If the rants from Beck et al were relegated to the disdain heap for what they ought to be, fodder for riotous laughter akin to The Three Stooges, there would be no issue to concern ourselves with. But they are not. They are fodder for civil riots. And one can almost see Beck and friends sitting back in their multi-million dollar easy chairs, their faces a mask of self-congratulatory smiles, as Jeffersonian America unravels and burns, and awaits the self-anointed messiah.
For all who would prefer to contend there is no such peril, consider that the Republicans in both the House and the Senate are now marching to the cadence called for them by the far-Right extremists. It is wholly insufficient and thoroughly unacceptable for a Republican, even a vote-evidenced conservative Republican, to ponder an individual thought, to mull matters of conscience. To wit: Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, whose conservative credentials should be stand alone-stand up, has been denounced twice by the state's Republican hierarchy. The first was when he openly opined in opposition to the Bush-Cheney torture policies, "We can't defeat our enemy by becoming like our enemy." The second denouncement took place more recently, when he dared to work with Democratic Senator John Kerry on climate change legislation.
A second resounding lesson occurred when a special election was held last November in New York's 23d congressional district. Democratic candidate Bill Owens, the victor in the race, was the first Democrat to represent the district since the mid-1800s. The GOP candidate, Dierdre Scozzafava, was declared insufficiently Republican, which is to say not conservative enough, and was forced out of the contest by the conservative element. And by "conservative enough," the crowd intends lambasting anything proposed by the administration or in either of the two legislative chambers by Democrats with the most outrageously scurrilous denunciations. Representative Joe Wilson's "You lie," and Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe's "I don't know whose side he [President Obama] is on" (Suggesting the senator doesn't merely disagree with the president, that in fact the president is un-American.) are just two low-hanging fruit examples how perilously low and precipitously close to fomenting open rebellion the Right will trek. A visit to http://www.Youtube.com and inserting "conservatives + Republicans + Obama" in the search produces video after video after video of the most reckless diatribes issued by GOP leaders and talk-show hosts and everyday folks, and that are complete with every unedited, unrestrained epithet and slur imaginable.
Not since the commencement of the Civil War has anything similar to these scorching attacks found acceptable common coinage in either the body politic or our society. And there's a very real peril that it could sink the ship of state.
Governance is essential, no matter how loudly the Right excoriates government. Wish it other, if you will, but the country does need a well-equipped military. Both inter- and intrastate infrastructure need maintenance and modernization. Markets do need effective regulation. Foods and pharmacological products need to be investigated continuously. Education must be promoted and funded. The police and the courts and our penitentiaries must be staffed and kept in serviceable condition. These and myriad other essential functions of government cannot be left fallow, cannot be shrunk and drowned in Mr. Norquist's bathtub, lest all that any of us clings to wither and perish. Absent effective government, in the words of the 17th century English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, "the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
But how is governance at all possible when one element can stall it completely? When regardless of the exigency, one element seeks only its downfall?
There's a line in the German film (includes English subtitles), The Baader Meinhof Complex, that goes, "Sie erzà �hlen, um zu essen, Essen und Einkaufen" (Trans: "They tell you to eat, eat, and shop.") The gang formed following student protests in West Berlin that were openly condemning the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (Came to power via Eisenhower's 1953 Operation Ajax, that overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mosaddec, all to "preserve, protect and defend" US and British oil interests.), and his exotically beautiful wife, Empress Farah, for the widespread use of terror, torture and murder of those Iranians/Persians the shah felt threatened by. The West German police clubbed hundreds of the protesters, many of which died of their wounds. One of the protesters was shot in the head and forever after dwelt severely brain damaged. The line refers to the distractions the government was employing to quell protests. Does it ring a bell with anything the Bush administration used following the September 11 attacks?
All of us today stand at the nexus of a diverging path. Which one will we elect to take, or by default find ourselves traveling? Silence is not by any necessity golden. Getting along with one's relatives and neighbors is by no necessity an honorable quest. Quite the contrary. If one fails to confront an evil, one endorses it. What purpose is there to life if it is not to pass to the next generations an improved version of it?
