On The Right’s Reaction To Obama
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Conservatives, Republicans
I’ve given up trying to point out examples of Obama Derangement Syndrome because it’s so acute right now. People literally think he’s ushering in a police state and how do you respond to that?
But NY Times columnist Charles Blow is hearing similar things and notes that it’s troubling at best.
Lately I’ve been consuming as much conservative media as possible (interspersed with shots of Pepto-Bismol) to get a better sense of the mind and mood of the right. My read: They’re apocalyptic. They feel isolated, angry, betrayed and besieged. And some of their “leaders†seem to be trying to mold them into militias. [...]For example, Chuck Norris, the preeminent black belt and prospective Red Shirt, wrote earlier this month on the conservative blog WorldNetDaily: “How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?â€
Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, imagining herself as some sort of Delacroixian Liberty from the Land of the Lakes, urged her fellow Minnesotans to be “armed and dangerous,†ready to bust caps over cap-and-trade, I presume.
And between his tears, Glenn Beck, the self-professed “rodeo clown,†keeps warning of an impending insurrection by saying that he believes that we are heading for “depression†and “revolution†and then gaming out that revolution on his show last month. “Think the unthinkable†he said. Indeed.
So how do reasonable conservatives respond to this editorial?
Rick Moran writes a post entitled BLOWHARD NEW YORK TIMES CONTRIBUTOR A PARANOID LOON, which is so full of holes it’s hard to even read it. He even felt the need to apologize to the fans of Glenn Beck. But, then again, Moran is now writing for the American Thinker, which tried to claim that Ayers wrote one of Obama’s books. So who knows what he’s thinking these days. To be clear, I’m not saying he’s buying into those theories, but when you freely align yourself with that kind of stuff your voice becomes less credible.
Ed Morrissey has a better post, accusing Blow of hypocrisy because he coyly used violent hyperbole in a previous editorial. However, there’s a big difference between what Blow penned and the “revolutionary” talk that’s rolling out of the right wing these days. Because you can actually tell that Blow is employing hyperbole. You can’t say the same thing for a lot of the right wing talk. I have people I know telling me that Obama is taking his cues from Mein Kampf…and meaning it. And just look through the comments section right here on this blog and you’ll see plenty of talk about violent uprising.
Now, I won’t contend that the left didn’t go loony on Bush, but it came much later and only after he had actually done some pretty questionable things. And all we heard then was how Bush and company should be prosecuted for their crimes.
So yes, color me concerned as well. Not afraid, but concerned.
I’ll tell you when it shifts into the next gear.
This entry was posted on Saturday, April 4th, 2009 and is filed under Barack, Conservatives, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 4th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I respond that nothing I’m seeing from the right in terms of paranoia, overreaction and so forth to Obama’s Presidency is any worse than what we saw from the left during Bush’s tenure. And in many ways it’s not as bad, because Obama provides ample reason to be suspicious of real, concrete erosions of liberty; that some on the right have developed an overreactive paranoia that exaggerates the threat Obama poses to liberty, an exaggeration compares favorably to the paranoid make-stuff-up hysteria of the left’s reaction to Bush.
How many times were we told in the last eight years by the left that a draft was imminent? At least if the right was to level charges of desiring conscription at Obama, they can point to a proposal he actually supports to ground it in.
April 4th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I’m curios, then, how you interpret the record firearm sales
April 4th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
This isn’t the first time that you’ve deliberately misrepresented what I’ve written on this site.
My “apology” to the Beck fans was tongue in cheek (“Sorry for referring to Beckites as having the IQ of a coffee table”). You also didn’t mention that I skewered them for thinking the imbecile Beck was anyone worthy of listening to.
Your inability to discern irony plus your failure to give context to my remarks on Beck is par of the course.
April 4th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Simon, Bush is done. We’re talking about now. And, as stated, I don’t remember this revolution talk from liberal politicians or talkers.
Also, what are your examples of concrete erosions of liberty?
April 4th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
I can honestly say I never heard that a draft during the Bush admin was imminent. In fact, I heard the opposite -if Bush were to impose a draft he would endanger the right in subsequent elections. Therefore there was no way a draft would occur.
As I have stated before, we are more and more becoming a country divided. The anger and hatred coming from the right so early in Obama’s term is frightening.
April 4th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Justin, I didn’t say that there are real, concrete examples of erosions of liberty already performed by the administration, I said that “Obama provides ample reason to be suspicious of real, concrete erosions of liberty” in the future. The main reasons I had in mind are his interventionist views on the role of government, his stated commitments on healthcare and environmental regulation, and his proposals on imposing national service. And, of course, let’s not even get into his saddling of the nation with a crippling level of debt in less than six months, money that taxpayers will have to repay, which will in turn impose obligations on their liberty. In myriad ways, Obama comes across as believing that government is the solution to any number of problems. His first instinct always appears to be that the government – and, by the way, the federal government – should take more control. Having a President with his view of government in society, combined with a Congress that believes even more strongly in it, is profoundly dangerous to liberty in this country in ways that were never credible with a Republican President (even a relatively Larsonite one like Bush).
Given that the left instantly hits the Bush comparison button in any argument, I will file away and remind you of your observation that “Bush is done. We’re talking about now.” For example, I imagine your first instinct reading my complaint above that Obama has saddled the nation with lots of debt is to say “well so did Bush” – an option you have conveniently taken off the table for yourself.
April 4th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Moran’s column was just as full of holes as Justin said it was. Read the NY Times piece. Then read Moran. The NYT piece did not call either Norris or Bachmann conservative leaders, it just noted who they are and what they say. Yet somehow the piece on the oxymoronically entitled American Thinker attacks the writer for supposedly falsely claiming that they are leaders in the conservative movement. But Justin is supposedly misrepresenting Moran. Somehow Rick Moran fails to notice his own complete misrepresentation of what Charles Blow wrote. But given what the American Thinker is like, I’m not surprised that anyone who could choose to vote for such a vile piece of work would have problems with facts.
April 4th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Rich, seriously, how disingenuous.
First, you called Blow a liar for expressing concern, while not acknowledging that he talked about “some” of them, not all of them. And you completely miss the point that Blow is talking about IRRESPONSIBLE conservatives. That’s why he calls out the “leaders” specifically and avoids painting with the broad brush.
Also, you were responding to people taking exception to your characterizations of Beck, no? Whether or not it was tongue in cheek is besides the point. And the fact that you had to do that in the first place puts the lie to the whole premise of your post, that Blow is a paranoid loon.
Also, the “context” argument? First off, I didn’t take you out of context, but second, people can go over to your site and discern the context for themselves. By the way, claiming I’m taking you out of context is a lazy, catch-all defense.
So yes, you can claim we’re being paranoid. But that’s how we feel right now when we hear mainstream media types and AN ELECTED OFFICIAL using revolution rhetoric.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
[...] now this is an isolated case, but following up on my post from yesterday, the right should try their best to back away from the more feverish, “revolution” [...]