful conduct. Both he, and the GOP, are headed for a fall of historic proportion. Mark my words: These piss ants will be history come November, 2004.

Submitted by mark safranski (not verified) on November 14, 2003 - 12:07am.

Excuse me but how many liberals criticized that jackass Alec Baldwin when he said Henry Hyde's family should be taken out and killed ? Equally violent rhetoric about conservatives is available all over the internet on Left-wing comment boards. ( By the way Andrew Sullivan immediately attacked Derbyshire for his idiotic remarks on Chelsea. I doubt if he was alone in doing so). Good grief, what one-sided, paranoid fantasy bilge. The poor persecuted left/conservatism as " hate speech " meme is getting a little old. When George Will will be leading a mob of Franskenstein movie villagers replete with farm implements and torches to rough up a bunch of hapless members of People for the American Way I'll give this GOP =" Fascism " bunk some credence.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 14, 2003 - 12:28am.

Excuse me but how many liberals criticized that jackass Alec Baldwin when he said Henry Hyde's family should be taken out and killed ?

Thousands.
Equally violent rhetoric about conservatives is available all over the internet on Left-wing comment boards.
This is a recent development, Mark. Progressives got tired of the Colter-Thing, and O'Reilly, and Limbaugh, and all the talk show folks on AM radio. Tired of the treason charges. Tired of trying to talk reasonably with people like Ingraham, who suffer from PTS (Political Tourette Syndrome).DId you read more than I quoted, Mark? Because I wasn't trying to lift the whole article. But when has a Liberal decided that Conservatives must go through them to get to the Democratic president? When did a Liberal decide to impeach a Conservative president and THEN go looking for a reason? How many Conservative presidents were accused of murder -- and I didn't even LIKE Clinton, okay?Open you eyes. Read what Niewart has on his site. He doesn't have comments, so you won't even have to get into an argument.Open your eyes. This coming from someone--me--who you KNOW is reasonable.

Submitted by mark safranski (not verified) on November 14, 2003 - 11:07am.

hi Prom,Violent rhetoric on the Left is *not* a recent development - historically it began in the 1760's in France with what academics refer to as " The Dry Terror " of escalating literary and conceptual vitriol against the ancien regime by middle-class and aristocratic intellectuals in the salons. Demonization remained the stock in trade of the socialist left - especially the more radical Left - the Anarchists, Left Socialist Revolutionaries, the Syndicalists and the Bolsheviks. Lenin - who aimed at democratic Leftists and the Right alike - set the standard model for most of the 20th century. In the American context, Liberals eschewed such language but allied themselves 1933 -1948 and to a lesser extent 1968 -present with more extreme leftists who would attack opponents on the right in extreme terms after which Liberals would follow with " reasonable" criticism on the same target. Liberals were also skittish from their experience with the New Left 1964 -1974 which made them a primary target instead of conservatives, an experience they sought to avoid repeating by mutual nonaggression and power sharing with radicals within the confines of activist organizations.Yes, I agree that Conservatives and Liberals, who are really the democratic center, are employing the violent imagery on a regular basis of the extremists and this is negative. It's a bad two-way street. Be fair however Prom, Coulter was massively attacked on the Right for her ideas on McCarthy by both respected academics like John Earl Haynes andHarvey Klehr and political activists like David Horowitz. Her thesis was not embraced.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 14, 2003 - 12:12pm.

historically it began in the 1760's in France

You say be fair, after leading with this absurdity as a commentary on American current politics?
Liberals eschewed such language but allied themselves 1933 -1948 and to a lesser extent 1968 -present with more extreme leftists
Had Conservatives followed with more reasonable discourse instead of adopting the screeds of the Limbaughs of the world as their standard, we wouldn't be having this discussion.Besides, this isn't so much about the discussion as the actual actions being taken by those in power.Things like this:
The director of the White House Office of Administration, Timothy A. Campen, sent an e-mail titled "congressional questions" to majority and minority staff on the House and Senate Appropriations panels. Expressing "the need to add a bit of structure to the Q&A process," he wrote: "Given the increase in the number and types of requests we are beginning to receive from the House and Senate, and in deference to the various committee chairmen and our desire to better coordinate these requests, I am asking that all requests for information and materials be coordinated through the committee chairmen and be put in writing from the committee."He said this would limit "duplicate requests" and help answer questions "in a timely fashion."It would also do another thing: prevent Democrats from getting questions answered without the blessing of the GOP committee chairmen."It's saying we're not going to allow the opposition party to ask questions about the way we use tax money," said R. Scott Lilly, Democratic staff director for the House committee. "As far as I know, this is without modern precedent."Norman Ornstein, a congressional specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, agreed. "I have not heard of anything like that happening before," he said. "This is obviously an excuse to avoid providing information about some of the things the Democrats are asking for."
The American Enterprise Institute is NOT a liberal organization, and even THEY are admitting what this is about.And how about this one?
Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), who chairs the subcommittee that controls spending on education, health and jobs programs, recently stunned Democrats by announcing plans to reject every "earmarked" project they are seeking in the final, compromise version of the bill, which funds the departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor.His reason: When the House passed the bill on July 10, all 198 Democrats present voted against it, several of them saying it shortchanged education programs. The bill passed, 215 to 208.
When have Progressives even suggested the possibility that things like these can, much less should, be done?While naked power grabs like these are acceptable to the right, do not expect me to have the slightest problem pointing out the deeply hostile rhetoric that the right initiated and escalated.When are Conservatives going to insist their own party ratchet down the nastiness by using examples of their own party's foulness? As long as every right wing commentator points exclusively at the left for their examples I'm seeing hypocrisy and I'm calling them on it. And I'm still being nice. You have not seen me play the dozens politically, and you don't want to.Cut the Coulter-Thing down to size in public where she rants. Let Ingraham try to let someone finish a sentance, and answer the point raised intelligently. Point out that Horowitz' problem with Coulter-Thing was that she didn't usethe McCarthyism charge appropriately. Support justices that, unlike Justice Brown, respect judicial precident. Let Conservatives return to morality and reason, or accept the social destruction that will come of the contest played by the rules they themselves have established.

