How Can They Believe All That Crap?

Charles Johnson, in his blog post The New Tribalism at TPMCafe, explains how the teabaggers and other wingnuts continue to accept and embrace repeatedly discredited memes that are demonstrably untrue:

Within the tribe there's no need to be concerned with facts or accuracy; if the goal is to demonize a hated opponent, for example, anything and everything goes, including smears known to be false. That's because the objective is not to convince an impartial observer -- it's to reinforce the tribal bonds, the sense of belonging to something, with its own shared reality. That shared reality doesn't have to reflect actual reality; anybody who doesn't share it is by definition not part of the tribe, and therefore an enemy.

So, the next time you hear someone fuming about "death panels" or "Obamanation's Secret Muslim Agenda" or "Government takeover of health care/the financial industry/etc" remember: reason won't work. Reason just shows you're not one of the tribe, you're one of "them," and "they" must be resisted at all costs.

This isn't to say you shouldn't correct try to correct misinformation. People who haven't already made up their minds, the impartial observers Johnson mentions--in other words, people who aren't already part of the "tribe," need to hear it.

But forget trying to convince someone who's already in. To your hard core wingnut, it's not about the truth: it's about the tribe.

State of the Union

Latest Newspaper Column- The Pilot:

In President Obama’s State of the Union speech this past week, he continued some of the same themes of unity and bipartisanship from his speech in Tucson a couple of weeks ago.

“We are part of the American family,” he said. “We will move forward together, or not at all.”

But the greater challenge may be not just creating a unity of purpose between Republicans and Democrats but getting members of the two parties to get along with the people who are allegedly on their own side.

Rep. Paul Ryan was picked to give the traditional response from the loyal opposition. Ryan’s speech was, like all Republican rhetoric on the deficit, long on exhortations to cut ­spending but awfully vague on exactly which spending to cut. This may be because Ryan’s own plan, dubbed the “roadmap,” calls for severe cuts in Social Security and the dismantling of Medicare, two huge benefits paid to the GOP’s most loyal constituency: senior citizens.

It’s quite a balancing act the Republicans do. If they really tried to make the cuts that would be required to balance the budget without tax increases, their elderly supporters would storm the Capitol (albeit very slowly) and drag their congressman down the street by the heels behind their little Medicare-funded Rascal scooters.

But then, after Ryan’s response, something unusual happened. CNN broadcast another response from another Republican, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who claimed to be giving the “tea party” reaction.

You can always depend on Bachmann to bring the crazy, and she didn’t disappoint. She delivered the whole speech staring off camera, as if she couldn’t bear to look the American people in the eye.

As it turns out, she was looking into another camera, the one broadcasting to the tea party faithful via the Internet, which was also the camera with the teleprompter. It seems that teleprompters, like everything else the right claims to despise, are just fine if you’re a Republican.

And what would a speech from Rep. Crazy-Eyes be without a heaping helping of paranoid fantasies and outright fabrications?

Fresh from her interview in which she asserted that the Founding Fathers “worked tirelessly to eradicate slavery,” Bachmann doubled down on the misinformation, repeating ­frequently debunked claims that “Obamacare” would result in “16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing” the bill and bizarre warnings about “government bureaucrats telling you what light bulbs to buy.”

CNN’s decision to air the speech drew criticism from some Republicans. One aide sent out an e-mail calling it “irresponsible journalism” for CNN to aid Bachmann in her quest to become the GOP’s loosest cannon.

The most surprising criticism, however, came from a tea party group in Bachmann’s home state.

“Please call Michele Bachmann’s office and tell her that she does not speak for the tea party,” the group said in a mass e-mail. “The Tea Party Patriots Organization is a grassroots organization. One person has no right to speak for the whole organization.”

Wow. Too crazy for the tea party. That’s pretty impressive.

On the other side of the aisle, the president got some ­immediate pushback from his own party. In response to his promise to veto any legislation that arrived on his desk with so-called “earmarks,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sniffed that it was a “great applause line” but that Obama “should back off and let us do what we do.” Which is, apparently, diverting as much ­government money as possible to their states or districts to keep the voters happy.

It’s another one of those dirty secrets closely held by ­lawmakers of both parties. Everyone pretends to deplore “pork” or “earmarks” or whatever they’re calling it this year, but every legislator knows their voters won’t keep loving them if they don’t bring some of that federal money home to them. It’s the one thing both parties have always seemed to agree on.

