Right Wing Nut House

I wonder if the FBI is going to have enough agents to cover all the tea parties scheduled for tomorrow?

It was easier to keep track of us crazy right-wing (or is it rightwing?) fanatics in the old days. I can recall going to several demonstrations at the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C. back in early 1980 to protest against the Iranians holding our diplomats (they wouldn’t let us any closer to the shuttered Iranian embassy). Working the outskirts of the crowd with their cameras were two or three guys whose clothing and demeanor screamed “Feds!.” They took pictures of everyone in the crowd of about 200 and then got in their dark sedans and left. No doubt, on some old fashioned microfiche somewhere in the bowels of FBI headquarters, there are images of a young me, face twisted in anger, shaking a fist at a burning effigy of Ayatollah Khomenei. (In fact, there is an inset picture of me doing exactly that on the contents page of a Newsweek from that period.)

Today, technology has married with Big Brother to make it possible for the FBI, Homeland Security, ATF, and all the police apparatus of the state to determine whether I’m a threat before I even leave my house. The science of security has advanced far beyond our wildest dreams in the 1980’s as the tools to spy on American citizens become ever more intrusive and problematic. In addition to the technology available to today’s internal security agencies, huge advances in the science of psychology aid the state in profiling who might be a threat.

During the Bush years, anarchists and far left anti-war activists (and some who were ludicrously innocent) became targets of interest for the FBI and other agencies. Then of course, there’s the whole NSA program/Terrorist Surveillance matter that President Obama continues in some form to this day. Many on the left and right believe that these programs have broken the law, going too far in seeking to protect the United States from another terrorist attack. If they haven’t broken the law, they have certainly walked right up to the line of legality and pushed the envelope.

You may recall the Republican Convention of 2008 where activists, planning to disrupt the proceedings, were taken into custody as a preemptive measure against what the authorities considered to be the threat of violence.

There is more, of course, Without much fanfare, government has expanded its powers to evaluate the threats that ordinary citizens pose to security. We on the right apparently didn’t mind very much as long as the left was being targeted, although agencies like the FBI and ATF have had a long standing interest in keeping track of the various militias, skin head groups, radical Christian racists, and other right wing fanatics who have been a concern for a couple of decades.

I say that conservatives “apparently” didn’t care because for the last 8 years it was never a big issue on the right except when the occasional court case would be decided or some nugget of information about the Bush administration’s internal security efforts would be leaked. And then it a was a four square defense of Bush and attempts to justify what the administration was doing. Why that is true I can only speculate but I have to go back to the fact that the targets of these programs were not people loyal to George Bush and the Republicans and hence, the cocooning that is part of both the left and right blogosphere allowed most conservatives to ignore the problem or excuse it.

Judging by this report from Homeland Security entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” it would appear that the shoe is about to be placed on the other foot and it is now the turn of conservatives to become targets of interest for the internal security forces of the United States. But instead of targeting the usual suspects like the Kluxers and Skin Heads, DHS apparently believes that you may be a threat if you are anti-abortion or anti-immigration reform:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

And our returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan will bear close watching, according to DHS:

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

Now it should be said that most of this document deals with the threat posed by the kooks. But there are troubling references throughout that make it clear that not toeing the administration’s line on some issues is enough to warrant attention:

Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

If you are passionate about enforcing the law against illegal immigrants and protecting our borders, you may become a target. If nothing else, this kind of thing may have a chilling effect on internet free speech. If you’ve read as many pro-enforcement rants as I have, you know that hyperbole and exaggeration are sometimes used to make the author’s point. Such rhetoric now could easily be construed as “right wing extremism” and make the writer a person of interest.

Anti-gun control advocates may also become targets:

(U//FOUO) Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists—as well as law-abiding Americans—to make bulk purchases of ammunition. These shortages have increased the cost of ammunition, further exacerbating rightwing extremist paranoia and leading to further stockpiling activity. Both rightwing extremists and law-abiding citizens share a belief that rising crime rates attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move at this time.

(U//FOUO) Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.

By lumping legitimate concerns about draconian gun control measures by second amendment advocates - who can be just as passionate as pro-enforcement writers - with right wing extremists, it is an open invitation to treat just about anyone as a potential threat.

Understand there is no particular animus on the part of the national security apparatus toward the right (or left for that matter) but rather the simple, dumb brute bureaucratic mindset that will always seek to expand the scope of their little universe to include as many groups and individuals as possible just through sheer momentum. Bureaucrats believe they are doing a good job if their departmental budgets increase every year and in order to do that, they must justify their request for additional funds by making work for themselves. If you are borderline in your advocacy (by their lights) chances are, you will become part of their little digital dragnet if for no other reason than bureaucratic “progress” is measured in how many more kooks your department is keeping track of this year than last.

I think Michelle Malkin - no doubt on someone’s list somewhere - nails it pretty good here:

They were very defensive — preemptively so — in asserting that it was not a politicized document and that DHS had done reports on “leftwing extremism” in the past. I have covered DHS for many years and am quite familiar with past assessments they and the FBI have done on animal rights terrorists and environmental terrorists. But those past reports have always been very specific in identifying the exact groups, causes, and targets of domestic terrorism, i.e., the ALF, ELF, and Stop Huntingdon wackos who have engaged in physical harassment, arson, vandalism, and worse against pharmaceutical companies, farms, labs, and university researchers.

By contrast, the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives. And the intent is clear. As the two spokespeople I talked with on the phone today made clear: They both pinpointed the recent “economic downturn” and the “general state of the economy” for stoking “rightwing extremism.” One of the spokespeople said he was told that the report has been in the works for a year. My b.s. detector went off the chart, and yours will, too, if you read through the entire report — which asserts with no evidence that an unquantified “resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalizations activity” is due to home foreclosures, job losses, and…the historical presidential election.

In Obama land, there are no coincidences. It is no coincidence that this report echoes Tea Party-bashing left-wing blogs (check this one out comparing the Tea Party movement to the Weather Underground!) and demonizes the very Americans who will be protesting in the thousands on Wednesday for the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party.

Without any evidence, DHS has decided that the current recession has so unhinged conservatives that many are likely to go from advocacy to violence after hearing the Siren song of extremists. As Malkin points out, past assessments of potential left wing extremism have focused on specific groups. This report - offering very little in the way of statistical support for its findings - paints a frightening picture of armed militias and “lone wolf” extremists posing a threat to our security. One might assume that militia membership has increased. But is that enough to justify targeting conservatives in an expanded government effort against legitimate targets like Kluxers and Skin heads?

There is no evidence presented in the document that militia recruitment has spiked or is an imminent threat. In fact, they say as much in their conclusion:

DHS/I&A assesses that the combination of environmental factors that echo the 1990s, including heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms restrictions and returning military veterans, as well as several new trends, including an uncertain economy and a perceived rising influence of other countries, may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements. To the extent that these factors persist, rightwing extremism is likely to grow in strength. (emphasis mine)

Pardon me, but the fact is, DHS doesn’t know squat and is only guessing. And it appears to me they are using the possible increased threat from extremists to target those whose only sin appears to be having strong disagreements with the administration over political issues.

