Black Helicopters Over Nashville

[Walter Ego]

Never mind Sarah Palin and the tricornered hats. The tea-party movement is dominated by conspiracist kooks.

By Jonathan Kay | Newsweek Web Exclusive Feb 9, 2010

After I spent the weekend at the Tea Party National Convention in Nashville, Tenn., it has become clear to me that the movement is dominated by people whose vision of the government is conspiratorial and dangerously detached from reality. It's more John Birch than John Adams...

Within a few hours in Nashville, I could tell that what I was hearing wasn't just random rhetorical mortar fire being launched at Obama and his political allies: the salvos followed the established script of New World Order conspiracy theories, which have suffused the dubious right-wing fringes of American politics since the days of the John Birch Society.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I just quoted this on another thread, but it seems appropriate here. Peter Rothberg of The Nation recently wrote:

While the energy and outrage of the Tea Parties may be genuine and organic, we should not fool ourselves into seeing this as anything but a right-wing reactionary movement, one whose themes (jingoism, militarism and a cult of victimhood at the hands of sundry nefarious betrayers) are as old as the John Birch Society.

(Sorry no linky. It was an e-mail to their e-mail subscribers talking about what's in the next issue or something like that.)

Same old paranoia.

 

[Walter Ego]

(Sorry no linky. It was an e-mail to their e-mail subscribers talking about what's in the next issue or something like that.)

Here's the link.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100301/editors

 

[Skeptic]

Ah, yes. "The Nation" and "Newsweek"... so reliable in their report on the Right.

The left-leaning mainstream media (Newsweek, Time, CNN, the New York Times, etc. -- "The Nation" is not left-leaning, it's just far-left) don't seem to realize that they have long ago blown any claim they might have had to anything remotely like balance or objectivity in reporting about the Right, so people simple don't believe their "discoveries" any longer.

That is due to the fact that their "discoveries" about all right-wing movements always seem to follow the same trajectory:

1). First they ignore it, being too busy to celebrate the "historical achievement" and "explaining" to everybody the "revolutionary importance" of the latest democrat to win an election. Never mind that they said the same about every democratic politician.

2). Then they scorn it as a "tiny bunch of extremists", cooks and crazies, whose existence just shows how the "GOP had lost control", is going to go down in flames any disappear any blessed day now, etc.

3). When that doesn't seem to have the least effect on slowing it down, and the movement cannot be either ignored or laughed at any longer, they go to plan B, an "investigative journalist" 'discovering' that "it might be a big and popular, but it really is dominated by a tiny bunch of extremists". (Or does anybody for a minute think that if Mr. Kay had written a report that was not "they're crazy, I tell you, they're crazy", then Newsweek would have published it as a "web exclusive"? ... no, didn't think so.)

4). The next step, if (1)-(3) fail and the movement keep growing, to start panicking and give the democratic politician more and more shrill and contradictory advice about what he must do to defeat the growing menace of the Right-wing movement.

5). If the democratic incumbent ignores their hysterical and self-contradictory advice (and rightfully so: that's all he needs -- advice from panicky journalists) and (as sometimes happens) loses the election to what a few months ago was a "tiny minority of extremists", they go into deep gloom, and write funerary obituaries to democracy / America / justice / liberalism / the world, since the tiny minority of evil extremists had, somehow, won.

They don't seem to realize that they are falling for their own propaganda of stages (2) and (3) when they reach stage (5), nor that making them react in such a ridiculous, if predictable, manner (look at CNN's reports on the "Tea parties" a few months ago, from stage (2), as opposed to this one, a typical stage (3)) is part of the reason people join the "extremists" in the first place.

 

[Sporanox]

Ah, yes. "The Nation" and "Newsweek"... so reliable in their report on the Right.

The left-leaning mainstream media (Newsweek, Time, CNN, the New York Times, etc. -- "The Nation" is not left-leaning, it's just far-left) don't seem to realize that they have long ago blown any claim they might have had to anything remotely like balance or objectivity in reporting about the Right, so people simple don't believe their "discoveries" any longer.

That is due to the fact that their "discoveries" about all right-wing movements always seem to follow the same trajectory:

1). First they ignore it, being too busy to celebrate the "historical achievement" and "explaining" to everybody the "revolutionary importance" of the latest democrat to win an election. Never mind that they said the same about every democratic politician.

2). Then they scorn it as a "tiny bunch of extremists", cooks and crazies, whose existence just shows how the "GOP had lost control", is going to go down in flames any disappear any blessed day now, etc.

