I’m hosting the Book Salon at Firedoglake today from 5-7PM EST. The book in question is Outright Barbarous: How the Violent Language of the Right Poisons American Democracy. The discussion will naturally be around framing, and particularly the right wing’s use of violent metaphors.
My own Firedoglake Book Salon for It’s a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments will be on June 7th. I’m also going to be joining the TPM Cafe round table the week of May 26th to discuss Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America.
7 Responses to “Books, books, books everywhere”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Since September 11, 2001, most attempts at reasoned political debate in America have been severely limited by the violent language of the Right. In books and on television, it has become a regular ritual for conservative pundits and intellectuals to infuse violence—particularly against Democrats or liberals—into discussions of the major issues of the day, such as terrorism, immigration and gun violence. The result is the creation of a shrill discourse that silences opposition and destroys any chance for serious, civil debate.
He seems a little late to the party, doesn’t he? About around 2005-2006 people started to realize that we were not, in fact, going to die horribly in the hands of the terrorists. This kind of became evident in the 2006 primaries The Republican’s clusterfuck of an attempt to make immigration into a wedge issue fell right back into their faces.
And I haven’t read the book, but I have a hard time imagining how any side of the gun debate can make an argument without involving violence somehow.
Sept. 11 only gave the Reichwing a bigger stick to hit the Left with. Actually, it was more like an excuse to hit them even harder with the same stick they’ve been using for a long time.
The “right” has, with various degrees of success, painted the Left as a force for evil (typically in the guise of “Socialism!!!”) since at least the 19th century.
This is a pattern that has been repeated for long time. And will continue until it stops working…
I hope you notice the irony of whining about painting the left as a force for evil while comparing the right wing with the third reich.
Both sides use rhetorical pissery; don’t whine about the 50% of the times the other guy wins.
Jonathan, if it was only 50% of the time, that would be one thing.
In fact, your comment is one of the problems.
The current framing of the political spectrum is “There’s looneys on the Left, there’s looneys on the Right, therefore the correct path is in the middle.” But since the whole thing has been skewed ever more strongly to the right over the last 40-years, “the middle” would be considered pretty rightist in any normal time.
The Left is concerned about civil right - we’re called dangerous socialists who want to destroy our society by giving rights to people who shouldn’t have them - like minorities, LGBT people, women, etc.
Michelle Malkin says (and she’s not alone) that we should round up arabs and hispanics and put them into concentration camps - pleanty of heads nod in agreement, Lou Dobbs goes on the tube ranting about the “reconquista”, other idoits go off about “Eurabia”, and we’re in a “war to the death with Islam”, and other bullshit. And barely a word is said in response.
The Left is concerned with making sure all people are paid enough to survive, have access to healthcare, have decent schools to send their kids to - and we’re communists who want to destroy capitalism, collectivize everything, and make America into Pol Pot’s Cambodia.
The Right publicly enacts huge tax cuts for (only people like) Bill Gates, calls any attempt to fix fundamental problems with our healthcare system “socialized medicine” and implies the Left would make American hospitals into dingy Eastern European dispensers of shoddy care which require months of waiting to receive, etc.
The Left says go after the people who were actually responsible for 9/11, and address our greatly troubled relationships with Middle Eastern dictators to prevent future attacks - we’re modern day equivalent Nevil Chamberlains who want to give away all of our freedoms and the American way of life to evil Islamofascists who want nothing more than to destroy us - and barely a word is said in response.
The Right, having planned American hegemony on the Middle East for the last 30-years, uses 9/11 as an excuse to start their favorite project, with the side benefit that they can also tap every phone, read any email, stop anyone from flying, and imprison and torture anyone they like - and barely a word is said in response.
Jonathan, pull your head out of your ass and look around. All things are not the same. Excesses on the Left and the Right do not balance each other out. “The Middle” is a label put on what the Right knows it can get away with…
And FWIW, I was born and raised a conservative Republican who has watched in horror as the Right has transformed itself into the Reichwing…
Jonathan, wake up and smell the coffee…
(other comment on mod…)
Michelle Malkin says (and she’s not alone) that we should round up arabs and hispanics and put them into concentration camps - pleanty of heads nod in agreement, Lou Dobbs goes on the tube ranting about the “reconquista”, other idoits go off about “Eurabia”, and we’re in a “war to the death with Islam”, and other bullshit. And barely a word is said in response.
So, how far in terms of legislation has such language got them?
Ann Coulter’s language has gotten increasingly offensive over the years, which led to people becoming bored and disinterested in what she had to say, not tricking the idiot-boy sheeple living in the redneck flyover states who need to open their eyes and wake up and smell the coffee into taking her seriously. Shit, did you see her embarrassing bombing at this year’s C-PAC?
The Right publicly enacts huge tax cuts for (only people like) Bill Gates, calls any attempt to fix fundamental problems with our healthcare system “socialized medicine” and implies the Left would make American hospitals into dingy Eastern European dispensers of shoddy care which require months of waiting to receive, etc.
The Right enacts huge tax cuts for the rich to increase the spending power of the portion of the population who, by far, throws the most money into investments.
Shit, that doesn’t even matter, you are white washing the rhetoric of the left (even if they happen to be correct) while just posting the view points of the right, as if disagreeing the left is enough to qualify for being “violent rhetoric”, or to make it into anything that’s more dangerous then blowing hot air.
I mean really, Ward Churchill? Michael Moore? Cindy Sheehan? Don’t these people represent the left’s rhetoric just as much as Coulter and Malkin represents the rights?
“Shit, that doesn’t even matter, you are white washing the rhetoric of the left (even if they happen to be correct) while just posting the view points of the right, as if disagreeing the left is enough to qualify for being “violent rhetoric”, or to make it into anything that’s more dangerous then blowing hot air.”
I am trying to point out the eliminationist aspect of wingnut attacks, vs. the Left.
People on the Left almost never wish for the death of wingnut, call for the assassination of opponents, advocate rounding them up and imprisoning them because they are traitors to America, etc. But that stuff is part-and-parcel of the Right.
Did a leading talk show host on the Left advocate getting Republicans to brawl at their convention so we could see what they are really like? No, it was Limbaugh saying that of the Democrats. Did Michael Moore say it was a shame the 9/11 planes didn’t hit the NY Times instead? No, it was Little Annie Coulter.
I can’t say who it is that “Ward Churchill” “represents”, but it ain’t me, and I’ve never seen anybody talk about him in positive terms here at Pandagon.
Michael Moore? He’s a propagandist who brings up some interesting points, but certainly isn’t a figure of worship on the Left.
Cindy Sheehan? The woman had her moment, and what she was trying to highlight regarding the death of her son was absolutely valid. Does whatever she’s currently doing represent the Left? What is she doing?…
If you insist on seeing both ends of the political spectrum as being equally evil, I guess there’s not much more to say…