Quantcast

Leslie Savan | The Nation

  •  

Leslie Savan

Politics, media and the politics of media.

Conservatives Choke on Persian Pretzel Logic

The democracy movement in Iran has thrown Republican ideologues into such a tizzy of circular logic that they're stepping on their own dicta.

Neocons and hardliners may be as eager as ever to bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb bomb Iran, but are restrained this time out by the feeling that they must support Iran's courageous protesters. After all, the Twittering Green Revolutionaries, as the rightwing brain sees it, are marching in the name of George W. Bush's own vision of a "democratic Middle East," the same vision that led him to occupy Iran's next-door neighbor. ("That's not meddling at all," says conservative conventional wisdom poobah Fred Barnes. "That's supporting the people who see America as a model that they like to emulate.") Yet at the same time, the GOP worries about the meaning of an eventual Mousavi victory in the streets--neocons in particular have openly hoped for Ahmadinejad's survival, for fear that a more reasonable face on the Islamic Revolution might preclude future opportunities for either us or Israel to bomb Iran back to the 7th Century (where Ahmadinejad would like to take his country anyway).

And worst of all, if the demonstrations bring about a regime change in Tehran, the world might well ascribe it, as they have the election of moderates in Lebanon, to the Obama Effect and his Cairo speech. That would be a neocon catastrophe, quite possibly sweeping us toward a moderate, compromised resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well (before Netanyahu and crew have settled all the land they want). So folks like California congressman Dana Rohrabacher are now calling Obama a "cream puff"--since, after all, he won't sing along with "bomb-bomb-bomb..."

Never mind that taking sides in the Iranian conflict would give the Ahmadinejad supporters a plausible excuse to blame America for what is so clearly a domestic dispute and grant them the perfect excuse to use overwhelming violence. But any victory without the use of force simply has no flavor for the GOP. And besides, there's a special Tehranian tic buried deep in the Republican party.

It was, after all, the 1979 hostage crisis that paved the way for Ronald Reagan's presidency, and it was his decision to sell arms to the ayatollahs in order to raise a slush fund to fight the Sandinistas that shattered faith in his honesty. Persia tasks the GOP like a black whale (it has ever since the West lost control of those oil fields), and there is almost no law of man or nature they won't try to overthrow to get it back.

It's this imperative that has led Republican talking heads into such conniptions of pretzel logic. Days before the election, Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum at the conservative Hoover Institute, said he'd vote for Ahmadinejad because "I would prefer to have an enemy who's forthright, blatant, and obvious." Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute added that a Moussavi win would make it "easier for Obama to believe that Iran really was figuratively unclenching a fist when, in fact, it had its other hand hidden under its cloak, grasping a dagger."

No, no, say some slightly less extreme wingers: Rooting for Ahmadinejad is a "cynical calculation," says Indiana Congressman Mike Pence. And yet, because he feels the need to press Obama wherever possible, he goes on to complain that "in the cause of freedom America cannot be neutral, cannot be in the business of making careful, short-term calculations." Today, the House passed a toned-down version of Pence's resolution (co-sponsored by Dem Howard Berman of California) condemning Tehran's crackdown on dissidents. Some of the more virulent Iraq-war pushers have even blamed Obama for the stolen election itself. "These people are thugs and they have been emboldened by our weakness," says neocon nabob Frank Gaffney.

See how it works? Obama is weak because he won't scream denunciations at Ahmadinejad; if only he would, then Ahmadinejad would have a more secure hold on power--which (to complete the circle) is what the neocons not-so-secretly wanted in the first place.

Bush first nibbled at the pretzel of U.S.-Iranian relations right after he came to power. President Mohammad Khatemi had been elected in 1997 on a promise of reform, leading many in the West to suggest the possibility of a rapprochement with Tehran back then. But once the U.S. Supreme Court put Bush into office, he immediately began squashing any such cream-puffery, and once 9/11 happened and he fixated on invading Iraq, all hope was lost. The 2003 invasion provoked Ahmadinejad's election in 2005 and hardened his determination to pursue nuclear power, thus laying the groundwork for Iranian intransigence and a nice, long-lasting conflict that hardliners on both sides feed on.

