Since the election, I've been wondering when the American Right would come to some kind of unspoken agreement that, with the election returns pretty clearly demonstrating a rejection of the entire right-wing political and social agenda, they could dispense with niceties, scream, "SCREW YOU!" to America, and just push any and every crazy idea. It would become a non-stop barrage of crazy, all the while Americans of sense would sit back and think, "Wow, these folks have really lost their shit, haven't they?"
Second, as a commentor at Wonkette wrote in response to their article on the NRO's journey past the point of no-return: "You would think that even on the National Review staff it might dawn on people to think "Wait a minute, I am defending Nazis! How the fuck did I end up here?" But I am apparently giving them too much credit." I should add that the comments on the piece at NRO differ little from those at Wonkette, both in tone and tenor; there is shock, but also a great deal of sense, something that one rarely sees these days in comment sections on the internet.
If this Nazi apologia whet's your appetite, all one need do is click here because there's another Republican comparing something Obama has done to the Nazis. This time, it's universal health care and the requirement that states set up health care exchanges being compared to the Holocaust. In an alternate universe I'd be joking:
So, I guess it hasn't taken very long at all. Enraged at defeat, the American right no longer gives a shit. They're just going to play monkeys in the zoo and fling not just handfuls but armfuls of poo at America, without even the pretense that it isn't what we think it is.
We started to see a bit of that this past election cycle with not one but two Republican Senate candidates flaming out over the issue of rape. It might have occurred to some folks at least that talking about rape in the way Akin and Murdock did wouldn't be a good thing; yet down in New Mexico, we have some Republican state legislators trying to restrict rape victim's access to abortion on the grounds that it would be evidence tampering. So they're both crazy and incapable of learning. Got it.
Since the election, the near-constant demand that the deficit be reduced by drastic alteration of our largest, non-budgetary entitlement programs has left me wondering if these folks are really that stupid, think Americans are, or couldn't care less. Then, I breathe in and realize I don't have to choose.
Of course, there was the whole fiscal cliff nonsense that demonstrated how little these folks care about the deficit. After all, the whole thing was an enormous deficit reduction plan just waiting for January 1 to take effect. All that had to happen would be to let the tax increases and spending cuts take effect and, voila, the deficit would be cut! Alas, the same folks who said that government spending did nothing to help the economy, and that cutting government spending was the only way to help it, suddenly lost their minds, claiming all those spending cuts would destroy the economy. How these folks make it out of bed in the morning is a mystery until I realize that holding these two fundamentally opposed points-of-view simultaneously without having a nervous breakdown is a stupendous feat of emotional strength. Walking and chewing gum must come far more easy for these people than I thought.
Then, of course, there's the general tendency to oppose pretty much anything and everything the President of the United States says and does. Crossing from the absurd to the grotesque, National Review Online contributor Eliana Johnson wrote a short piece on Monday regarding Pres. Obama's customary statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day:
First of all, I thought the right was always complaining about the left's insistence that we should understand the root causes of violence, a trait usually portrayed as inherent wimpiness among so many lefties. So that first part contradicts decades of right-wing rhetoric about the American left.The idea that all violence is “senseless” violence is one that has taken deep root on the left; it’s also, unfortunately, one that poses a major impediment to understanding the world.Nazism may have been an ideology to which the United States was — and to which the president is — implacably opposed, but it is hardly “senseless.” By the early 1930's, the Nazi party had hundreds of thousands of devoted members and repeatedly attracted a third of the votes in German elections; its political leaders campaigned on a platform comprising 25 non-senseless points, including the “unification of all Germans,” a demand for “land and territory for the sustenance of our people,” and an assertion that “no Jew can be a member of the race.” Suffice it to say, many sensible Germans were persuaded.
Second, as a commentor at Wonkette wrote in response to their article on the NRO's journey past the point of no-return: "You would think that even on the National Review staff it might dawn on people to think "Wait a minute, I am defending Nazis! How the fuck did I end up here?" But I am apparently giving them too much credit." I should add that the comments on the piece at NRO differ little from those at Wonkette, both in tone and tenor; there is shock, but also a great deal of sense, something that one rarely sees these days in comment sections on the internet.
If this Nazi apologia whet's your appetite, all one need do is click here because there's another Republican comparing something Obama has done to the Nazis. This time, it's universal health care and the requirement that states set up health care exchanges being compared to the Holocaust. In an alternate universe I'd be joking:
Much like the Jews boarding the trains to concentration camps” and that after the exchanges are formed, the federal government will somehow take everything over and “will pull the trigger on the insurance companies.”The invocations not just of Hitler and National Socialism, but also Stalin's Soviet Union, China under Chairman Mao, and other dictatorships have been rampant thanks to the gun control debate. That any sensible person would feel the need to drag these mass murderers in to the discussion demonstrates that the qualifier I used in the subject of this sentence should be discarded.
So, I guess it hasn't taken very long at all. Enraged at defeat, the American right no longer gives a shit. They're just going to play monkeys in the zoo and fling not just handfuls but armfuls of poo at America, without even the pretense that it isn't what we think it is.