3). When that doesn't seem to have the least effect on slowing it down, and the movement cannot be either ignored or laughed at any longer, they go to plan B, an "investigative journalist" 'discovering' that "it might be a big and popular, but it really is dominated by a tiny bunch of extremists". (Or does anybody for a minute think that if Mr. Kay had written a report that was not "they're crazy, I tell you, they're crazy", then Newsweek would have published it as a "web exclusive"? ... no, didn't think so.)

4). The next step, if (1)-(3) fail and the movement keep growing, to start panicking and give the democratic politician more and more shrill and contradictory advice about what he must do to defeat the growing menace of the Right-wing movement.

5). If the democratic incumbent ignores their hysterical and self-contradictory advice (and rightfully so: that's all he needs -- advice from panicky journalists) and (as sometimes happens) loses the election to what a few months ago was a "tiny minority of extremists", they go into deep gloom, and write funerary obituaries to democracy / America / justice / liberalism / the world, since the tiny minority of evil extremists had, somehow, won.

They don't seem to realize that they are falling for their own propaganda of stages (2) and (3) when they reach stage (5), nor that making them react in such a ridiculous, if predictable, manner (look at CNN's reports on the "Tea parties" a few months ago, from stage (2), as opposed to this one, a typical stage (3)) is part of the reason people join the "extremists" in the first place.

QFT

The fact that Newsweek wants to throw a blanket over the right-wing surge like it's on fire is about as surprising to me now as geese flying south for the winter.

 

[Skeptic]

QFT

The fact that Newsweek wants to throw a blanket over the right-wing surge like it's on fire is about as surprising to me now as geese flying south for the winter.

The next step is usually finding someone of some importance in the new movement that has a questionable personal life (usually an affair, or a messy divorce, or some tax/financial shenanigans) and to chant, in tones of paternalistic worry: "See, you stupid peasants? Here is your god, the new leader of your idiotic and extremist new movement! Don't you see how wrong you are now?".

When the people in the movement still don't care -- imagine that! -- the reporters all whine about right-wing "hypocrisy" for speaking about family values and then "ignoring" the truth about so-and-so's personal life.

Well, that's not accurate: it's not that the people in the movement don't care. They're disappointed. But they're damned if they're going to play Newsweek's and The Nation's obvious game. They're smarter than what the MSM gives them credit for -- not that that's too difficult.

We're due to this sort of "shocking discovery" about the personal lives of people in the Right-wing movement du jour any day now, if the past is any indication of the future.

 

[Cleon]

The next step is usually finding someone of some importance in the new movement that has a questionable personal life (usually an affair, or a messy divorce, or some tax/financial shenanigans) and to chant, in tones of paternalistic worry: "See, you stupid peasants? Here is your god, the new leader of your idiotic and extremist new movement! Don't you see how wrong you are now?".

Oh, like the way some people still go on about John Edwards?

No, wait, that's Republicans criticizing a Democrat, so it's all good.

 

[Sporanox]

The next step is usually finding someone of some importance in the new movement that has a questionable personal life (usually an affair, or a messy divorce, or some tax/financial shenanigans) and to chant, in tones of paternalistic worry: "See, you stupid peasants? Here is your god, the new leader of your idiotic and extremist new movement! Don't you see how wrong you are now?".

When the people in the movement still don't care -- imagine that! -- the reporters all whine about right-wing "hypocrisy" for speaking about family values and then "ignoring" the truth about so-and-so's personal life.

Well, that's not accurate: it's not that the people in the movement don't care. They're disappointed. But they're damned if they're going to play Newsweek's and The Nation's obvious game. They're smarter than what the MSM gives them credit for -- not that that's too difficult.

We're due to this sort of "shocking discovery" about the personal lives of people in the Right-wing movement du jour any day now, if the past is any indication of the future.

That's one aspect of the right in the US that I don't really like - the tendency to try and make a hero of the most recent outspoken conservative on the news. To be fair, as you say, the media keeps those people on the air when something bad about their past comes out or they blab something radical, but the right machine deserves some of the blame as well.

For example, take Carrie Prejean. Made a stand at the Miss America pageant, was dumped on by Perez Hilton, and subsequently appears on approximately one hundred successive days of Fox. Someone in the media discovers topless photos, sex tapes, etc, and accuses the right of being hypocritical. Conservatives respond, correctly for the most part, that people make mistakes.

THEN, Donald Trump fires Prejean because, as it turns out, she's a bit of a diva behind the scenes (to put it lightly). The right is burned again.

On a related note, Glenn Beck just unearthed a Tea Party Truther. Fortunately, it looks like we're abandoning ship fast.