Most of us today enjoy freedoms and rights that in another age were denied to those who preceded us. Only the well-landed had a say. Women were chattel of their husbands, not much different than cattle or pigs. Men and women of color, if native to this land, were subject to genocide, if brought here in chains they were relegated to a chained life of servitude. We enjoy what we do for no real reasons we had anything to do with. Someone else took a stand, frequently, even most frequently, in stark contrast to their relatives and neighbors. Many were ostracized. Many were beaten. Many died, even as they suspected they would when they took their stand. Getting along when getting it on is the right thing to do is the core requisite of shameful ignominy and infamy. Ask any elderly German citizen about that, and the disgrace they will carry to their graves because they did not "speak out."
Finally, speaking out does not demand one grab a bullhorn, and addressing a crowd. Most often, all that will be necessary to fulfill the moral command is to not permit an outlandish, outrageous remark by a relative or friend or associate be left unanswered.
Follows are sample examples how truly easy it is to respond:
"They're all corrupt."
"Who's corrupt?"
"Everyone in congress."
"Can you name just . . . oh, I don't know . . . five senators and five congressmen?
"Well, I can sure tell you that Nancy Pelosi is."
"Why? What specifically has she done? Not generally, specifically?"
"Government is too big. It's loaded with tons of waste."
"That's pretty big, 'government.' I might agree with you. But tell me, where exactly would you cut it back?"
"All those social programs the left is trying to push on us."
"Which ones are you talking about? Exactly?"
"You know . . . all of them."
"No I don't know. You haven't told me. You made the statement. I didn't. So it's up to you to give the exact answers."
"I'm a conservative, not some damned liberal."
"It sounds like you're proud about being a conservative. What does a conservative believe that makes you feel proud?"
"I believe in being patriotic, and in being an American."
"What do you mean by being patriotic?"
"You know, standing up for your country, supporting a strong defense."
"By 'standing up for your country,' do you mean having served in the military?"
"That's one way, sure."
"Since 2000, there have been more Democratic combat veterans in the House and in the Senate than there have been Republican combat veterans. And the only Medal of Honor recipient is a Democrat. (Senator Daniel Inouye) As a matter of fact, there are no Republican combat veterans in either chamber today. Is that what you mean?"
Whether it's a clearly unfounded, wide-sweeping attack on Obama, or on liberal Democrats, or concerning almost anything else, the argument can be punctured by just following the most basic line of questioning outlined above. The point is, whittle, whittle, then whittle some more for exacting specifics. You will not get them, I guarantee you that. Nor must you yourself know what the specifics are. You don't need to, in order to countermand the broad-brush, vague generalization. And you will have stood up, not permitted an aspersion or a lie to have gone unresponded to.
And if one fears to respond to that relative or friend or associate, what does that fear say about the measure of decency and honor and courage that resides in one's own soul, and what does that say about the genuine nature of the relationship, that one fears to speak one's own mind?
Look at it this way: If you won't, who will? Or, should?
For all who would prefer to contend there is no such peril, consider that the Republicans in both the House and the Senate are now marching to the cadence called for them by the far-Right extremists. It is wholly insufficient and thoroughly unacceptable for a Republican, even a vote-evidenced conservative Republican, to ponder an individual thought, to mull matters of conscience. To wit: Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, whose conservative credentials should be stand alone-stand up, has been denounced twice by the state's Republican hierarchy. The first was when he openly opined in opposition to the Bush-Cheney torture policies, "We can't defeat our enemy by becoming like our enemy." The second denouncement took place more recently, when he dared to work with Democratic Senator John Kerry on climate change legislation.
A second resounding lesson occurred when a special election was held last November in New York's 23d congressional district. Democratic candidate Bill Owens, the victor in the race, was the first Democrat to represent the district since the mid-1800s. The GOP candidate, Dierdre Scozzafava, was declared insufficiently Republican, which is to say not conservative enough, and was forced out of the contest by the conservative element. And by "conservative enough," the crowd intends lambasting anything proposed by the administration or in either of the two legislative chambers by Democrats with the most outrageously scurrilous denunciations. Representative Joe Wilson's "You lie," and Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe's "I don't know whose side he [President Obama] is on" (Suggesting the senator doesn't merely disagree with the president, that in fact the president is un-American.) are just two low-hanging fruit examples how perilously low and precipitously close to fomenting open rebellion the Right will trek. A visit to http://www.Youtube.com and inserting "conservatives + Republicans + Obama" in the search produces video after video after video of the most reckless diatribes issued by GOP leaders and talk-show hosts and everyday folks, and that are complete with every unedited, unrestrained epithet and slur imaginable.