So as I wondered at the top of this piece, will the FBI have enough agents to cover all the tea parties tomorrow? And if you’re at a tea party and you see some nondescript individual at the edges of the crowd snapping pictures or taking movies, don’t accost them. Offer them a cup of coffee. They’re just doing a job they were sent to do by others whose agenda - at least as it appears from reading the DHS report - is inimicable to liberty and antagonistic toward legitimate political debate.

So Captain Phillips is free and unharmed and the pirates are killed or captured. Good news all around, although I think Michael Shear of WaPo gave new meaning to the phrase “gushing coverage:”

It was one of the earliest tests of the new American president — a small military operation off the coast of a Third World nation. But as President Bill Clinton found out in October 1993, even minor failures can have long-lasting consequences.

Clinton’s efforts to land a small contingent of troops in Haiti were rebuffed, for the world to see, by a few hundred gun-toting Haitians. As the USS Harlan County retreated, so did the president’s reputation.

For President Obama, last week’s confrontation with Somali pirates posed similar political risks to a young commander in chief who had yet to prove himself to his generals or his public.

But the result — a dramatic and successful rescue operation by U.S. Special Operations forces — left Obama with an early victory that could help build confidence in his ability to direct military actions abroad.

Some victory. The US Navy against 4 pirates in 15 foot launch. And by all accounts, the Navy SEAL’s acted in response to the Captain trying to escape - brave felow, him. He no doubt realized once he was clear that the pirates would be toast.

The significance here is not a “victory” but rather that the president proved he can pull the trigger. By authorizing the use of force not once, but twice, the president showed that when American lives are threatened, he will act. That should bolster his reputation somewhat with a suspicious military:

The operation pales in scope and complexity to the wars underway in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Obama’s adversaries are unlikely to be mollified by his performance in a four-day hostage drama.

Nonetheless, it may help to quell criticism leveled at Obama that he came to office as a Democratic antiwar candidate who could prove unwilling or unable to harness military might when necessary.

And as Obama’s Democratic predecessors can attest, a victory — no matter how small — is better than a failure.

Obama’s two Democratic predecessors were notorious for their seeming inability to pull the trigger on military action at times. The question of whether Clinton could have killed Bin Laden will haunt this country for many years while his Haiti operation, where US troops were prevented from landing by a couple of hundred armed irregulars, was seen at the time as an embarrassment. The Kosovo operation suffered from a lack of will to commit ground troops and end the conflict swiftly. For Clinton, a man who headed an administration that Buzz Patterson found first hand to have nothing but contempt for soldiers in uniform (Patterson and other military personnel assigned to the White House were ordered not to wear their uniforms), the inability to give the “go” signal was the result of a Viet Nam era distrust and disgust of the mlitary.

Carter was just plain inept - a dithering, hand wringing Commander in Chief who surrounded himself with pacifists - and his inability to come to a decision about the hostage rescue (it was an on again, off again operation) while previously assisting anti-regime forces in Iran and Nicaraugua to overthrow American allies, emboldened the Soviets at the time to expand their influence dramatically around the world, not to mention invade Afghanistan. The Communists figured correctly they had nothing to fear from Carter.

So our friends on the left will excuse us if we have our doubts about Mr. Obama’s ability to act decisively when the chips are down and American lives are at stake. The manner in which he handled the hostage situation is a good start toward allaying those fears.

Now, however, comes the hard part. It is time for the United States to take the lead and mount a military operation that will wipe out the scourge of piracy. If no one will help, we should do it ourselves although I think it likely that most nations are ready for such a move. And such an operation cannot be simply a raid; from what I’ve read from experts, it must be a sustained campaign that involves not only the navies of the world but also special forces to infliltrate the towns and villages along the coast where the pirates live and destroy their ability to cause trouble. This means destroying their boats, the docks, the gasoline dumps, interdict and confiscate weapons, and take other actions against targets that allow the pirates to operate.

But this situation is not as easy as simply going after terrorists or high seas criminals. Alas, our president will no doubt see the other side of the coin as well; that the pirates are simply acting in “self defense” or responding to unbearable provocations from western fishing trawlers:

This from Crooks and Liars:

I wonder which principled member of our corporate media will point out that, in the big picture, the Somali pirates are acting in self-defense?

Yes - a VERY big picture, fer sure. Meanwhile, the author quotes from a story in The Independent that gives a pass to the pirates due to (wait for it) western imperialism:

In 1991, the government of Somalia collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since – and the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country’s food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.

Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died.

Coud this be true? Der Spiegel tells it a little differently:

Somali fishermen have another problem: toxic waste. Initially dumped on land, toxic waste was increasingly dumped at sea after the collapse of the regime of former President Siad Barre in 1991. Because the country has no coast guard, for the past 20 years the Somali coastline has had no protection against European ships dumping waste at sea. Although hard evidence was rare, there have been periodic and mysterious incidents. In early 2002, tens of thousands of dead fish washed ashore at Merca, south of Mogadishu. The causes remain unclear.

In the spring of 2004, fishermen spotted two large containers floating in the water near Bosaso. Whether they were deliberately tossed overboard or accidentally fell of a container ship in rough seas is unclear. The Indian Ocean tsunami in December 2004, which also reached the African coast, unearthed dozens of containers of toxic waste and deposited the waste along the Somali coast. According to a United Nations report, many coastal residents suffered “acute respiratory infections, heavy coughing, bleeding gums and mouth, abdominal haemorrhages, unusual skin rashes, and even death.”

Experts and environmentalists have long been aware of the problem. In 2006, a team of specialists sent to the region to investigate discovered nine toxic waste sites along 700 kilometers (435 miles) of coastline in southern Somalia.

The UN envoy to Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, said last October that the UN has “reliable information that European and Asian companies are dumping toxic waste, including nuclear waste, off the Somali coastline.”

Clearly, there’s problem here and it’s not western imperialism or even grasping capitalism; Somalia has no government. The jackals of the world take advantage of that. And the UN - even though they are aware of the problem - do nothing. And when something newsworthy comes out of all of that, wake me up.

Rapacious businessmen are taking advantage of the chaos in Somalia by bullying the few Somalis who try and make a living as fishermen and dumping toxic waste - including some low level nuclear waste - along the shore where there was already a problem thanks to the Somalis themselves dumping waste on land. There is some evidence that the Mafia are making a killing by contracting with firms to dump their waste off the Somali coast.

Now just to set the record straight, there is absolutely no evidence that 300 Somalis have died of exposure to nuclear waste nor has their been a clear link established between the dumping of any toxic waste and the death of any Somali.

Here’s a Greenpeace scientist:

A senior scientist with Greenpeace Research Laboratories in Great Britain, David Santillo, says while it would be difficult to prove that exposure to industrial waste is the sole cause of such health problems, he believes there is a link.

“It could well be that some of those health effects are a result of exposure to radioactive material and in that case, for some people, regrettably, the prognosis could be very devastating,” he explained. “There could be people who simply would not recover.”

Obviously, the key to ending piracy and the illegal dumping is for Somalia to form some kind of government - a task that has been beyond their capabilities for going on two decades. The UN is in its usual throwing-its-hands-in-the-air- mode of doing nothing and spending a lot of money showing it. If ever there was evidence needed that the UN is not only a useless organization but one that actually makes matters worse, the situation in Somalia is it.