Even Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was resisting a proposed earmark ban until someone from the tea party put a severed horse’s head in his bed or something and caused him to reverse himself, at least in public.

It remains to be seen if this will continue, or if GOP lawmakers will revert to their traditional stance that it’s not “government spending” if the money’s going to their district or their big campaign contributors.

Meanwhile, the two parties continue to squabble, not just with each other, but also among themselves. Maybe what we really need is not just bipartisanship, but multi-partisanship.

Addicted to Drama

Latest Newspaper Column

First, a correction. Last week, I wrote that Sen. Rand Paul, son of Congressman Ron Paul, was named after 1950s novelist Ayn Rand, whose long-winded, preachy novels are big among what the tea party likes to think of as its "intellectual" wing. Ron Paul is an avowed fan as well, but Rand is not, it seems, named after her. It's just a coincidence. We regret the error.

Now on to your regularly scheduled column.

My friends, there is an epidemic of addiction sweeping America. It is, I firmly believe, the root cause of the angry and violent rhetoric that everyone's been talking about the past few weeks. This addiction has divided us, polarized us, and damaged our nation.

I'm talking about our addiction to Drama, with a capital D.

We've become a nation of hysterical teenage Drama queens for whom every issue is The Most Important Thing In the World to Me Ever, and every denial or obstacle triggers a tantrum in which it is tearfully asserted that You've Ruined My Life, I Hate You, and I Wish You Were Dead.

To a political Drama addict, everything is a Threat to America's Very Existence. The loss of a Senate election may require an armed insurrection (aka "Second Amendment remedies") to save the Republic from "tyranny," because if "ballots don't work, bullets will." If the presidential candidate you don't like wins the election, he's a "usurper" who's probably not even a real American, and we must fight him to Save the Constitution and Take Our Country Back Before Our Entire Way of Life is Destroyed. A health care bill you don't like means that your special-needs baby may be euthanized by order of shadowy "death panels." And so on.

Sad to say, there are those on the left who seem addicted to Drama as well. (I'm talking about the real Left, not the notch just to the left of center where the president actually resides, and which most right-wingers mistake for the real Left.) In the short time between the election of President Obama and his inauguration, I quit reading some of my favorite blogs in disgust because they were overrun with liberal Drama queens, crying out that there was No Difference Between Obama and Bush, that OMFG We Are Betrayed, and I'll Never Vote for a Democrat Again.

The catalyst for this overwrought opera of betrayal and electoral revenge? The selection of evangelist Rick Warren, who's said ignorant things about gay people, to deliver the invocation at the inauguration ceremony. Hey, I'm not crazy about the guy either, but I wasn't ready to write off Obama's entire presidency before it began over a two-minute prayer.

It's amazing that a country so addicted to Drama in its politics managed to elect as president a man who's famous for his abstinence from that intoxicant. He's made "No Drama" an ironclad rule for his staff. This, you may remember, drew no end of criticism from both right and left during the BP oil spill, when the president of the United States failed to break down and weep or to "yell and scream" as the press clearly wanted him to do.

It's hard to break ourselves of Drama addiction. For one thing, there are so many people pushing it, including a famous talk show host who only stops weeping long enough to feverishly sketch out history-spanning conspiracy theories on his chalkboard, spinning a web of Nefarious Threats to Our Way of Life that would make Dan Brown go "nah, too far-fetched."

Another titles a regular segment of his show "The Worst Person in the World." (The difference, I'll admit, is that Keith Olbermann, in his ham-handed way, is trying to be funny. I stress the word "trying.")

Like all pushers, they do it for the money. You don't get a fat contract with cable news or talk radio for being reasonable. You don't get a million views for your YouTube video by filming yourself saying "I respectfully disagree." Push a little Drama, though, and you can get millions to inject a big ol' hit of that sweet, sweet hysteria into their veins, and my Lord, how the money rolls in.

Maybe we need a 12-step program for Drama addiction, with meetings and everything. "Hi, my name's John, and I'm a Drama queen. Yesterday I burst into tears on camera over closing a corporate tax loophole."

Until that day, I'll just keep making fun of them.

Violent Talk In the Cross Hairs

Latest Newspaper Column:

The carnage staggers the mind. Twenty people shot. Six dead, including a 9-year-old girl. A U.S. congresswoman in the hospital after being shot in the head.

