|
People were terrified of WWIII after * bombed Iran. They were afraid of the imposition of martial law and suspension of voting or of the 2009 inauguration. They were afraid of all sorts of things. And we constantly heard that * was going to 'starve the beast' and his reign augured the imminent imposition of fascism--which, as we were all reminded, was a close alliance of corporations and government. We were going to have humongous inflation because of $450 billion/year deficits.
I mean, when the national emergency law was rewritten people were terrified. Well, some, at least. The law was horrible, they said--how is it possible?
Now it's flipped. Instead of "starve the beast" we have "bankrupt the country." Those arguing that $450 billion deficits were too huge now balk that a $1.4 trillion is too small. Instead of Bush fascism, we hear that (a) Obama is a fascist or that (b) he is a socialist. Instead of bombing everything in sight he just wants to give it away.
Those that argued that speaking truth to power was always good, that dissent is the highest form of patriotism, that anonymous sources when exposing governmental wrongdoing were great and understandable, and that as soon as you decried somebody as "unpatriotic" or questioned their loyalty you'd crossed the line into unreasonable hyperpartisanship now tend to believe that speaking truth to power is bad, that dissent is to be squashed, that anonymous sources when exposing government wrongdoing are evil and can't possibly be comprehended, and that it's insane not to recognize people as unpatriotic and question their loyalty if they disagree.
So that we have somebody saying that the role of the President's office and the US government--forever the oppressed, weak underdog, one must assume--is to speak truth to power by arguing with Fox News. Right.
The root of their fears is the same as the root of the fears of many on DU in '2007. They (both) have utter distrust and contempt for the other side, and while they are willing to find justification for those in their own tribe they are more than willing to go to find and ascribe devious and malicious motives for those on the other side. The other side is fully dehumanized in terms, often, that slave owners from 1850 or Jim Crow advocates from 1950 or Joe McCarthy or Lunacharsky would recognize--they're stupid, shiftless, devious, cunning, lazy, ignorant, industrious, selfish, backwards, incapable of telling the truth, and this is not just from lacking education but from genetics. Hell, their "masters" even have *real* masters behind the scenes, and they're serving some nefarious end that, fortunately (only) we understand--they're out to get our women/money/property/goats. They aren't really people, not like us. They need masters, and we're the ones to be their masters for their own good--we even understand them better than they understand themselves. So it's up to us to save the world/country/pizza. Whatever.
Such people, from either party, often seem more interested in their egos and their group membership/identity than they are in understanding anything much more serious than their (own) navel lint. I'd say that they should be ignored, but whichever side they're on they're dangerous because, once they get critical mass, they become the demagogues and demagogue enablers that can create real problems. Sadly, both sides at time seem to consider these loons to be the best from among their tribe.
|