Meanwhile, our intrepid Somali pirates know they have western liberals on their side as long as they can show that the reason they board ships, terrorize people, take crew members hostage, kill with impunity, and barter for ransom is because they are only acting in “self defense” against rancid capitalists and western governments who allow the practice of dumping and illegal fishing with a wink and a nod. This appeals to many on the left who will now see the problem as a question of “fairness” and will agitate that the president forgoe knocking the stuffing out of pirate infrastructure in favor of a “negotiated” solution. Piracy will continue, hostages will still be taken, governments and businesses will still be forced to pay ransom - but liberals will feel better about the whole thing.

Sure, let’s negotiate; just as soon as their isn’t a ship, a dock, or a boathouse left standing in those villages and towns that assist the pirates in their lawlessness. And capturing and hanging a few pirates wouldn’t hurt either.

Does the president have the judgement to pull the trigger on this, a much more problematic operation where civilians are likely to be killed and the loss of American life is probable? That will be Obama’s first real “test” and not some quick thinking by a brave captain and the dead eye marksmanship of our SEAL’s.

UPDATE

Once again, the fusion of great minds is evident as Ed Morrissey agrees with me:

This should actually be the next mission for the US Navy after freeing Phillips. We don’t need a quarantine and inspection to identify some of the boats and ports in question; I’d bet dollars to donuts we’ve already identified most of them. Our next step after killing the pirates on the lifeboat is torpedoing their ships in their home ports without inspections or even warnings. Somalia’s failed state can’t impose order on these areas, but if the pirates become a liability rather than an asset to these facilities, they’ll get the heave-ho soon enough.

In the future, we don’t need the lawyers and the FBI negotiators, and we especially don’t need to legitimize Somali “elders”, either. Iklé has that right; piracy is not a bank robbery. The entire point of piracy is to capture ships in territory where no nation can claim sovereignty and therefore work outside the civil law. The proper response to that is military, not some notion of cops and robbers. When pirates find out we’re serious, and when enough of them wind up at the bottom of the ocean, they’ll think twice about seizing American or Western shipping.

I’m not so sure the townsfolk have the strength to give the pirates the “heave ho” which is why I recommend taking Ed’s idea and expanding it by sinking all boats, destroying every dock, every business that caters to the pirates. Yes, it is horrible that we would be destroying very poor people’s ability to make a living. Spreading some green as compensation for legitimate boat and business owners would help there. But it has to hit home to everyone in those towns and villages that the pirates are more than a liability.

As I peak out from under the couch where I was hiding these last few days, I note that the guests have departed and I can begin cleaning the spittle flecked walls and ceiling as well as get a start on blotting up the urine stains on the carpet. That was one drunken blog brawl and it will be a relief to go back to inhabiting my comfortably obscure corner of Blogdom.

But before I leave the subject entirely, there is a point to which I need to respond made by many commenters here and bloggers elsewhere; why piss on your own? What purpose is served by going after Beck (or other pop conservatives)? Can’t you just ignore Beck if you don’t like him? And relatedly; You are only playing into the hands of the left; you are allowing them to define acceptable conservative discourse.

I’ll take the second part first, Mr. Trebek. This is a point made by Stacey McCain, Jim Treacher, and others - that I am consciously (or subconsciously) accepting the narrative offered by the left on people like Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and other conservatives; that we should ignore the exaggerations, the false contextualization of remarks, the cherry-picked quotes, that the left routinely uses to demonize them, and through them the entire right.

(Note: It is hard to “exaggerate” or “take out of context” many stunts pulled by Mr. Beck of late, a subject I will deal with later.)

I am sympathetic to this argument because the reverse is true as well; we should not pay any attention when liberals try and define what is acceptable discourse on the right by praising critics of pop conservatives as “smart” or “sane.” We should appreciate it when some liberals with a track record of rational analysis and thoughtful criticism comment favorably on our critiques of our side - even criticism that includes smacking down elitism and what McCain calls “The Assistant Secretary Syndrome” that damages conservative punditry. But in the main, the idea that we should respond Pavlovian-style to liberal criticism or praise is absurd.

But what about being true to oneself, to one’s own sense of the perception being formed by the electorate with regard to the hard right? The “take no prisoners” attitude on the part of many conservatives flies smack in the face of what most Americans want from the opposition today. What they crave are alternative ideas, reasonable criticism, and not the wild-eyed, fanatical, over the top warnings of a disappearing republic, fascism on the march, socialism, Communism, dictatorship, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria! It makes conservatism look ridiculous to the vast majority of non-elite, non-Inside-the-Beltway, voters. (You are already aware of how it plays with the elites both in and out of Washington.)

You can argue that much of this perception is due to an extremely unfriendly media that is in cahoots with liberals to smear conservatives. But give the people a little more credit than that. If we believe that it’s the media or the left’s fault when Glen Beck tries to create a conspiracy theory involving the Mercury Dime, the fasces, and fascism, we are in a deep state of denial.

In truth, I owe all you Beck supporters an apology. Not that I still don’t think he is unbalanced. Or that he doesn’t hugely exaggerate the dangers of what the government is doing under Obama. Or that he is irrational. Or that his appeal to some conservatives isn’t taking the movement over a cliff the more popular he becomes.

No - my apology is for getting too personal and calling him a “kook” and a “loon.” Those who took me to task for that were correct. My explanation is that I sometimes go for the giggle when I should stick to reasonable analysis.

After immersing myself in “Beckisms” and “Beckmania” for the last few days, I can say flat out that this guy is crazy like a fox. Allow me to explain.

I see the appeal, entertainment-wise, that Beck brings to the table. He has the same gifts of any good stand-up comedian. His sense of timing is impeccable. He has a good grasp of what works and what doesn’t when it comes to comedy. Occassionally, he misfires - the gasoline bit is a good example - but his rants appear to be calculated to get his listeners nodding in agreement as he alternates between a sort of rough hewn populism and really “out there” charges against Obama and the Democrats.

The hyperbole is incredible - literally. To my ears, his off the wall spoutings are very difficult to understand in any context save his desire to get a rise out of people. For example, he couldn’t possibly believe that the US has been headed for fascism “since Teddy Roosevelt” and that the Mercury dime has the symbol of Mussolini’s Fascist party on its back and that this is somehow indicative of Woodrow Wilson’s support for it, can he?

Here’s the transcript of the interview that Beck did with Sheldon Richman, current editor of the libertarian The Freeman which is published by the Foundation for Economic Education.

BECK: OK. I — first of all, am I wrong on this one, Sheldon? That what I’m seeing here is fascistic.

RICHMAN: You’re not wrong. The only thing I would do is broaden your perspective a little bit. We’ve been on this road a very, very long time.

BECK: Oh, I think we’ve been on this road since Teddy Roosevelt. And — I mean, look, I want to show you something. This is — explain what this is. Do you have feedback? This is that — this is all the sticks bound together in the axis. It’s the Roman symbol of fascism?

