There is nothing symmetrical here
June 21, 2012 4 Comments
Via Milbank about the Montana Republican party:
Over the weekend, the Montana Republican Party proved wrong those of us who believe our political discourse has gone down the toilet. In fact, our political discourse has gone to a place where there isn’t even plumbing.
Of course Milbank does try and leave a hedge of symmetry in his language, but it’s hard to find symmetry for something like this:
Outside the Montana GOP convention in Missoula stood an outhouse labeled “Obama Presidential Library” and painted as though it had been shot full of holes, according to the local paper. Inside, a fake birth certificate for “Barack Hussein Obama” was stamped with an expletive referring to bovine droppings. A message in the structure gave fake phone numbers for Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi “For a Good Time.”
Just maybe you noticed the disgusting sexism as well. I’m sorry, your just not going to find anything close at any state Democratic party convention anywhere. Sure, some Democrats go too far, but the nutty Republicans are in a class by themselves, and they are actually running state conventions, sadly.
About Steve Greene
I saw this article too. But you know what? I can’t really get riled up by a single local incident. In this day of 24 hour media coverage, blogging, and so forth, is it really any surprise that a story like this gets rapid national exposure? Everyday people cuss, say mean things, call people bad names, and say terrible things about politicians (possibly even illegal/threatening). I can go to any number of bathrooms in Chapel Hill and find nasty bathroom grafitti about Republicans, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin. And if I can’t find it now I could certainly have found it 4 years ago. What bugs me about Democrats getting all wadded up about this is that it diminishes the significance of much more substantive and systemic GOP malicious propaganda. I mean really, this is the trivial localized incident that Democrats want to spend their time on?
Good points, but this is not randomness. This is at a state party convention.
What’s important and disappointing in these instances is that those people in charge, if they are not the people actually doing these offensive things, don’t do anything to stop them, or even suggest these activities are wrong.
And I think there is a real difference between dumbasses writing on bathroom walls, and a Republican event that sets up a deliberate offen insult to the President of United States, family and other women in the opposition.
Its evidence of further and continued deterioration of decorum and rational discourse, and an increase in lies, distortions and hate mongering. There are always going to be a minority who hate mongers. But when it becomes institutionalized in a political party, it can only lead to trouble.
I know it’s not fashionable to accuse parties of being fascist, but I see the Republican party moving that way on a consistent basis. Its their way or no way. The opposition is not just wrong, but deliberately trying to destroy America. Their all communists. Obama is a secret Muslim. The anti Christ. Not a US citizen.
And the party faithful believe every word and ask for more. Or if they don’t believe, they relish the discord and pass on hate filled emails.
mike:
I agree with most of what you said. During the last election, and in 2004, the GOP really started to characterize the political opposition as traitorous, immoral, not sharing “our” (read: American) values, and worse. This toxic brew is very similar to either the ‘enemy image’ or ‘degenerate image’ used in cognitive studies of foreign policy. These images are among several used to categorize how decisionmakers and analysts perceive the motives and capabilities of strategic adversaries. The danger is that when political opponents are seen as enemies whose values, ends, and motives are not compatible with your own then it pushes back the bounds of what are acceptable modes of political opposition. When Sarah Palin opens her stump speech by saying she’s glad to be talking to “real Americans” then it must be true that everyone who is not with her is essentially an enemy.
This is a review article that recounts much of the literature on enemy images, going back to research from the 1950s up through the late 1980s. This is one of the few pieces I could find in its entirely.
http://pluto.fss.buffalo.edu/classes/psc/fczagare/PSC%20504/Rosati.pdf
I wonder if a content analysis of candidates’ campaign speeches since 1980 would show shifts in the images used to characterize political opponents and the opposing party. (Applying the same rules and schemas used in studies of foreign policy decisionmakers).