Submitted by Al-Muhajabah (not verified) on November 14, 2003 - 12:46pm.

So the Republican party should be compared to Bolsheviks? You guys are nucking futs.

Submitted by mark safranski (not verified) on November 14, 2003 - 1:20pm.

Where has Rush Limbaugh called for Democrats or liberals to be killed or harmed with physical violence ? Admittedly, I am not a regular listener of his so I cannot say with *certainty* that Rush has *never* used violent language but a citation or quoatation would be nice.Secondly, how are parliamentary manuvers - which have been going on for time out of mind - to be equated with using demonizing language ? Recall how the Democrats in Congress when they were in the majority awarded votes in committee to non-representatives in the House ( Delegates from DC, Samoa, Puerto Rico, Guam - all Democrats) in order to reverse GOP numerical gains before 1994. Or how they simply overturned the election of a winning GOP House candidate in Ohio and seated his defeated Democratic opponent instead, ignoring a court ruling on the election. No power play there.Thirdly, I'm giving you the history of demonization as a tool of politics. This behavior you point to has a pedigree and it didn't start with either modern American postwar politics or with conservatives but on the Left, where it remains the stock in trade of discourse. That right-wingers are imitating it is not to their credit but let's be honest shall we about the origins.Fourth, where has Justice Brown been reversed on appeal in Federal Court for violating stare decisis ? Not where her personal political opinions contradict " Lochner" but where her writing from the bench trampled clear legal precedent. I'd really like to know because I've asked academics elsewhere and I have yet to get a an exampleFifth, former Democratic Representative Gonzalez (Tx) filed articles of impeachment against the first President Bush. Senator Dan Inoyue warned Bush senior that the *first* gulf war could result in his impeachment. I believe, if memory serves, several members of the Massachusetts delegation filed articles of impeachment against President ReaganYes, I do realize that you are one of the reasonable ppl Prom - my point is that none of this is new and no side is innocent, regardless of partisan claims to the contrary.* Whew !*

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 14, 2003 - 2:42pm.

Documentation first.

Where has Rush Limbaugh called for Democrats or liberals to be killed or harmed with physical violence ?
"The second violent American revolution is just about--I got my fingers about a quarter of an inch apart--is just about that far away. Because these people are sick and tired of a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington driving in to town and telling them what they can and can't do with their land." - Washington Post April 25, 1995; Page A1 Section: A SECTION
where has Justice Brown been reversed on appeal in Federal Court for violating stare decisis ?
Nowhere, because her opinions were so blatantly out of the judicial mainstream that she was the only one holding it:In Loder v. City of Glendale, a case addressing the constitutionality of a drug and alcohol testing program for employees of the City of Glendale, Brown, in dissent, explicitly rejected binding Supreme Court precedent that called for the use of a balancing test to weigh the interest of the government against those of its employees in assessing whether these types of tests were constitutionally permissible. Despite the clear Supreme Court precedent, Brown would have imposed a bright line rule allowing drug tests for all employees.In Peatros v. Bank of America, Brown argued in dissent that the National Banking Act of 1864 pre-empted California's fair employment law, thus preventing a bank employee from being able to file a lawsuit for race and age discrimination in state court. Justice Brown made this argument despite the fact that other more recent federal laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, would clearly supercede the 135-year-old banking law on this question. Brown's dissent in People v. Ray would have allowed a warrantless search of a person's home as part of law enforcement's "community care taking functions," – an exception to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against warrantless searches not recognized by the Supreme Court.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 14, 2003 - 3:14pm.

Discussion next.History of demonization as a tool? Back to the 1700's? Nah, Mark. If I'm not taking the case for reparations back to slavery days, what makes you think I'm going to see European politics in the 1700's relevant to the case at hand?And let's see...you had, post-Limbaugh era, a representative warning a President about an impeachment, one who actually got behind filing the paperwork and a several from a single state that filed against Jesus—oops, that's Dubya, sorry—Reagan. Three actions that I will lay odds less than 1% of the populace was even aware of.Compare that to the concerted, relentless, unified prosecution of Clinton.The problem is, Republicans have taken the rhetoric to the point where a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. Historically the rhetoric represented the midpoint of acceptable behavior. Now it represents the most moderate behavior allowed, and it is the Republicans that made that change.And after all the lies about governing from the center, about small government, about responsibility…I almost complained about the promise to change the tone on the Beltway but dammit, he really did…About outgoing staff damaging the White House, leaving graffitti, destroying equipment, stealing paintings…Why should I believe a word the Bushistas say? And more importantly, why should you?