RICHMAN: This is what the fascists in Italy used as their symbol, which was this Roman depiction of a bundle of rods bound together with an ax coming out the top, which I assume is a symbol of a collective unity and force of power.

BECK: Right. OK, could you zoom in on this? Here it is — Harry, bring it forward a little bit. Zoom in right here.

This is — this is the Mercury Dime. On the back of the mercury dime — and Harry saw this earlier today. He works the gib camera that’s zooming in right now. They look familiar? This is the symbol of fascism.

Who brought this dime in? It happened in 1916, Woodrow Wilson was the president. I didn’t even put this together. We’ve have been on the road to fascism for a while.

Mr. Beck is trying to make a connection between the US government deliberately putting a symbol of fascism on a dime and Woodrow Wilson because…why? We wanted to announce that we supported fascism in a subtle way? Did we want to send signals to other fascists that we were with them? Was Wilson a closet fascist? Why in God’s name would the US government deliberately place a fascist symbol on its money?

Truth be told, what Beck refers to as the symbol of fascist Italy did not begin as a “fascist” symbol” but rather as a symbol of power “carried by lictors in front of magistrates” in ancient Rome. Even in modern times, the symbol was apparently used by a variety of Italian political parties from socialist to nationalist.

Um…the symbol is also found on the “seal of the United States Senate, the emblem on the back of the Mercury dime in the United States, the coat of arms of France, the wall of the debating chamber of the United States House of Representatives and the coat of arms of the Swiss Canton of St.Gallen.”

For a man who prides himself on having crackerjack researchers, are you trying to tell me that Google is unknown to them and they couldn’t have found the Wikpedia entry that I linked above? Most of the uses of of the fasces predates fascism itself.

There is no rational answer to why Mr. Beck was trying to connect the use of the fasces on the back of a dime with the idea that fascism has been on the march in America for a long time, culminating in President Obama’s efforts to quaisi-nationalize banks and auto companies. Beck’s trying to connect the dots here an exercise in sophistry, a monumental exaggeration of what Obama is doing, and either an ignorant or dishonest reading of history.

And this brings us back to the first part of the question that people were asking me; why bother? Beck is an entertainer. He speaks for the little guy. In the large scheme of things he doesn’t matter. Besides, he’s funny. He’s not serious about a lot of the things he says.

All of that may be true. But if you see someone running toward a gasoline dump with a lit match, what would you do? Say, “Ignore him, he doesn’t matter?” Or perhaps, “That’s pretty funny, someone trying to immolate himself.” Or maybe, “Man, this explosion and fireball is going to be so kewl!”

You can argue that I’m an idiot for believing this as many of you have and no doubt will continue to do so. But Beck and others like him, who constantly raise the specter of American doom, of Obama as commissar, the Democrats as Nazis, while imploring listeners to “take the country back” and start some kind of “revolution” are bat sh*t dangerous to the conservative movement. I am not convinced, as many on the left seem to be, that any of this hyperbolic rhetoric will lead to a massive outbreak of violence. But there is little doubt it marginalizes conservatives even more than they were on November 5 of last year and unless the tables can be turned and the Beck’s of the movement are themselves tossed to the sidelines, I fear that conservatism - yours, mine, the paleos, the neocons, the elites, and every kind of conservatism in between - will achieve the same kind of irrelvancy that liberalism experienced (for many of the same reasons) for much of the two decades preceding Obama’s election.

I believe it was George Bernard Shaw who said that “Hell is a place where you have nothing to do but amuse yourself.” It is my belief that unless the Beckian wing of the hard right is marginalized, we conseratives are going to learn the truth of that adage very shortly.

UPDATE

Comments are open. I have an itchy trigger finger.

“Hey kids! Let’s play “The Glad Game!”

Well, it certainly has been an eventful couple of days. Every 50 or 100 posts  that I write, Hot Air, or Insty, or one of  my friends on the left who run big blogs (and yes, I am, in fact, a lefty plant just as so many of you suspect, ordered by my liberal overlords to pretend to be a conservative in order to sow confusion and distrust on the right), will link to something I’ve done and down we go, into the rabbit hole.  

I will let you in on a little secret; if I knew in advance that a post of mine was going to get the kind of attention that was given my recent rant against Glenn Beck, I would not write it. Unless you are brain dead or a disciple of the Marquis de Sade, exposing oneself to the kind of  personal attacks on my character, my heritage, my intelligence, and alas, even the quality of my writing is hard on the ego not to mention an emotional downer. Anyone who says it wouldn’t bother them is either lying or has never had it happen to them.  Anyone who thinks I write that kind of stuff for noteriety, or links, or so that I will get linked by big bloggers, or because I want to curry favor with liberals must also believe I have a S & M set up in my basement where I dress up in a black leather and dangle from a gibbet, all tied up, while my Zsu-Zsu alternates between tickling me with an ostrich feather and whipping me with a cat ‘o nine tails, making me scream at the top of my voice, “Thank you, Ma’am, may I have another!”

Actually, don’t knock it unless you’ve tried it.

Really now, I write in near total obscurity and the fact that I write stuff like the Beck post fairly often and it doesn’t get any attention is exactly the same result that I get with the  95% or so of posts I write that most of my detractors would have no trouble agreeing with. The point being, you never know as a blogger. Maybe I should pay more attention to McCain’s rules for how to get a million hits. Can’t do any worse on my own.

Therefore, things are going to change around here. From now on, no more bashing Glenn Beck. After all, screaming on national TV to Obama “Why don’t you just set us on fire” is just not criticizable. It is the heighth of rational discourse. Who am I to say otherwise? I’m sure we can come up with a good explanation for Beck’s behavior like, “He was only kidding,” or perhaps “He forgot to take his meds.”  The trick is, instead of criticizing or making sport of Mr. Beck, or other conservatives, or the Republican party, or conservatism,  I am going to  play “The Glad Game” and find something good and happy in every situation.

From now on, if I feel the urge to bash Limbaugh or other righties who speak for conservatives, I will play The Glad Game and find the good in everything. No more piling on to curry favor with the left. No more envious rants against people who make more money than I do and who have made a success of their lives. No more being a tedious moron. No more Miss Fowler. No more elitism. No more RINO stuff. No more aping my liberal brother to whom I have shamelessly hitched my blog star and whose name I constantly invoke in order to feel important . And no more attempts to get links from big blogs by deliberately being provocative, knowing that it will be a real career builder.

Only The Glad Game for me. I will take note that Rush is a funny, smart, real conservative who is almost always right and who conservatives would do well to take whatever advice he offers. I will wax poetic about Ann Coulter and her charm, her wit, her balanced critiques. Same goes for Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and all the other popular conservatives.

I see the error of my ways. And this goes for anything I say about the GOP too. No more dire pronouncements of electoral disaster. From here on out, it’s tea parties and triumph at the polls for me. I promise to ignore polls that don’t have Republicans sweeping to victory in 2010. And I will enthusiastically cover the tea parties that are going to change America.