17 comments:
"I've been wondering when the American Right would come to some kind of unspoken agreement that, with the election returns pretty clearly demonstrating a rejection of the entire right-wing political and social agenda..."
A rejection of the entire agenda? Really? Does close to 10 million fewer votes mean a rejection of Obama's agenda? There were only about 3 million fewer votes for Romney than there were for McCain. Sounds like the returns clearly indicate a rejection of the American political process. One question I'd like answered is how many on the right didn't bother to vote, not just because they didn't like Romney, but because they couldn't believe the nation would be stupid enough to re-elect an idiot like Barry Obumble. Like arc welding, you have no idea about what the right-wing is about.
And as usual, you miss the point Johnson was making. There was no support for the Nazi ideology, but only the suggestion that it wasn't "senseless", as so many Germans supported the party and its agenda. It made sense to them. Yet, even if I'm off the mark here, there is no "defense" of Nazis.
I could also submit that Johnson is making a distinction between "senseless" violence and what for the Nazis was a reasoned and justifiable violence against the world. Again, the article speaks of the notion of "senseless" violence. Such distinctions might be lost on you and other lefties, a strange thing to say about those who claim an understanding of "nuance", but here's an example:
1) Mad dog roams street. Atticus shoots made dog. Violence, but not senseless violence.
2) Nice dog sitting on porch. Jerk walks up and shoots dog for absolutely no reason. Senseless violence.
Pointing out the distinction requires no pro- or con- opinion regarding the of shooting dogs, and Johnson offered no personal opinion one way or the other on Nazi ideology.
However, lefties will jump on such things to demonize rather than risk facing a superior conservative position or opinion (not that one exists in the Johnson article either way).
"there's the general tendency to oppose pretty much anything and everything the President of the United States says and does."
There's a general tendency to oppose stupid ideas and policies, which are plentiful from this president. I'm gonna stick my neck out and say you felt the same way about his predecessor (though they weren't nearly as plentiful in reality).
"I thought the right was always complaining about the left's insistence that we should understand the root causes of violence..."
No. We complain that the left has no idea regarding the root causes of violence. For example, it ain't gun ownership.
Next, Nuxall's analogy, while lame, is merely saying that like the Jews boarding the trains, the insurance companies don't realize where they are heading. I think digging one's own grave is a better analogy, but what the hell. In any case, your mockery is more inane.
Regarding the invocations, they are not at all out of line considering how despotic regimes always look to disarm those who might not be keen on their rule. You, yourself, tried to ride the wacky "2nd Amendment was meant to preserve slavery" argument, while failing to acknowledge that slaves were denied the use of weapons and thus could not fight for their freedom (to which they don't really have any right according to you). I'm not surprised that you would deny the possibility of an unarmed America falling victim someday to despotic regimes, all the while believing that an armed populace will be the death of us all (which stats don't come close to supporting).
Finally, the American right hasn't come to the attitude of "not giving a shit" since the election went to the worst president in US history. It already existed and played a major role in that re-election of that worst president. Almost 10 million Obama supporters from '08 feel the same way.
Wow, Art. Way to defend a Nazi apologist. Call me unsurprised.
I'm tempted to delete this pabulum, but I'll just leave it here. "Worst President in history" . . . yeah, unlike Franklin Pierce or Herbert Hoover or Warren Harding or Richard Nixon or George W. Bush.
Which merely demonstrates what I wrote for you: You know nothing about anything, and demonstrate it with each and every "sentence" you type.
Nice argument, Geoff. You haven't yet shown that Johnson was defending Naziism. The irony, of course, being that you are calling her a Nazi by claiming she is defending Nazis, making you guilty of the charge you level against her.
What you have done, however, aside from again demonstrating your hatred of the right, is project wrongdoing upon someone critiquing Obama. As I said, because it so clear to those not psychotic in their admiration for Obama, Johnson was questioning the use of the term "senseless violence" and not defending the Nazi ideology at all.
And yeah, I stand by the statement, "worst president in history". I'm guessing you oppose the comment based on some survey question, rather than a personal, in depth comparison of every president. I admit mine is based on far less, but something like "more people on food stamps than ever before" is but one good reason for the title.
Oh my God. Geoff quotes the author of this:
"Nazism may have been an ideology to which the United States was — and to which the president is — implacably opposed, but it is hardly 'senseless.'"
and this...
"... its political leaders campaigned on a platform comprising 25 non-senseless points, including... an assertion that 'no Jew can be a member of the race.' Suffice it to say, many sensible Germans were persuaded."
And Marshall thinks "You haven't yet shown that Johnson was defending Naziism."
Dialogue is vain and impossible with such blindly willful ignorance.
The problem here is that you want to say that describing Naziism as "not senseless" is the same as defending it or legitimizing it. It is not. The article focuses on the meaning of the word "senseless" in order to determine if it used appropriately. The author disagrees and uses the Nazi comparison to make her point. To debate whether or not violence, or Naziism is "senseless" is not an argument expressing the favoring of either.