But the odd truth is that people get tired of all the shouting and sick of fighting wars. So the calm and cautious Barack Obama was elected over the truculent and reckless John McCain (old "Bomb-bomb" is now knocking Obama for being "tepid"), and now we have the season of Republicans tying themselves into knots. Last week, after eight years of denouncing Democrats for "betraying the troops" if they so much as discussed voting against funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the House GOP voted almost to a man against the military appropriations bill because of a few minor Democratic attachments (they weren't "betraying the troops," they were standing for fiscal sanity).

One thing about being lost in the wilderness, you lose your sense of direction.

How Bill O'Reilly Sleeps at Night

In 2002, I was on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss why the media were so lustily attacking Martha Stewart for insider trading while men involved in much larger financial scandals, like Enron's Kenneth Lay and Tyco's Dennis Kozlowski, were relatively ho-hummed off the stage. When O'Reilly and I wrapped up our little skirmish, he smiled and told me off air, "People love this stuff!"

For anyone who's ever watched O'Reilly, there's nothing surprising about his cynical suggestion that it's all for show (maybe it's a mild jolt that he thought even a leftwing lunatic like me might enjoy performing in his theater of conflict, as if being bullied were a chance to preen for the camera). Besides, acknowledging that he tries only to provide the overwrought bluster the Foxy masses crave doesn't prove that O'Reilly doesn't believe everything that comes out of his mouth.

But it does make you wonder about how casually he takes on beliefs. Monday night, in defending himself from charges that as the leader of the "Tiller the Baby Killer" media attack, O'Reilly played the "Words don't kill people, guns do" media defense. (Although O'Reilly is quick to blame the liberal media's words for all sorts of violence and mayhem, as Keith Olbermann points out.)

O'Reilly briefly explained--after Dr. George Tiller was murdered, not before--why vigilantism and murdering those with whom you disagree is wrong. Then, he spent the rest of the four minutes bolstering his story--"no back-pedaling here...every single thing we said about Tiller was true"--and performing the old "I'm the victim" Fox-trot. "When I heard about Tiller's murder," he said, "I knew pro-abortion zealots and Fox News haters would attempt to blame us for the crime, and that is exactly what has happened."

I especially like the part where he plays the scientist: "My analysis was based on those facts." "Facts" like these about Tiller, as Salon found:

 

He's guilty of "Nazi stuff," said O'Reilly on June 8, 2005; a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida, he suggested on March 15, 2006. "This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union," said O'Reilly on Nov. 9, 2006.

 

While attempting to legally cover his butt, O'Reilly has come closer than anyone in the media in calling for something to be done about Tiller:

 

And if I could get my hands on Tiller--well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech.

 

But despicable? Oh, my God. Oh, it doesn't get worse. Does it get worse? No.

 

Of course, as long as O'Reilly doesn't directly tell an individual to commit violence, he has the freedom of speech to go right up to that line, and then scurry away.

While O'Reilly takes on "far left zealots" like former 60 Minutes producer Mary Mapes and the Daily News's Helen Kennedy (who had the nerve to call his Tiller attacks "rants"), he carefully doesn't address Frank Schaeffer, the former religious right activist who now, with almost painful honesty, writes, "I share the blame (with many others) for the murder of Dr. George Tiller."

Schaeffer also says that many of the anti-abortion groups and media figures who are publicly distancing themselves from Tiller's murder are likely popping open the champagne in private. In other words, he demolishes the whole "words don't kill" charade:

But Bill doesn't--or won't--see responsiblity and morality in such nuanced terms. I think he's perfectly capable of understanding moral gray grounds. But it wouldn't be the sort of stuff that people love.

 

Sotomayor's Seditious Syllables

Of all the comically desperate attacks on Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor last week--she belongs to the "Latino KKK" (Tom Tancredo), she's a "Hispanic lady chick" and a "Marxist" (Glenn Beck), she's "racist" (Beck, Newt, Tucker, Coulter, Rush, to mention a few)--the only one with real conservative cojones is the charge that real Americans are being forced to "unnaturally" emphasize the last syllable of her name instead of the first. Get us by the short tilde and our hearts and minds will follow.

"Are we supposed to use the Spanish pronunciation, so-toe-my-OR, or the natural English pronunciation, SO-tuh-my-er...," asked the now Worst Person-ed Mark Krikorian, a National Review blogger and the executive director of the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies. "Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English," he went on, "and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn't be giving in to."