I love this Glad Game. I’m warming to it already. It’s so much more fun when you simply follow the herd. And if it leads over a cliff, so what? Since we’re playing the Glad Game I would simply say I’ve never jumped out of an airplane without a parachute before so going over a cliff will be an exciting, new experience for me. And who knows? Maybe when we hit the ground, it will be made up of chocolate ice cream and marshmallows so we can come in for a soft landing and eat a lot of good sweet stuff at the same time!

It sure will feel good to be popular again.

Stacey McCain - The Other McCain - has a brilliant piece up on his site; a real tour de force that not only comments on my Glenn Beck piece yesterday, but also analyzes and dissects some of the systemic problems with conservatism and the GOP today.

I wish he’d write more about these issues. Stacey has a very sharp mind and clear writing style. And I want to be just like him when I grow up.

Don’t have time today to write a worthy response but I sent him this email this morning:

Your piece was a brilliant exposition of conservative philosophy and history of the Republican party. I have written quite a few similar tracts, making some of the same points you have about the GOP’s lack of a domestic policy and especially the crack up of the anti-Communist coalition that held the party together for so long. I have also commented in the past on your “Assistant Undersecretary” syndrome where appeals to authority appear more relevant to many in Washington than simply cracking good thinking and writing.

Given my long windedness, it would probably take me a couple of days to say everything you did in a few paragraphs. Well done.

Not exactly sure what you’re getting at with the elites vs.populists theme but some of it rings true. If you are trying to make the point that the conservative elite punditocracy places perception above principle, I would reluctantly agree to some extent but defend them by mentioning that even today with a myriad of news and information outlets, the big guns firing in the information wars are still liberal media and therefore, the perception shaped in the public’s mind does indeed matter. Accepting that as a fact of life, and recognizing that electoral success in the GOP depends at least partly on altering this perception of the party as a bunch of angry, southern white males who hate gays and blacks, love guns, and exhibit paranoia about government, it is understandable that some would seek to distance themselves from this perception.

I may be wrong in thinking this - and it certainly is winning me no friends - but there is an anti-intellectual strain in conservatism that bubbles to the surface every once in a while. Not talking about the fringe FEMA camp nonsense. I’m talking about a genuine resistance on the part of many conservatives today to the idea that there is more to the world than what the cotton candy conservatives say on the airwaves or write in their books. That nuance and subtlety are not always bad. That it’s OK to change your mind about an issue if the times change or you are exposed to new information. That allowing emotion to drive your thinking leads nowhere. And that there is a difference between ideology and philosophy.

I make no claims to being an intellectual or a deep thinker - never have. Don’t have the patience or the innate smarts for it. But like you, I have 5 decades of life experience and some common sense to apply to what our problems are. The fact that we fundamentally disagree about some things doesn’t mean we can’t agree on other issues.

Couple of things: I lived in the reddest county in Illinois for many years - rock ribbed Midwest Republicans in McHenry county.

I was thinking of Martin Anderson (Hoover Institution), not that blowhard John Anderson, who had a column in the 1980’s in WaPo and who wrote a couple of very interesting books including “Revolution” which some consider the most scholarly work on the Reagan years. He was a disciple of Rand, knew her personally, and attended many of her lectures.

And where I came up with “Fitzgerald” I will never know. I meant Jeanne Kirkpatrick (former IL sen. Patrick Fitzgerald?) who may not have been as conservative on domestic issues as many would like but no one can deny her brilliance or her passion.

I have read Road to Serfdom and have heard of Mises but have not read anything by him. I didn’t read Free to Choose until the 90’s (just never got around to it) but was a big fan of Friedman via the public TV series of the same name.

I am going to publish this email on my site as a response. Wish I had the time to do your piece justice. Perhaps on the weekend I will take a stab at a more in-depth critique.

Rick Moran

In response to an editorial in the Washington Times that accused President Obama of bowing deeply to Saudi Arabian King Abdullah, the White House has denied that the incident even took place, saying that what appeared to be a bow was actually the president passing gas.

“The president believed that it was a sign of  respect to fart in the general direction of the Saudi King,” explained press secretary Robert Gibbs. “It certainly wasn’t a bow. That would be breaking protocol.”

Some reporters present have now revealed that yes, there was in fact a rather ripe aroma in the room following the brief greeting. Others thought that the perpetrator was actually Gordon Brown who had just recently completed his lunch consisting of fish and chips - a notorious gas producer.

Some analysts point out that the president was mistaken in believing that a fart in Saudi society shows anything remotely like respect. But these neutral observers are saying it was an understandable lapse by our president who probably confused the traditional Arab burp after a meal (which denotes polite satisfaction with the repast) with the more problematic act of breaking wind.

Professor Alice P. Gagme of The Lightwalker Institute, a non partisan think tank in Washington, explains that burping after meals is more of a North African custom and that the president was probably confused after screening Ben-Hur  with Gordon Brown just prior to the meeting with Abdullah. “The scene where Balthasar, Judah, and Sheik Ilderim have just completed their meal and all burp loudly showing their satisfaction could have been misinterpreted by our president as the characters cutting the cheese,” said Gagme. “Perhaps he believed that if it was good enough doing after a meal, why not show satisfaction with meeting Abdullah by ripping one off during the formal greeting?”

She added, “Anyone can make a mistake.”

In related news, the White House denied that the Administration was trying to turn the country into a socialist gulag. “The idea that these bank takeovers, auto company takeovers, insurance company takeovers, and all the business takeovers we have yet to implement is in any way indicative of creeping socialism is absolutely false,” said Gibbs in response to a question from Fox News. “We will maintain control of these companies until they learn the true nature of capitalism and the free market - donating massive amounts of money to Democratic candidates is the path to fiscal and corporate responsibility.”

Greg Sargent is reporting that some of the top liberal bloggers are “furious” with progressive groups and the Democratic party for not bribing them to support their initiatives by placing ads on their sites.

Some of the leading liberal bloggers are privately furious with the major progressive groups - and in some cases, the Democratic Party committees - for failing to spend money advertising on their sites, even as these groups constantly ask the bloggers for free assistance in driving their message.

It’s a development that’s creating tensions on the left and raises questions about the future role of the blogosphere at a time when a Dem is in the White House and liberalism could be headed for a period of sustained ascendancy.

A number of these top bloggers agreed to come on record with me after privately arguing to these groups that they deserved a share in the ad wealth and couldn’t be taken for granted any longer.

“They come to us, expecting us to give them free publicity, and we do, but it’s not a two way street,” Jane Hamsher, the founder of FiredogLake, said in an interview. “They won’t do anything in return. They’re not advertising with us. They’re not offering fellowships. They’re not doing anything to help financially, and people are growing increasingly resentful.”

Hamsher singled out Americans United for Change, which raises and spends big money on TV ad campaigns driving Obama’s agenda, as well as the constellation of groups associated with it, and the American Association of Retired Persons, also a big TV advertiser.

“Most want the easy way - having a big blogger promote their agenda,” adds Markos Moulitsas, the founder of DailyKos. “Then they turn around and spend $50K for a one-page ad in the New York Times or whatever.” Moulitsas adds that officials at such groups often do nothing to engage the sites’s audiences by, say, writing posts, instead wanting the bloggers to do everything for them. 

