The Angry Right: Why Conservatives Keep Getting It Wrong

[kurth]

The Angry Right: Why Conservatives Keep Getting It Wrong (Hardcover)
S. T. Joshi

"The Angry Right" uses case studies of right wing psychotics to answer the baffling question: Why are these people so full of rage? "Since 1968, Republican presidents have occupied the White House far longer than Democratic presidents, and recently Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress as well. In spite of these electoral triumphs, leading spokespersons on the right continue to depict conservatives as an embattled minority. Lashing out at their liberal opponents, sharp-tongued partisan advocates like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity never tire of issuing jeremiads against what they perceive as the inexorable tide of liberal abuses that threatens to overwhelm the Republic. But if Republicans have won the battle at the voting booths, why is the right so angry?

As S. T. Joshi reveals in this incisive profile of twelve leading conservatives, the rage at the heart of the right is fueled by a gnawing sense that conservatives long ago lost the hearts and minds of the American people. Since the F.D.R. administration, conservatives have unsuccessfully opposed legislative and judicial reforms that today are considered so mainstream as to be "conservative." In effect, yesterday’s liberalism is today’s conservatism, and this has been the direction of social and political change since the age of the Flappers and the Model T.

Examining the writings of such conservative icons as Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley Jr, Phyllis Schlafly, and nine others, Joshi uncovers statements that most people today would consider not just radical but outrageous: · In the 1950s, Russell Kirk opposed Social Security because he said it was "un-Christian." · In the same decade, William F. Buckley Jr. argued against the desegregation of public schools on the grounds that it would be an infringement of states’ rights (an argument also used a century earlier to defend slavery). · In the 1970s, Phyllis Schlafly declared that women’s liberation is a "disease" and a "homewrecker." Knowing that these positions are today indefensible, conservative spokespersons have little recourse but to engage in passionate invective that attempts to portray their opponents as extremists. Joshi characterizes the aggrieved lament of conservatives as the last gasp of those who know their ideas will be confined to the dustbin of history."

Perhaps the radical right is so furious and full of hysteria because they have lost the culture wars. Evolution and modernity make them a cancerous school of fish swimming against the tide of history. They must now rely on stolen elections and the unceasing Orwellian cudgel of terrorism to accomplish their goals, because otherwise they are Victorians clutching on to their handbags of reactionary platitudes and threats. Of course, some of the wingers are in it for the money. Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly are entertainers, carnival barkers for the GOP who know that the shriller they get, the more dollars they receive. Their value as commodities are in direct proportion to their irrational diatribes against the "liberals," who happens to be anybody that doesn't board the corporate gravy train...

http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/311

[ms liberty]

1. This looks good! K&R n/t

[rman]

2. Interesting perspective

Sounds to me they indeed lost the hearts and minds of the people a long time ago. Comparing where we are to where the Right would want us to be, they aren't exactly winning, in spite of their electoral victories.

[xchrom]

3. k&r -- and let me underscore this:

''Perhaps the radical right is so furious and full of hysteria because they have lost the culture wars. Evolution and modernity make them a cancerous school of fish swimming against the tide of history. They must now rely on stolen elections and the unceasing Orwellian cudgel of terrorism to accomplish their goals, because otherwise they are Victorians clutching on to their handbags of reactionary platitudes and threats.''

this makes them dangerous.

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. I like this article.

But prepare yourself, because it means the right will never relent in their effort to show they are being discriminated against, though everything indicates that they continue to get away with crimes that involve political abuse of office:

This topic is getting more attention. I wrote in another thread, We need to be prepared for their last throes. In response to your observation that right-wingers are thin-skinned, I say, be prepared for an all out emotional flanking maneuver once they lose power. Be prepared for more Waco style private encampments, and when a Democratically controlled government even attempts to regulate order, the rest of them will snap and accuse us of being fascists.

This will continue until we show the world their little dark secrets:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1980352&mesg_id=1980352

[Lasher]

5. Filled with righteous indignation...

and looking for a reason to justify the sentiment.

[Jade Fox]

6. related articles....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-slater/the-neocon-misunderstand_b_18995.html

http://www.philipslater.com/

[Festivito]

7. Good perspective. But, I still think it's deeper and more sinister.

Egos and parentage pull these people into idealoguism. Really it's fear of losing their money and power that drives them.

They're not angry. They're scared.

[loudestchick]

8. I've found that most people who are angry are actually afraid...same dif.

[struggle4progress]

9. Loud anger is simply a tactic, designed to buy time while the wingnuts ..

.. consolidate control.

The tactic is useful because most people want to avoid conflict and don't know much about the issues under discussion: thus, confronted with a hostile and apparently self-confident opponent, many people will back down, assuming that "the truth is somewhere in the middle" and can be approximated by averaging the loud angry assertion whatever quiet rational analysis "provoked" the anger.

The net material effect is that large portions of the population step back and wait, a bit stunned; and the ideological effect is that the political center creeps over to support whoever is making the loud angry noises.