Even before Krikorian so boldly spelled out the offense, you could feel the annoyance among conservatives over the extra work the judge's name requires. Joe Scarborough (or, for those troubled by the almost French lilt of that last syllable, Scarboruff) announced he was going to have problems pronouncing her name. But really, Joe, it's not like anyone's asking you to trill your R's or something. (He's gone on to say that he's not siding with the Limbaughian name-calling, because "this doesn't elect Republicans.")

I admit, though, the first time I said "Sotomayor," I mangled it, too, as I do most unfamiliar names. But I got it the next time and now delight in lifting suddenly to that high mesa of OR.

Krikorian's line of attack has chutzpah, but it's hardly nuevo. It's always there, just under the surface, especially when some high-falutin' liberal speaks a foreign word fluently, or asks for Dijon mustard. Everytime Obama has pronounced "Pakistan" like a native (as POCK-i-stahn), the suspicions bubble over: It's an "exotic pronunciation," another National Review writer griped during the campaign, while a commenter elsewhere wrote, "he pronounces it just as his teachings in the Muslim religion has taught him to pronounce it."

The hunt for seditious syllables is part of a larger, right-wing obsession with race, gender, and purity--and it's of a piece with the cranked-up fear of Gitmo detainees touching "U.S. soil."

Of course, anybody, including lefties, can obsess about purity, hygienic or political. But, as Nicholas Kristof wrote in the Times on Thursday, studies suggest that "conservatives are more likely than liberals to sense contamination or perceive disgust."

That would explain some of the efforts by the Republican "base" to remove moderates like Colin Powell like so much used Kleenex; those easily icked-off also seem to go for impossibly tidy either/or-isms, a la Dick Cheney's edict that in the fight against terrorism, there's "no middle ground."

"There are basically two options," Krikorian seems to concur, "--the newcomer adapts to us, or we adapt to him. And multiculturalism means there's a lot more of the latter going on than there should be."

Krikorian, whose name is Armenian, has taken plenty of hits this week about knocking a Spanish surname when his own hardly rolls off the tongue. (Daily Kos blogger Allan Brauer refers to him as "Mr. Kirk," because "typing his full name exhausts me, so I'll just continue to refer to him by his superior, Americanized name...")

You can already see the Col-BER Re-POR skit taking shape (the show was in reruns last week), in which Colbert rationalizes the umbrage he takes at Sotomayor's unnatural last syllable while taking bombastic pride in his own.

And true to Colbert's satire, the right's notion of who should conform to what is highly selective and all about ego. Has the conservative punditry complained, for example, about John Boehner's insistence that his surname be pronouced BAY-ner? Shouldn't the House Minority leader of the United States Congress conform to the natural English pronunciation of "oe" as a long "o"?

But wingers tend not to correct other wingers' names--even when they're, sacre bleu!, French. Congressman Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) is not Steven La TUR-et; Tom DeLay was never Tom DEL-ay; likewise, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), has been allowed to keep that uppercase "M," even though it forces an Old World, last syllable dominance.

In fact, by angling to Americanize foreign-sounding names (or at least those of SCOTUS nominees favored by the Democrat Party), the right is acting positively French! The Academie Francaise goes on annual bouts of banning English words, like happy hour and podcasting, and replacing them with francophonics: la bonne heure and telechargement pour baladeur.

Maybe Republicans should make an annual ritual of knocking on doors and telling people what the proper pronunciation of their names should be. Because, as Mark Krikorian says, "our predecessors were too insistent on conformity, now we're not insistent enough."

Cheney vs. Obama: Banking on Fear

As rational, soaring, and adult-ready as Barack Obama's speech before the shrine of the Constitution in the National Archives was--and, in contrast, as full of retreaded lies as Dick Cheney's Personal Prosecution Protection Plan before the rightwing American Enterprise Institute was--the former vice was already hanging ten on a fear wave. The day before, the Republicans drew a blind fear response from the Democratically controlled Senate, which voted 90-6 against funding the closing of Guantanamo.

With that vote, the Dems returned to their customary defensive crouch. But it's not entirely their fault. Obama's White House made a basic mistake when it failed to recognize that if you leave a bunch of beaten dogs alone in the backyard for a week with the person who beat them, they'll whine and mewl and suck up to that abusive master all over again.

It doesn't matter that Cheney is on the other side of the fence now and can no longer hurt them. Old habits die hard, and it takes a firm hand to get a yellow dog up out of the middle of the road and home where it belongs.