Hey! I’m with you guys 100%. If you’re going to shill, the least you can ask for is some pocket change. All those years of brown nosing and you’d think these big shots would have the common courtesy to toss a few coins in the hat and give you a hanky to wipe the stain off your face. I mean, what’s the use of prostituting yourself if the party pooh-bahs won’t leave any money on the dresser when they leave?

I realize it is difficult at times to follow liberal logic but aren’t they the ones who refer to the righty blogosphere as an “echo chamber?” And yet here we have them grousing that no one wants to pay them to perform as  a lock step, unified message machine for the White House and Democratic Congress. That kind of irony is usually found in great literature, not the grubby, grasping whinings of  a bunch of overhyped, underwhelming partisan pikers.

Methinks they have an elevated opinion of their own importance.

Adds John Amato, the founder of Crooks and Liars: “These groups actually believe that we should promote their stuff for free. Do they not understand that we need funds to sustain our viability?”

When was the last time someone walked up to you and said, “I will wash your windows if you help me sustain my viability.?”

Holy crap, what kind of double talk is that? The libs want money. They want to feel the greenbacks bulging in their pockets. They want to caress those Hamiltons, smell those Grants, make love to those beautiful Benjamin Franklins.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that - unless you are so besotted with guilt and worry that you are taking more than “your share” that you “need funds to sustain [your] viability” rather than have marvelous dreams of avarice and wealth. Do you think Markos dreams guilty dreams of driving a vette 100 MPH down the interstate, laughing uncontrollably and without feeling remorse about burning all that  carbon? Do you think Avarosis has fantasies of a night with the Chippendale dancers in a decidedly un eco friendly mansion? What do liberals fantasize about when, like some right wing Christians, they deny themselves the simple (but expensive) pleasures in life? 

Whatever those daydreams are, let’s pray that groups like Moveon and AARP get around to funding them. Everyone is entitled to what they’re worth - at least in their own minds. And given the tireless work these bloggers have performed for the progressive movement in smearing, besmirching, lying, exaggerating, deliberately misconstruing intent, and assassinating the character of their opponents, by God, they deserve it.

I hope you will forgive me in advance because this is one of those posts where I’m not exactly sure what I want to say but will know it when I eat it.

I know this drives most of you batty because this is one of those issues where I don’t stake out a position immediately and defend it to the last extremity. Most of the time, I prefer ideas to percolate a while, age a bit like a fine wine (or, my detractors might say like rancid beef). I like to play the angles on most issues because there is always more than one side to any argument and usually more than two sides. The world is not an “either/or” proposition and if that makes me a squish on some issues, so be it. The bane of my existence has been my meager academic record and loving parents who insisted their children learn how to think rather than make academic achievement an end unto itself. To ensure this, they exposed the 10 of us children to an extraordinary array of philosophers, historians, poets, essayists, novelists, and humorists who looked at the world from every possible angle. From Marx, to Montesquieu, to Mad Magazine, my dad’s library was a playhouse for the mind, and an enriching experience for the soul.

None of that plays well on the internet (or, these days, among most conservatives) as my dwindling number of blog readers and ever more strident critics never let me forget. But lest you take this for a whine, fear not. I am content to do as I have been doing for going on 5 years - wake up every day and write what I want, and share my thinking on whatever catches my fancy. And right now, I have bosses that put up with my apostasy and stand behind me - at some cost, I might add, as I have no doubt both American Thinker and Pajamas Media have lost some readership because I have pissed so many off. I am grateful for their support (and the continuation of my paychecks) which for the time being, allows me a freedom of expression that should be the envy of any political writer on either side of the divide.

Today, it is the critique by the left that somehow, the radical right has captured the conservative movement and, by extension, the Republican party. Liberals have temporarily abandoned the idea of trying to make Rush Limbaugh the leader of the conservatives and the GOP because Mr. Limbaugh has failed to cooperate by not being very radical lately or at least, loony tunes radical which is the standard by which the left wants to establish in people’s minds when they look at the right.

Instead, they have focused on another pop conservative in Glenn Beck, a big time talk radio host and a budding star on Fox News. Mr. Beck is the kind of “conservative leader” I warned about in this post when I wondered whether tapping into populist rage by stoking the rhetorical fires was such a good idea:

The inevitable populist backlash is predictable. The problem is that mass movements based on populist rage have generally led to untoward and unanticipated consequences. History is littered with these populist outbreaks - especially those that happen as a result of great cultural and economic changes being enacted by a perceived elite. The last major populist movement in America was George Wallace’s candidacy in 1968 (to a much lesser extent in 1964 and 72) that saw the Alabama governor get an astonishing 13.5% of the vote and carry 5 states in the general election. Wallace tapped into the rage and fear being felt by white, working class men who felt threatened (thanks to Wallace’s sneering, bigoted rhetoric) by African American agitation for equality. Nixon and the GOP then mainstreamed the tactic albeit using much more subtle language and even Clinton got into the act with his famous “Sister Souljah Moment,” assuring whites he wouldn’t pander to black racists like Jesse Jackson (Clinton is the only Democrat since JFK to carry any states of the traditional “Deep South.).

Tapping in to the rage of taxpayers by exploiting their fears then, would almost certainly result in unanticipated problems for the GOP. But beyond that, is this the way the Republicans wish to return to power? The Rovian strategy of using wedge issues to cleave the electorate over gay marriage, abortion, and other social issues got Republicans elected but also sowed the seeds of their own destruction. By the time 2008 rolled around, those wedge issues had lost their potency and there was ample evidence of a backlash by center-right and center-left moderates against the GOP and their perceived intolerance. It was Obama who exploited this backlash by promising to govern based on not what divides us but by what unites us. His “post partisan” message - a campaign gimmick we know now - resonated powerfully with the center who had tired of the back biting and poisonous partisan atmosphere in Washington and longed for “change.”

(Side note: Many commenters mentioned Ross Perot’s third party insurgency as the last “populist” uprising which is true to a certain extent but hardly compares to the fear and rage present in 1968 or today.)

I know many conservatives adore Glenn Beck. He has an everyman demeanor and an obvious deep and abiding love of America which serves as a tonic for many on the right in these sometimes depressing times. I wouldn’t call him thougtful but he is not without brains and appears to prep very well for his radio and TV shows.

But Glenn Beck is also something of a kook. Back in March, he claimed that he had been doing “research” on the so-called “internment camps” where first, liberals claimed the government was making ready for them and now some conspiracy minded conservatives believe Obama is preparing for the right (Don’t you wish the government would make up its mind?). He made the statement that he couldn’t “debunk” the story and added, “”If you have any fear that we might be heading toward a totalitarian state, look out. There is something happening in our country and it ain’t good.”

I don’t care where you are on the ideological spectrum, anyone who believes we may be headed for dictatorship is a loon. I could agree with that last statement but when it is preceded by such a fantastically ridiculous notion that Obama and the Democrats are going to cancel elections, or disband the Supreme Court, or initiate other actions that would be necessary to turn this country in a totalitarian haven, any rational American has to ask if this fellow isn’t a couple of shakes short of a martini. I was relieved to hear that he brought in a writer from Popular Mechanics to debunk the FEMA camp story recently but that doesn’t change the fact that Beck lacks the ability to think rationally.