Within 20 minutes of news of the shootings appearing on the Internet, the Good Americans over at the conservative site Redstate.com were attempting to pin the shootings on Nancy Pelosi and (of course) illegal immigrants, while simultaneously deploring the fact that the “libs” were going to try to “politicize this.”

On the other end of the spectrum, people began pointing out statements from some tea partiers about “Second Amendment remedies” and “watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants” and other such promises of violence if they didn’t get their way.

They took note of Sarah Palin’s now-notorious “cross hairs” ad and her exhortation after the health-care vote: “Don’t retreat — reload!” The Palinistas indignantly denied there was anything wrong with this or any connection with the shootings, even as as they scrambled to take the “cross hairs” website down.

So each side is trying to blame the other. The more I learn about this shooter, though, the more it appears he was piling crazy on his plate from the entire buffet line. He goes off about the gold standard like a faithful Ron Paulian, and lists as one of his favorite books one by Ayn Rand, who’s big among tea partiers (Rand Paul is named after her).

But then he also says he’s a fan of “Mein Kampf” AND the Communist Manifesto. He once told a fellow student that he thought abortion was murder, but he also smoked a lot of weed and didn’t believe in God. A friend who was interviewed shortly after the killings compared Loughner to the nihilistic Joker in “The Dark Knight”: “There’s no rhyme or reason, he wants to watch the world burn.”

So there’s no way to draw a bright line link between the violent rhetoric of Sarah Palin or Sharron Angle, or the radio talk show host in Florida who was about to become the chief of staff of a newly elected tea party candidate before a video surfaced of her shouting to a cheering crowd that “if ballots don’t work, bullets will.”

All that said, the Palinistas and their fellow travelers on the right can spare us the righteous indignation about how awful it is that people are criticizing their violent language.

As writer John Scalzi put it: “If your political messaging traffics in rhetoric heavy on gun imagery and revolution of the overthrow-y sort, then when someone shoots a congressperson who you opposed, then guess what: You get to spend some uncomfortable moments in the spotlight being asked if it’s not reasonable to suspect a connection between your rhetoric and the actions of a shooter targeting someone you’ve opposed.”

If, for example, I put up a website with cross hairs over John Boehner’s name, and Boehner, God forbid, gets shot, then I don’t get to be all indignant if people ask about a connection. The people who quote Barack Obama’s reference to the movie “The Untouchables” (“If they bring a knife to the fight, I bring a gun”) seem to have forgotten one essential difference: No one has actually put a bullet in John Boehner’s head.

The question of whether hateful right-wing rhetoric “caused” Jared Loughner to kill six people and grievously wound 14 others is a separate question as to whether it’s bad for the country to use the language of guns and bullets and shedding “the blood of tyrants” if a vote didn’t go your way.

Sure, you’ve got a right, absent a direct threat, to say any damn fool thing you want. But people also have the right to call you on it. In the words of former Bush speechwriter David Frum: “This talk did not cause this crime. But this crime should summon us to some reflection on this talk.”

If any good thing comes out of this tragedy, it may be that, despite the right wing’s belligerent insistence that “it wasn’t us,” they’ll start thinking twice before blithely deploying rhetoric that hints of bloodshed and killing over things like marginal tax rates.

I don’t think we’ll hear Barack Obama talking about “knives and guns” any time soon. Will Sarah Palin exercise the same restraint? We live in hope.

Quote of the Day

I'm not sure who Greg Knauss is, but he may just be my favorite person today, for this tweet:

"If crimes 'begin and end with the criminals who commit them,' I think Sarah Palin just endorsed a mosque near Ground Zero."

John Scalzi Nails it, Again

Giffords Shooting Follow-up:

If your political messaging traffics in rhetoric heavy on gun imagery and revolution of the overthrow-y sort, then when someone shoots a congressperson who you opposed, then guess what: You get to spend some uncomfortable moments in the spotlight being asked if it’s not reasonable to suspect a connection between your rhetoric and the actions of a shooter targeting someone you’ve opposed. You also get to spend time being asked if, in fact, your rhetoric isn’t overblown, simplistic and on balance detrimental to the nation’s body politic. Querulous complaints about the unfairness of this can be reasonably overruled by others; the time to complain about your bed is before you make it.

So quit whining, right wingers. You brought all this criticism on yourself.