Well, this graphic kind of says it all, no?


via nicwolf of Metafilter

The right wing's summer of hate

SIdney Blumenthal, in a guest opinion piece of Salon, chronicles the nasty turn taken by right-wing media over the last two decades following the cessation of the Fairness Doctrine. It doesn't take someone of Blumenthal's import or intellect to point this out, especially now that Ann Coulter's admitted revival of McCarthyism is gaining mainstream traction.

Blumenthal's interesting observations center around the infrastructure of the hardballing right wing, rather than simply its phenomenology:

The rhetoric of abuse is not a sudden outburst, but has been well-designed for years. Republicans use these words and pursue these strategies consciously. In 1990, then Republican House Whip Newt Gingrich (later Speaker of the House) hired a pollster to devise a lexicon of demonization. In a memo that Gingrich circulated, "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control," Republicans were instructed that "words and phrases are powerful" and that the list that had been test-marketed should be "memorized."

They were urged to apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party:

"decay ... failure (fail) ... collapse(ing) ... deeper ... crisis ... urgent(cy) ... destructive ... destroy ... sick ... pathetic ... lie ... liberal ... they/them ... unionized bureaucracy ... "compassion" is not enough ... betray ... consequences ... limit(s) ... shallow ... traitors ... sensationalists ...

"endanger ... coercion ... hypocrisy ... radical ... threaten ... devour ... waste ... corruption ... incompetent ... permissive attitudes ... destructive ... impose ... self- serving ... greed ... ideological ... insecure ... anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs ... pessimistic ... excuses ... intolerant ...

"stagnation ... welfare ... corrupt ... selfish ... insensitive ... status quo ... mandate(s) ... taxes ... spend(ing) ... shame ... disgrace ... punish (poor ... ) ... bizarre ... cynicism ... cheat ... steal ... abuse of power ... machine ... bosses ... obsolete ... criminal rights ... red tape ... patronage."

More than a decade after Gingrich's guidance, these words still echo 'round the clock. They are used to craft talking points for millions of followers, who have accustomed themselves to taking such cues. Out of this vocabulary, an entire mental universe has been conjured of sick, pathetic liberals, traitors against the flag and family, who would betray the country by imposing their permissive attitudes, bringing shame and disgrace, causing collapse and crisis.

Blumenthal paints a compelling picture of this churning echo chamber, and the power wielded by language within it. It also seems clear--based on basic concepts of memetics--that if talking points can be so codified and sown by one organization, it ought to possible for others, as well.

I have been having some in-depth and useful conversations with a colleague of late, mostly inspired the Smart Scandal idea, which we are still mulling and cultivating. It seems that the purposeful promulgation of memes is a primary area in which progressives lag behing the Republican party machine. This is worth thinking about.

Listen to Howard Dean play the blues on his harmonica and peridoically shout slogan-esque phrases.

This could either be Dean's "Clinton on Arsenio Hall" moment, or his "Nixon on TV with no makeup being made to look crazy by JFK" moment.

Jail John Ashcroft

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema is expected to issue a critical sanction any day in the federal criminal case prosecution of Zacharias Moussaoui, who is charged with having conspired to participate in the September 11 terrorist attacks. The order arises out of the government’s refusal to comply with the judge’s order that the government produce for deposition Ramzi Binalshibh, a suspected high al-Qaeda official who is currently in U.S. custody. Moussaoui is seeking Binalshibh’s testimony to help establish his innocence of the charges.

Judge Brinkema’s original order granted Moussaoui’s request based on the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right of an accused in federal criminal prosecutions to summon witnesses in his behalf at his trial. Despite the oath that the attorney general took to support and defend the Constitution when he was sworn in office, John Ashcroft has chosen to knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately disobey Judge Brinkema’s order by refusing to produce Binalshibh for testimony.

Clearly, the judge must impose some sanction on the government. Otherwise government officials will feel free to violate the Constitution and disobey court orders whenever they feel like it.

Thus the question is, What would be the most appropriate remedy? What remedy would discourage this kind of wrongful conduct on the part of the government? What remedy would best serve the interests of the American people?

The answer is, Judge Brinkema should cite John Ashcroft for contempt of court for knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately violating her order enforcing the U.S. Constitution.

Such a citation of contempt followed by incarceration would not be unusual at all. Punishing both litigants and attorneys for refusing to obey court orders is one of the standard remedies available to the courts.

Huge thanks to those who were actually waiting to read this, and didn't completely give up one me. I've finally finished it:

Have the Neocons Already Won?

Abstract:
The neoconservative movement's ascension to power and influence, and its attendant reframing of American foreign policy, are only now being met with legitimate public inquiry. This attention, however, is being applied almost exclusively to analysis of the neocons as a collection of individuals, and to their movement as nothing more than the advocacy of a set of policy principles. But to limit public vetting of the implications of neoconservatism to the strictly political is to ignore the true nature of their intended legacy: not just policies that reflect their ideology, but base and bedrock cultural change. Once the cultural context is examined, it becomes quite clear that neoconservative memes have taken root in the lexicon and debate of our political culture with quick and remarkable viral promulgation. In this light, we see that it may be the case that the neocon agenda has largely been met, and that no rejection of specific policies or policymakers can wholly reverse the changes it has wrought.

This piece is a little longer than the other few more formal essays I've posted here, but I think I've reined in its meandering-ness. Let me know what you think...