 

[Sporanox]

Oh, like the way some people still go on about John Edwards?

No, wait, that's Republicans criticizing a Democrat, so it's all good.

Everyone goes on about John Edwards. New York Magazine, Halperin? Are they Republicans now?

 

[Thunder]

i think we should let the Right destroy themselves. Its fun to watch. And it takes the heat of Obama and the Dems.

 

[Skeptic]

That's one aspect of the right in the US that I don't really like - the tendency to try and make a hero of the most recent outspoken conservative on the news. To be fair, as you say, the media keeps those people on the air when something bad about their past comes out or they blab something radical, but the right machine deserves some of the blame as well.

This is the one good thing about the MSM's smear machine. Watching the Right like a hawk for a chance to show the stupid peasants how idiotic their gods are, they act as a kind of natural selection pressure for Right-wing candidates with problems. They can then be dumped, without making too much damage.

But when you wrap your own candidates in cotton from the nasty and unfair and unfounded rumors from the right, you usually end up with a huge problem down the road -- like the Clinton impeachment or the John Edwards scandal or Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddik (sp???).

Look at the trouble Obama's obvious lack of qualification and experience for the job -- ridiculed as "right wing paranoia" by The One's cheerleaders, which meant most of the MSM, before the election -- is costing him, the democrats, and the country now.

 

[Thunder]

This is the one good thing about the MSM's smear machine. Watching the Right like a hawk for a chance to show the stupid peasants how idiotic their gods are, they act as a kind of natural selection pressure for Right-wing candidates with problems. They can then be dumped, without making too much damage.

you consider right-wingers to be stupid peasants?

that's not very nice. you are talking about fellow Americans, ya know.

 

[theprestige]

The tea-party movement is dominated by conspiracist kooks.

In that case it shouldn't be too difficult to name several people in positions of influence within the Tea Party movement, who are conspiracist kooks.

What's that you say? Nobody important? No names? Just "buzz" on the "street" from various unnamed "dudes"?

Stellar reporting, there, Walter Ego. Let me know when your latter-day Woodwards and Bernsteins start quoting Deep Nose or Deep Ear.

 

[Skeptic]

you consider right-wingers to be stupid peasants?

No. But Newsweek does.

we should let the Right destroy themselves

...until their "self destructive" policies mysteriously manage to win elections, by which time the MSM switches back to "evil extremists winning, help help we're being oppressed" mode.

Both states of mind are great for convincing oneself of one's own superiority. Not too great for actually winning elections, however.

 

[Thunder]

No. But Newsweek does.

The Tea Baggers do not represent all right-wingers.

 

[Cynic]

Why does this crap always come down to coverage and that unequal coverage is equated with bias? Is it not possible that if one side gets "smeared" more than the other that one side might be making more mistakes?

 

[theprestige]

Why does this crap always come down to coverage and that unequal coverage is equated with bias? Is it not possible that if one side gets "smeared" more than the other that one side might be making more mistakes?

Sure it's possible. That's why we give racists the benefit of the doubt, right? All those people getting "smeared" all the time, maybe they really are subhuman.

In fact you nailed it in your first sentence: "Smearing" is crap. It's a crap way to make an argument. It's a crap way to support a claim. It's a crap way to sway public opinion.

"Smearing" is a stand-in for real arguments, real evidence, and--as we can see here--real reporting.

It's crap. Are you seriously asking us to consider the possibility that shoveling enough crap will sooner or later pile up into a rational case for or against something? Why not reject it as a big pile of crap?

I mean, seriously? "The mainstream media shovels so much crap, maybe they're on to something!" How does that make any sense at all?

 

[dudalb]

Why does this crap always come down to coverage and that unequal coverage is equated with bias? Is it not possible that if one side gets "smeared" more than the other that one side might be making more mistakes?

I also think equating Newsweek (Liberal) with the Nation (Much,Much,farther to the Left) is pretty dumb.

 

[Thunder]

Both states of mind are great for convincing oneself of one's own superiority. Not too great for actually winning elections, however.

we are not the ones who believe that those who oppose us are unPatriotic Communists who love Satan and are going to Hell after the Rapture.

 

[MikeMangum]

Oh, like the way some people still go on about John Edwards?

No, wait, that's Republicans criticizing a Democrat, so it's all good.

No, not really. It is Republicans criticizing the media for sitting on the story during a presidential campaign. Hell, if I was a Democrat, I would be rightly pissed that the media, in trying to protect a politician, could have completely wrecked the chances for the Democratic party to win an election.

Imagine if he had won the primaries and THEN the story came out.