Not since the commencement of the Civil War has anything similar to these scorching attacks found acceptable common coinage in either the body politic or our society. And there's a very real peril that it could sink the ship of state.
But how is governance at all possible when one element can stall it completely? When regardless of the exigency, one element seeks only its downfall?
There's a line in the German film (includes English subtitles), The Baader Meinhof Complex, that goes, "Sie erzà �hlen, um zu essen, Essen und Einkaufen" (Trans: "They tell you to eat, eat, and shop.") The gang formed following student protests in West Berlin that were openly condemning the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (Came to power via Eisenhower's 1953 Operation Ajax, that overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mosaddec, all to "preserve, protect and defend" US and British oil interests.), and his exotically beautiful wife, Empress Farah, for the widespread use of terror, torture and murder of those Iranians/Persians the shah felt threatened by. The West German police clubbed hundreds of the protesters, many of which died of their wounds. One of the protesters was shot in the head and forever after dwelt severely brain damaged. The line refers to the distractions the government was employing to quell protests. Does it ring a bell with anything the Bush administration used following the September 11 attacks?
All of us today stand at the nexus of a diverging path. Which one will we elect to take, or by default find ourselves traveling? Silence is not by any necessity golden. Getting along with one's relatives and neighbors is by no necessity an honorable quest. Quite the contrary. If one fails to confront an evil, one endorses it. What purpose is there to life if it is not to pass to the next generations an improved version of it?
Most of us today enjoy freedoms and rights that in another age were denied to those who preceded us. Only the well-landed had a say. Women were chattel of their husbands, not much different than cattle or pigs. Men and women of color, if native to this land, were subject to genocide, if brought here in chains they were relegated to a chained life of servitude. We enjoy what we do for no real reasons we had anything to do with. Someone else took a stand, frequently, even most frequently, in stark contrast to their relatives and neighbors. Many were ostracized. Many were beaten. Many died, even as they suspected they would when they took their stand. Getting along when getting it on is the right thing to do is the core requisite of shameful ignominy and infamy. Ask any elderly German citizen about that, and the disgrace they will carry to their graves because they did not "speak out."
Finally, speaking out does not demand one grab a bullhorn, and addressing a crowd. Most often, all that will be necessary to fulfill the moral command is to not permit an outlandish, outrageous remark by a relative or friend or associate be left unanswered.
Follows are sample examples how truly easy it is to respond:
"They're all corrupt."
"Who's corrupt?"
"Everyone in congress."
"Can you name just . . . oh, I don't know . . . five senators and five congressmen?
"Well, I can sure tell you that Nancy Pelosi is."
"Why? What specifically has she done? Not generally, specifically?"
"Government is too big. It's loaded with tons of waste."
"That's pretty big, 'government.' I might agree with you. But tell me, where exactly would you cut it back?"
"All those social programs the left is trying to push on us."
"Which ones are you talking about? Exactly?"
"You know . . . all of them."
"No I don't know. You haven't told me. You made the statement. I didn't. So it's up to you to give the exact answers."
"I'm a conservative, not some damned liberal."
"It sounds like you're proud about being a conservative. What does a conservative believe that makes you feel proud?"
"I believe in being patriotic, and in being an American."
"What do you mean by being patriotic?"
"You know, standing up for your country, supporting a strong defense."
"By 'standing up for your country,' do you mean having served in the military?"
"That's one way, sure."
"Since 2000, there have been more Democratic combat veterans in the House and in the Senate than there have been Republican combat veterans. And the only Medal of Honor recipient is a Democrat. (Senator Daniel Inouye) As a matter of fact, there are no Republican combat veterans in either chamber today. Is that what you mean?"
Whether it's a clearly unfounded, wide-sweeping attack on Obama, or on liberal Democrats, or concerning almost anything else, the argument can be punctured by just following the most basic line of questioning outlined above. The point is, whittle, whittle, then whittle some more for exacting specifics. You will not get them, I guarantee you that. Nor must you yourself know what the specifics are. You don't need to, in order to countermand the broad-brush, vague generalization. And you will have stood up, not permitted an aspersion or a lie to have gone unresponded to.
And if one fears to respond to that relative or friend or associate, what does that fear say about the measure of decency and honor and courage that resides in one's own soul, and what does that say about the genuine nature of the relationship, that one fears to speak one's own mind?
Look at it this way: If you won't, who will? Or, should?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