I thought you were the educated guys.
Um . . .
Sure, Art.
Thus my original point: The American Right just doesn't care anymore; with the corollary that the dimmer denizens of that political culture are quite willing to defend the indefensible without blushing.
I should note I have on my bookshelves a study by a Lutheran ethicist entitled Morality After Auschwitz, an attempt to defend this very point, viz., that the Nazi ethic was both coherent and, because it was adhered to by millions of ordinary Germans, legitimate. His point was to demonstrate the challenge to post-Holocaust ethical thought posed by such coherence and social legitimacy.
It is, thus, qualitatively distinct from the piece under scrutiny, which is little more than an apologia for Nazism as "not senseless", without the qualifying idea that, for precisely this reason, we must look beyond rational coherence and social legitimacy to determine whether or not a social moral code might in fact be morally vicious. Art's point defending the NRO nonsense also lacks that(which is hardly a surprise) as well as demonstrating the underlying thought that it seems anything the President says or does must be criticized, tout court.
Which leads us back to yahoos defending National Socialism.
So, Marshall. Nazism is not senseless. Therefore, Nazism makes _________.
And that's not a defense.
Stupid, draw back your bow...
LOL.
Heh.
Yeah, I get it. You pinheads like to mock. I can take it. I would just like you to make the connection between what she said and how it supports or defends Naziism. She could have used Mafia violence or even our own violent response to Naziism, which people like Dan Trabue might call "senseless violence". The point, which you refuse to even address, is what defines it as "senseless". You'd rather pretend that someone on the right is defending Nazis because of your own "senseless" hatred for anyone right of center. I get that, too. I just keep waiting for "sensible" explanations for your tripe.
Pull your own freakin' bow.
"The point, which you refuse to even address, is what defines it as 'senseless'."
MA does not know why Naziism is senseless.
Ironic much?
That's right. The burden is first on Pres. Obama, for using the word "senseless" to describe the indiscriminate murder of six million Jews, and six million other "untermenschen" by the National Socialists. For using that word in an official statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day, Pres. Obama has demonstrated how little he actually knows.
Those of us pointing out that critics of the President's statement kinda sorta sound like they're defending Nazism, well, we're just as stupid as Obama, because we refuse to say why Nazism and the attendant murder of 12 million human beings doesn't make some kind of sense.
Game, set, match.
You kids are still missing the point. "Senseless" suggests no reason. It does not suggest the reason is right or wrong. I don't see the author as making any case for the morality of the reasons that the Nazi's acted as they did, but only that it wasn't "senseless". You can talk all day long about what assholes they were for their actions and you'd get no argument from Johnson or anyone else on the right. But for the anally retentive like yourselves, who bristle at the notion of Barry O being labeled "socialist", I would expect to see some agreement with Johnson over such a concern for word usage.
Let's put it this way: I think it was senseless of Johnson to bother with this article in the first place. I also think it is senseless to pretend it stands as a defense of Naziism. The former I believe because there is no point to be made of any added value to what is already known about the "smartest guy in the room". There are better, more obvious ways to make that point.
The latter because it has nothing upon which to base the assertion.
I would also add that "senseless" is often a matter of opinion. In the case being discussed here, Johnson only shows that many in Germany, based on the support that put the Nazi Party in power, found great sense in their platform. They were wrong, but not without reasons that, to them, made sense. We obviously disagree with them on this point, but even so, not as a matter of sensibility as a matter of morality.
It is rather obvious to me and most conservatives that the positions of the left are incredibly senseless. The left denies this because based upon what they choose to see, it is perfectly sensible to act as they do, regardless of the many bad results. The recent gun debate is proof of this.
You writing about others missing the point is a thing of beauty.
"It is perfectly sensible to act as they do."
Thus you are defending genocide.
Game, set, match.
"You writing about others missing the point is a thing of beauty."
And then you go on to totally miss the point. My quote was an example of the premise put forth by Johnson regarding the Nazis. You lefties don't regard your positions as senseless, but we conservatives can clearly see that they are, particularly in light of the results of their implementation. So for conservatives to say the lefty positions are senseless might be true, but you don't see it as such, anymore than the German people did of the Nazi proposals of the 1920s. Looking at the link she gave, it is understandable why the Germans of the time, reeling as they were from their defeat of WWI and the economic situation at the time, may have been lured into seeing those proposals as sensible. The horrors that resulted from that feeling were not senseless but were the result of a clear and thought out plan. By definition, that can't be senseless, but merely wrong and abhorrent.
As used these days, senseless is a matter of opinion. You would use it to denote something morally wrong. That is an improper understanding of the term. Thus, as Johnson was not demonstrating a defense of Naziism, neither am I. We're disputing the use of the term "senseless" in connection to Nazi atrocity.
To put it another way, Sandy Hook could be termed "senseless" since it had no relation to the perpetrator's grievances. It made no sense. Obama can't say that about the Holocaust or Benghazi, as the perpetrators in those cases had reasons connected to their actions. It made sense to them based on their agendas.
Post a Comment