Where was Obama as video of orange-garbed Gitmo prisoners were being splayed across TV for the past few weeks? The fandango about the suspected terrorists (or simply "the terrorists," as most media call them) spiraled into deeper and deeper sinkholes of illogic with each passing day. Gitmoers, we were told, are going to bust outta the local jail, or worse, assemble Islamofacist gangs while in Supermax solitary lockdown; then they'll hold a habeas corpus carved out of soap to some hapless guard's head and walk out into the sunny suburbs, scot-free. Never mind that they're not U.S. citizens and have not a scintilla of a chance to be legally released among the citizenry.

Nonetheless, the cowed Dems ran at the very prospect of ads like the Senate Republican web spot that went up earlier this month (and that Rachel Maddow skewered beautifully), or this one, a sort of Daisy Girl Goes to Gitmo, released today by RNC:

In his speech, Obama sympathized with the quaking souls of his fellow Party members, saying, "These issues are fodder for 30-second commercials and direct-mail pieces that are designed to frighten. I get it."

Get a grip, European-style socialists! There's plenty of evidence that the American people want to turn the page on all that fear and doubt. A vast majority desperately wants Barack Obama to be their knight in shining armor, hoping he will modestly rewrite the social contract in a way that eases their economic burdens, gets us out of wars we can't afford, and moves toward the universal health care that every other developed country takes for granted.

But if we're supposed to have his back, then he's got to have ours as well. And as long as Obama lets bankers and their friends, like Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, stay in power, Americans will have nagging doubts about who's on whose side.

This is where domestic and national security issues come together in a single Gordian Knot. Watching Cheney's sneering performance, the thought hit home that the real power in America doesn't come from the barrel of a gun but from the threat of a pink slip. Sure, Wall Street is unpopular now, resented and derided around the world, but Cheney's very persistence on the stage (and the lickspittle obeisance he got from much of the media, which raised him to be Obama's--and not, say, Bobby Jindal's--split-screen equal) was a warning that FDR's "malefactors of great wealth" are still standing just behind the curtain.

Remember: Not a single major banking chief has been fired for the financial scandals yet; Geithner recently announced that no caps will be placed on executive salaries; and his nominee for the number-two post at the Treasury Department is Neal Wolin, who helped write the bank deregulations that triggered the capitalist collapse in the first place. If the people can't feel certain that Obama's going to defend them from such gimlet-eyed sharks, they're going to be less likely to stand up to Cheney when he plays scary organ music about our physical safety.

Of course, neither Obama nor Cheney spoke directly about the banking bailouts or rising unemployment on Thursday morning. But the back-to-back speeches make clear how much of Obama's foreign policy depends on the success of his domestic economic agenda, and vice versa. Sure, Cheney's lies were preposterous, as Lawrence O'Donnell energetically noted immediately after the speech:

But Cheney's aura of authority--complete with rising poll numbers!--is no lie: It stems not only from his masterful fear-mongering, but from the fact that he still speaks from the commanding heights of the ecomony. The former CEO of Halliburton who devised U.S. energy policy with a secret cabal of oil executives represents the industrial and financial elite, whose largesse paid for the microphone he used at AEI. What many of us heard as Cheney talked about "enhanced interrogation techniques," 9/11, and security for das Homeland was the suggestion that, ultimately, he could still hire or fire us all.

We're beginning to see the limits of Obama's moderation, the checks it puts on just how effective a Chief Protector he can be for the middle-class, much less for the poor. While we look on enthralled by Obama's elegance and calm reason, Cheney waits like a troll under the bridge, watching for the slightest misstep. What I fear is that Obama hasn't made enough of a change from the Bush-Cheney-Paulsen economic model to keep us from falling back into a financial Charybdis.

Hex Mex

Amid the anti-Mexican media hysteria festering since the outbreak of swine flu, Dave Letterman's portrayal last week of potential Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as a hot-blooded Hispanic Judge Judy wasn't the ugliest stereotyping of Latinos. It was actually weak tea compared to the mouth-foamings of Jay Severin, the Boston radio host who called Mexicans "leeches," "the world's lowest of primitives," and exporters of "women with mustaches and VD." WTKK-FM has suspended but hasn't fired Severin, even as some advertisers have bailed.