Of course, that’s not the only thing Beck has said over the years. Asking Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim:

And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, “Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.”

And I know you’re not. I’m not accusing you of being an enemy, but that’s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

Beck can say that he loves Muslims all he wants and it won’t change the fact that asking that question brands him as a bigoted kook. We gave up on religious tests at the same time we ratified the Constitution. Conservatives who don’t see a problem with the way Beck “feels” about asking that question - admitting his own prejudice and ignorance - I say for shame. It is no different than asking John F. Kennedy if he could be a “loyal American” and a Catholic at the same time, referring to a Catholic’s supposed allegiance to the Vatican. It is a monumental insult and, at bottom, anti-American. Ellison himself may be something of a crackpot but to place him on the same plane as Bin Laden is irrational.

Here’s an exchange with another problem pop conservative Chuck Norris on Beck’s radio show:

GLENN: Somebody asked me this morning, they said, you really believe that there’s going to be trouble in the future. And I said, if this country starts to spiral out of control and, you know, and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control, before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country, which it would have under I think the Republicans as well in this situation; they were taking us to the same place, just slower.

NORRIS: It was slower, yeah.

GLENN: Americans will, they just, they won’t stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up. And they said, where’s that going to come from? And I said Texas, it’s going to come from Texas. Do you agree with that, Chuck, or not?

NORRIS: Oh, yeah. You know, Texas is a republic, you know. We could actually —

GLENN: It was a country before it was a state.

NORRIS: Yeah, we could break off from the union if we wanted to.

GLENN: You do, you call me.

NORRIS: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Seriously, you do. I don’t mind having that lone star on my flag. I really don’t mind it. I’ve been out with a seam ripper looking at my flag going, I don’t know, California could go. I’m just saying —

I listened to this audio and these guys weren’t joking around. They were dead serious. Well, Norris seemed to be having a little fun at Beck’s expense. But even if you think Beck was joking around, the way he said it would give most of his listeners the idea that he was serious.

Now, if someone wants to make a case that this was a rational, reasoned response to our current crisis, I would first put you in a padded room and then give you some crayons to play with. Perhaps one of things that attracts many fringe righties to Beck is that often, he appears to be barely under control, as if powerful emotions have a hold of him and only with a mighty, conscious effort is he able to keep from erupting into spasms of emotive irrationality. This plays well especially on TV where Beck has been reduced to near tears several times when contemplating what America is becoming.

Now, there are plenty of other instances where Beck has gone off the deep end - at least according to the left. The examples above were ones that I tried to thoroughly research because the effort underway on the left to discredit conservatives includes the long time liberal strategy of telling one and all exactly what conservatives are thinking - even when they’re not. This piece in Politico is an example of how the left “interprets” conservatives:

The Republicans find themselves caught between two countervailing forces: the need to craft a policy agenda that appeals to middle-class Americans and the need to maintain the support of an angry base of voters that is alienated from, and suspicious of, the new president.

Beck, who with no sense of irony favorably compares himself to Howard Beale, is taking the latter course — with a vengeance. While Democrats have sought to tie Republicans to Rush Limbaugh, his attacks are tame compared with those of Beck, who spoke recently of creeping fascism as visuals of Nazi rallies played behind him. His occasionally unhinged attacks of strung-together nonsequiturs about the evils of Big Government provide little in the way of constructive solutions to the country’s vast problems. But this is also true of what we are hearing from Republican leaders.

The author of this piece is a former Dodd speechwriter and a fellow at the New America Institute, a think tank with a decided lefty tilt. Don’t you love the way he characterizes Beck’s attacks as “unhinged?” Not all are, of course. It’s just that Mr. Cohen happens to love Big Government and hence, any attack on it by definition is “unhinged.”

So too the liberal’s idea of “far right” which usually places someone referred to as such somewhere to the left of David Brooks. Suffice it to say, allowing the left to define conservatives and try to discredit them by marginalizing even mainstream righties is a breeze when kooks like Glenn Beck give them fodder for their critiques almost every day.

Stacey McCain:

So there seems to be a certain sort of bipartisan consensus that the GOP is now fully committed to pandering to Buchananites, Birchers, goldbugs, gun nuts, Paulistas and sundry fringe types, and yet . . . I dunno. I’m not feeling the love here.

Do any of my fellow right-wing extremists share this perception? You there — reloading your 7.62 ammo in the Idaho cabin while listening to the short-wave militia broadcast — do you feel as if you’re now part of the woof and weave of the GOP tapestry?

How is it that Charles Johnson and Christopher Orr both think Glenn Beck (whose Fox show I’ve never watched, BTW) represents the camel’s nose in the tent, a dangerous intrusion of crackpottery into the Republican mainstream, while the genuine wingnuts still feel as ostracized and alienated as ever? Is this a consensus or . . . a conspiracy?

The reason that the fringe still feels alienated is because people like Beck are making a living by playing to those feelings and fears, stoking the fire that manifests itself in feelings of helplessness and anger. I don’t buy Cohen’s thesis but at the same time, you cannot ignore the rise of people like Beck whose fantasies about Obama and the Democrats trying to turn this country into a socialist nation (or Communist) rather than implement a far left liberal agenda; or confiscate weapons instead of infringing the rights of gun owners through draconian legislation and regulations; or permanently appropriating auto and financial companies instead of bailing them out and imposing stifling rules that will make them less competitive — all are serious and undermine our liberties and the free market but are so far from “totalitarianism” as to not be believable. There are rational critiques of everything Obama is doing without having to resort to exaggeration, hyperbole, and simple looniness. I wish Beck and others would realize that.

Of course, rational criticism don’t pay the bills in this day and age so the more dire you can make the situation sound, the more eager people will be to tune you in and revel in their own feelings of betrayal. By listening or watching Beck, people know that like minded patriots are experiencing the same fears and frustrations that they are, making those who tune in part of a community. We saw this exact same phenomena during the Bush years with the left and the widespread belief in a draft; in “another 9/11″ in order to cancel the election of both 2006 and 2008; in the almost weekly “We’re going to invade Iran” rumors; and, of course, the usual black helicopter and FEMA camp nonsense. Hofstadter was right. The “First Party System” - where the party out of power believes the other party will destroy the country - is alive and well in America.

Beck worries me. Conservatives worry me. I worry about myself. I feel trapped in a huge ball of cotton, trying gamely to make my way out but don’t know which direction to start pushing. I am losing contact with those conservatives who find Beck anything more than a clown - and an irrational one at that. Same goes for those who worship at the altar of Rush, Hannity, Coulter, and the whole cotton candy conservative crowd. I can’t take those people seriously. The fact that they are popular mystifies me. Our heroes 20 years ago were Reagan, Buckley, Kirkpatrick, Kirk, Goldwater, Martin Anderson, and others who didn’t see conservatism as a meal ticket but as something to think about, to write about and contemplate man’s place in the world and his relationship to government and God.

Is it really a question of elites versus the rest? I hardly think my little blog catapults me into that exclusive club. Maybe I’m too old. Maybe I’m too stuck in my ways. Perhaps I have stagnated while the rest of the conservative movement has gone on without me. As I said at the beginning, I don’t know. I just don’t know.