Submitted by phelps (not verified) on November 15, 2003 - 12:19pm.

Remember who you are talking to, P6. I did read the article, and he is indeed a nut. As for this:

Open your eyes. This coming from someone--me--who you KNOW is reasonable.
Except when you aren't reasonable, right? As I understand it, you are reasonable until you read something that pisses you off enought that you don't care if it is true or not, right?

Submitted by phelps (not verified) on November 15, 2003 - 12:26pm.

Why should I believe a word the Bushistas say? And more importantly, why should you?

Because, to the best of my knowledge, Bush has never had a professional membership revoked for ethics violations and pejury. Clinton has. (Arkansas state bar.) When it comes to he says - she says, I'll go with the one who hasn't been impeached. (I mean that in the parole evidence meaning, even if it is true in the political sense too.)

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 15, 2003 - 3:07pm.

Remember who you are talking to, P6. I did read the article, and he is indeed a nut.

I assumed by "nut" you meant the references he provided are inaccurate and the conclusions he draws from those references are irrational. If by "nut" you mean he starts with different assumptions than you, it's indisputable.
Submitted by phelps (not verified) on November 15, 2003 - 5:36pm.

I assumed by "nut" you meant the references he provided are inaccurate and the conclusions he draws from those references are irrational.

Yup. He assumes a priori that the position that "that liberals are disloyal to America" is false without backing it up, in addition to creating that straw man in the first place.He makes accusations of "eliminationism" (I'll have to use his definition since I think he made it up) while ignoring equally as damning anecdotes like the now famous "we support our troops when they shoot thier officers" sign.This one was great:
What is becoming increasingly clear is that conservatives are less and less inclined to rely on "intellectual" or political exchanges, and are turning more to an eliminationist strategy that seeks to demonize liberals and make them social outcasts
File that one under "Pot/Kettle: Black".He makes a big deal about the Marine intel analyst who was drummed out for violating the UCMJ, without actually ever acknowledging that he undisputably violated the UCMJ. That is just like claiming that Mumia is a political prisoner and never mentioning the dead cop.
At the same time, the Republicans in power are proceeding to eliminate Democrats from any kind of hold on power in Washington, part of a transparent drive to make them at best a permanent minority party, if not obliterated altogether. The intent, it is clear, is to create essentially a "one-party state."
Duh. I don't think any party goes in with the intent of letting the other party take over.And he goes on and on. He is a demagogue, just like Coulter. He just happens to be on the other side of the aisle. I wish I had time to give him a proper fisking. I may do it on my blog later.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 16, 2003 - 7:46am.
Why should I believe a word the Bushistas say? And more importantly, why should you?
Because, to the best of my knowledge, Bush has never had a professional membership revoked for ethics violations and pejury. Clinton has. (Arkansas state bar.) When it comes to he says - she says, I'll go with the one who hasn't been impeached. (I mean that in the parole evidence meaning, even if it is true in the political sense too.)
False dichotomy. Your response assumes you must believe either one or the other.Both are liars.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on November 16, 2003 - 8:41am.

He assumes a priori that the position that "that liberals are disloyal to America" is false without backing it up, in addition to creating that straw man in the first place.

First, that was not a strawman. It is a specific charge that was all the rage in the war run-up and during the war.Second, there's a difference between assuming an accusation is wrong and denying an accusation made about oneself. In the second case, it's not based on an assumption, but on direct knowledge of one's own views.
He makes accusations of "eliminationism" (I'll have to use his definition since I think he made it up) while ignoring equally as damning anecdotes like the now famous "we support our troops when they shoot thier officers" sign.
Not being familiar with the now famous sign, I can only say the text you give here has nothing to do with the point Niewart makes in his post.If forced to speculate, I would place the sign in the same category as the now famous one held up by Schwartzenegger (or however you spell it) that read "Democrat Women for Arnold" in that it was written by a "moran."
This one was great:
What is becoming increasingly clear is that conservatives are less and less inclined to rely on "intellectual" or political exchanges, and are turning more to an eliminationist strategy that seeks to demonize liberals and make them social outcasts
File that one under "Pot/Kettle: Black".
Again, a recent development.It's the difference between premediatated murder and a self-defense killing. To call them the same just because the person on the receiving end is dead in both cases makes no sense.
He makes a big deal about the Marine intel analyst who was drummed out for violating the UCMJ, without actually ever acknowledging that he undisputably violated the UCMJ.
I think I'll give this one up, because you are no longer covered by civilian law when you're in the military. It sucks to forget that, but there you are.
I don't think any party goes in with the intent of letting the other party take over.
I don't think honoring the rules of engagement constitues letting the other party take over.