No, Letterman's bit was far more mainstream, and more feasibly "acceptable" than, say, the kneeslappers of Betsy Perry, a branding consultant whose Huffpost musings about Mexican "banditos" and "the Mexican help with hands washed in parasite-infested tap water" resulted in Mayor Bloomberg axing her from the New York City Women's Issues Commission. Clearly, not all Perry's issues are about women. (She has since apologized.)

With the rightwing smuggling in the lie that immigrants are responsible for swine flu in the U.S. (when, in fact, it's been spread here primarily by Americans who've visited Mexico), Mexicans have been, of course, the prime target of the most rancid typecasting. But once the type has been cast, it has jumped easily to Latinos of any origins. A summa cum laude graduate at Princeton, an editor of the Yale Law Journal, now a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and a Bronx native raised by her single mom (like Obama), Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican descent, and so this:

Not even a gulp from the Morning Joe gang. Mika laughed, and Willie Geist mumbled something about "fit for the Supreme Court." We may never learn whether Sotomayor is or isn't "fit," because before we or the Senate Judiciary Committee see her in reality, we'll visualize that hot tamale from the courtroom TV show losing control of her fellow Hispanic hotheads.

This particular ethnic skewering seems out of character for Letterman, who often slices through idiot-think brilliantly. Maybe he was, as conservative blogger Ann Althouse suggests, "mocking the mocking of Sotomayor." What is up? I asked a Letterman show spokesperson, who answered, "We're going to decline comment on this."

Whatever Dave's intentions, the Sotomayor brand he's helped put into play seems to have grown out of a controversial post, "The Case Against Sotomayor," by The New Republic's legal correspondent Jeffrey Rosen. Relying primarily on anonymous former law clerks as sources and admitting that he didn't research Sotomayor's opinions much, Rosen nevertheless deduced that "the most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was 'not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench.'" His unnamed sources, he wrote, questioned "her temperament...and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices." One of the unnamed said another unnamed said, "she's not the brainiest." From that, a National Review blogger further deduced that Sotomayor is "dumb and obnoxious."

Rosen has since backpedaled a bit, and testimonies to Sotomayor's intellect ("she'd be the kind of justice who could change some minds")and temperament ("one of the best mentors I've ever had") are coming in from named sources. But, as Media Matters asks, in a terrific, detailed piece, "Where does Sonia Sotomayor go to get her reputation back?" A TPM commenter adds, "It's this allegation about intelligence that most deeply plays into the hands of anti-'affirmative action' conservatives who just love to suggest that this woman, despite graduating summa cum laude at Princeton and so on, isn't as smart as a white guy."

Maybe playing fast and loose with Latino caricatures isn't the best idea in times of plague and economic dislocation. Remember how Jews were blamed for bringing the Black Death to Europe in the 14th century, setting off the mother of all pogroms?

Last week, Maria Hinojosa, senior correspondent for NOW on PBS and managing editor of NPR's Latino USA, spoke about how swine flu hysteria is hitting home. On New York radio's The Brian Lehrer Show, Hinojosa said a friend of hers, a domestic worker in Spanish Harlem, told her that she was recently "hassled by groups of women who said, 'Go ahead, tell them you're sick.'" Later that same day, she "was hassled again on the bus, and she saw a group of women physically push a Mexican man away."

"This has very human consequences," said Hinojosa, who is amazed that "in 2009...all of us here, suddenly we have to protect the lives of Americanos in New York City. It's crazy."

Hinojosa also cited the case of Luis Ramirez, a 25-year-old Mexican immigrant who was killed 10 months ago in the predominantly white town of Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, apparently for walking with a white woman.

"A group of teenagers beat him to a pulp, beating his head in till his brains came out," said Hinojosa. "All of them, last week, just a few hours from here, were found nonguilty, only guilty of lesser charges, and in the courtroom when that was announced there was a crowd of cheers and applause.

"That's the country that we live in and the area that encompasses all of us."

Contam-i-Nation

What sort of psychological bent would lead people to want to be part of a dead-end political party like the GOP?

Clearly, fear--stirring it as well as succumbing to it--is central to such a psyche, and Republicans are swinging that big spiked mace as wildly as if it were the night before a bitterly contested election. This Web ad that came out last week isn't from Michael Savage or Glenn Beck (more from them later) but from House minority leader John Boehner and intel committee ranking Republican Pete Hoekstra.

Actually, we do feel safer, most people would say. The world doesn't hate us quite as much now that a president is offering a handshake instead of the finger, and we're not alienating our allies now that we're not asking them to jump off the Geneva Convention while screaming "Yee-ha!" all the way down.