UPDATE

How do I know that many who visit this site have the reading comprehension skills of a three toed sloth?

Three or four comments already informing me that Beck recently had on a writer from Popular Mechanics to debunk the FEMA camp conspiracy theory. Guess they missed this above:

I was relieved to hear that he brought in a writer from Popular Mechanics to debunk the FEMA camp story recently but that doesn’t change the fact that Beck lacks the ability to think rationally.

Now the rest of you don’t have to tell me what I’ve already written.

You won’t want to miss tonight’s Rick Moran Show, one of the most popular conservative talk shows on Blog Talk Radio.

Tonight, I welcome Vodkapundit’s Stephen Green, Robert Stacey McCain, and Jimmie Bise of Sundries Shack to discuss Obama’s first trip overseas.

The show will air from 7:00 - 8:00 PM Central time. You can access the live stream here. A podcast will be available for streaming or download shortly after the end of the broadcast.

Click on the stream below and join in on what one wag called a “Wayne’s World for adults.”

The Chat Room will open around 15 minutes before the show opens,

Also, if you’d like to call in and put your two cents in, you can dial (718) 664-9764.

Conservatives are shocked, shocked I tell you, that President Obama has gone hat in hand to the Europeans on his first foreign trip and apologized to them for our “arrogance” as well as our “derisiveness,” although I can’t offhand think of a single instance where an American president or our State Department has treated anyone in Europe derisively. I can however, recall several sneering comments from Francois Mitterand and Jose Zapatero about America and American policy so I guess Obama was apologizing for their comments as well. I almost expected him to apologize to his teleprompter for ignoring the device a couple of times on the junket but apparently, Obama’s contriteness does have its limits.

My question is what did you expect? President Obama is a liberal. His worldview is animated by by a leftist view of America and American history. This is a view heavily influenced by European intellectuals so it is no surprise that one of the main elements in liberal thinking about the US is a harsh, one dimensional critique of America where we have never done anything right, are an oppressor of various privileged minority groups, are too big, too loud, too brash, too arrogant (there’s that word again), and the world would be better off if we just sat back and let the European left run the world as they were meant to do.

Obama, as most on the American left today, believe that the only way to a glorious future is to acknowledge our past sins - or as Obama said in Turkey yesterday:

Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods. Facing the Washington monument that I spoke of is a memorial to Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. And our country still struggles with the legacy of our past treatment of Native Americans.

Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History, unresolved, can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there are strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. While there has been a good deal of commentary about my views, this is really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive.

I have never heard anyone on the left describe how to “work through” our past. It appears to be one of those quaint liberal intellectual games where no matter how often we “acknowledge” that slavery was bad and we cheated and murdered Native Americans, there’s always some other aspect of that past we must “work through” in order to be truly redeemed of our mortal sins. Of course, the left has no desire to “work through” our past sins to the point where it would no longer be necessary because to do so would take away one of their most powerful political weapons; the white guilt trip. Americans will always be guilty and no amount of “working through” our past will satisfy the Obamas of the world. Our history will always be “unresolved” because that’s the way liberals want it and no number of “Truth Commissions,” “Special Investigations,” or altering our children’s social studies textbooks to fully reflect the writings of Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill will satisfy them.

The left glories in demonstrating their moral superiority by eschewing most normal outward manifestations of patriotism in favor of swooning over our “darker periods” - rolling around in our sins, reveling and finding comfort in constantly pointing out errors in our past. I would say that a lot of this would be useful if the excess of it weren’t so obscenely and throroughly enjoyed by liberals who equate “real” patriotism with this mostly negative and highly critical view of American history.

Let me hasten to add that despite this, I do not believe liberals love America any less than conservatives. It may be counterintuitive for some on the right but there is something ennobling about wishing your country to live up to its highest ideals by making the words in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution a reality. Acknowledging that this has not always been so is necessary to gain a true perspective of our past and understand our present. But I don’t think I’m shocking anyone by saying that most liberals take this concept to excessive lengths, to the point that they deliberately obfuscate much of our shining past in order to besmirch it, believing that any expression of admiration for anything in our past is akin to justifying our historical “crimes.”

Peter Beinhart tried to define the best of what real liberal patriotism should be:

If conservatives tend to see patriotism as an inheritance from a glorious past, liberals often see it as the promise of a future that redeems the past. Consider Obama’s original answer about the flag pin: “I won’t wear that pin on my chest,” he said last fall. “Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.” Will make this country great? It wasn’t great in the past? It’s not great as it is?

The liberal answer is, Not great enough. For liberals, America is less a common culture than a set of ideals about democracy, equality and the rule of law. American history is a chronicle of the distance between those ideals and reality. And American patriotism is the struggle to narrow the gap. Thus, patriotism isn’t about honoring and replicating the past; it’s about surpassing it.

The love liberals feel for America is no less legitimate as the feelings conservatives have about America as I tried to explain here:

The flip side of the same coin is how liberals define patriotism. They seem to intellectualize their love of country. They distrust outward displays of patriotic emotion, tending to equate fervor with patriotism’s evil twin – nationalism. Liberals see a problematic past for America and are not shy about pointing out where America has fallen short in its promises of liberty and equality.

But does this mean that liberals are less patriotic than conservatives?

Is it unpatriotic to want your country to live up to its extraordinary ideals? Is it unpatriotic to criticize what liberals see as hypocrisy in our history, where we celebrate freedom while keeping millions in bondage? Or speak glowingly of Native American culture while treating them abysmally?

Obama running around Europe apologizing to everyone for anything America has done, or said, or that Europeans perceive us to have done or said is perfectly in keeping with the president’s belief that only by acknowledging America’s past wrongs and “working through” them can we proceed to the future. It is the highest expression of liberal patriotism that he can make (according to his lights) and I wonder why some conservatives are up in arms about it. Bill Clinton did something similar on foreign trips during his second term, apologizing for our role in the slave trade and our mistreatment of immigrants. The fact that Obama is making these mea culpas on foreign soil is something no conservative would ever dream of doing but actually elicits admiration on the left both here and in Europe for the president having the “courage” to make a public confession.

And let’s not forget that Obama, in the next breath following his apology, condemned Europeans for their virulent anti-Americanism. Now those are words from an American president that haven’t been heard since Reagan. It is something Europeans hate hearing from Americans but, due to Obama’s previous acknowledgment of American “arrogance,” did not fall entirely on deaf ears. And in this extraordinary times, it is vital that Europe not tune us out and that they work with us to solve the many crisis that confront both of us. We can’t go this alone. And our best allies and friends are in Europe. If Obama’s popularity leads to better relations, better cooperation with the EU on issues like the economy, Afghanistan, and the various threats we face around the globe, then this is a positive for America.

Yes, it discomfits me that Obama seemed eager to disrespect his own country in front of those who, at times, have been equally arrogant, equally dismissive, and certainly more derisive when George Bush was president. But in perilous times, it is best to keep your friends close. And despite a few gaffes (”Austrian” language? Are you fricking kidding me?), Obama’s trip was helpful to our interests and will hopefully pay big dividends in the future.