The strange thing is that Repubs are still producing this kind of National Security theater, complete with cardiac arrest-soundtrack, even though it's failed time and again over the past two years in campaign ads for Tom Tancredo, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and just about every other doomed GOP hopeful.

At some point the vaunted Republican noise machine stopped being about winning elections and became instead a feckless attempt at mass justification, popping out one lame excuse after another for the party's failures. And it was a short leap from there to simply hitting rewind on the rightwing's longtime romance with a Lost Cause. Like Southerners still waving the stars'n'bars 150 years after Appomattox, or Col. Custer blithely riding up that coulee into an overwhelming force of Sioux and Cheyenne warriors, today's Repub diehards will go to their graves muttering about the fascist-socialist-gun-snatching tyranny of Barack Osama, convincing themselves sotto voce that, by fighting for a lower tax-rate for the extremely wealthy, they're the true descendants of the American Revolution. As the teabag-besotted begillionaire Mitt Romney told a Republican crowd this weekend, with no apparent sense of his own absurdity, "We are the party of the revolutionaries, they [Democrats] are the party of the monarchists."

That new study indicating that conservatives might not quite understand that Stephen Colbert's wingnut rants are devastating mockery rings true. Because not understanding isn't just a failure to get the joke, it's a defense mechanism: Without a certain level of cluelessness, the whole party would be knocking around in an unstatesmanlike manner, blurting, "My God, what have I done?" Isn't it simpler to insist, as Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe does, that Arlen Specter's flight from the GOP is exactly what the party needs to regain control of both the House and the Senate? "This is the first visible evidence that what happened in 1993 is happening again now," Inhofe told Fox News, sounding like Caligula claiming that treasure chests of seashells were his tribute from Neptune for defeating the sea.

Why are these marble men so determined to resurrect dead, failed ideas? It isn't simply because they don't have new ones (which they don't). There's also a psychological payoff to committing yourself to a bankrupt idea--whether it's the odd notion that cutting taxes will save us from our economic crisis of liquidity, or the disproved theory that abstinence-only education will decrease teen pregnancies.

The sad fact is, fidelity to a Lost Cause valorizes you, it imitates honor. So the Republican Party isn't about greed or power or any base selfishness; rather, it's about nobly committing to something larger than itself--ending abortion, spreading democracy by force, saving Terri Schiavo, or, as of late, saving the GOP itself from knowledge of itself. Never mind that none of those commitments is remotely achievable, even the last.

For the kingdom of Lost Cause Republicans is not of this world. This world is corrupt and fallen. But there is another world where all of our desires, be they sleeping with 72 virgins or living tax-free, will be fulfilled, and heavenly justice will prevail.

The beauty part about a Lost Cause is that you don't have to struggle to find practical political solutions--that would require compromise and make you impure. Instead, you only have to make gestures and think magically. As Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina said, "The best way to get to 60 is to have a core group of Republicans who really do what they say and stand for their principles."

To achieve purity, whether in a body politic or an individual body, you must be ever vigilant for contaminants. Corruption could come in the form of compromising on a stimulus package or saying something rude about Rush, or, this season, in the form of actual viruses. (Some GOPers conflated H1N1 with Specter by dubbing his defection as "The Swine Flew.")

That is, purity requires paranoia, and what better paranoid fantasy of (white) purity befouled (by darker races) is there than the Mexican Immigrant Swine Flu Bioterrorist plot? See, says hate radio's Michael Savage, the pandemic's source isn't pigs but Islamofacist terrorists who may have "concocted this virus and planted it in Mexico," knowing full well that Mexican immigrants are the "perfect mules for bringing this virus into America."

For Glenn Beck, the virus itself is the ruse, cleverly designed to put baby-killers in charge of the department of Health and Human Services. "She [Kathleen Sebelius] can be confirmed right out of the gate because of this swine flu. So don't look over here, look at the swine flu, look at the swine flu, look at the swine flu. And she just goes right through the gate."

Unclean! Unclean! They've all come back, those Goldwater-era obsessions--commie infiltration, brains getting washed, contaminants you can't wash out. And now, from crazy-eyed Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Obama's "re-education camps."

Wait, haven't we seen this movie before?

What's an honest American to do besides take that long, last ride into the purity of a blinding flash of white?

Syndicate content
Close