U.S. Fundamentalism & Divisiveness

I find Glenn Beck very dangerous.

This is a man who has hoped, on national television, for another terrorist attack on America so that Americans will be scared enough to accept a defense policy that Beck believes will make us safe from terrorists....

This is a man who says that the President hates white people... inciting serious racial tensions...

I wish we could write Beck off as a joke - most intelligent people would - except that not every viewer is terribly bright, and even many who have the intellectual capacity are simultaneously, and willfully, ignorant regarding a great many issues. And on top of that, you have those who are already bigoted.

Beck is not the only one. O'Reily, Lou Dodds, Hannity, and nearly every one else on Fox News consistently preaches racist doctrine and jingoistic, self-destructive policy. These people are relied upon by millions of Americans for the news, for perspective. The result is the infection of millions of Americans by the most dangerous, wooden-headed, hateful, and self-destructive ideas these men and women are willing to air on television - and if you watch them, you know that they feel few restraints.

As I recall, the Southern Poverty Law Center has issued some statements regarding the racism of at least Lou Dobbs. I would imagine they have addressed some of the others as well.

How much fear and hatred do these people need to whip up among their audiences before one of those dingbats takes matters in his own hands?

Thought this was interesting. Its an article (or more like a snippet) on Glen Beck, his racist comment, and the consequences.

Ad Attacks: Black Blogger Alliance Hits Talk Show Host Where It Hurts

Interesting though how the issue has not gotten that much publicity on the major networks, especially since the petition had over 100,000 people on it. People were all over Imus, so why not Beck. It's probably the ratings though. I do find it lame that the advertisers did not leave the network though, just the spot. It seems like if you were going to protest the content of a network, you would want to make it an effective protest rather than a reshuffled publicity move. LOL!

The more interesting part about all of this is that any news coverage on other networks just draws more viewers to the Glen Beck program. maybe thats why there is not that much coverage.

That's their model - Howard Stern style except instead of sex these talking heads peddle insane political babel.

I suspect that Americans are becoming increasingly fractured along political lines and that this reflects the economic fracturing of the US along rich/poor lines with the decline of your middle class. A robust middle class operates as a buffer that discourages political extremism from either side, constantly seeking moderate, measured progress. The rise of the rentier class has created real economic and social costs that average Americans, swept up in the decade of the cheap money bacchanal, are only beginning to recognize.

Could it get to the point where rank and file Americans will have to choose between progressivism or serfdom?

Time to start the revolution.

---------- Post added 09-04-2009 at 03:28 PM ----------

The problem with that assumption is that both parties have their own agendas and they don't necessarily fit with current cliche conceptions. Rightists have historically been in favor of of independent state rights as opposed to democratic federalism (although it was not for the best of purposes). Democrats on the other had have been increasingly eager to put more government oversight and control in private concerns. So honestly, who is the authoritarian and who is the liberalist. This seems like more of an illusion than the more defined "leftists" or "rightists."

I'm not talking about popular definitions of political terms currently in use.

It doesn't matter what the historic ideals of left vs. right are, there is only one agenda being represented currently in the US. The "illusion" is the public's perception of what each party stands for ie: Democrats represent the left and Republicans represent the right. Candidates for both parties hire PR firms during election time. The PR firm researches public opinion and builds a campaign to sell that candidate to the public. The public makes certain assumptions from the campaign about what the candidate represents, and the candidate who's PR firm does the best job, wins. The candidate is from a relatively small pool of like-minded people, with ties to large corporations, and schooled with the doctrine of the establishment. If the candidate were anything else, he or she would have been weeded out a long time before they reached this point. Now elected, the candidate proceeds to do exactly what the corporate donors to the campaign expect. Even, if the candidate tries to do something different, the system will not allow something too far out of the norm to come to fruition. Occasionally, public outcry will require a couple of bones to be tossed their way to quell an uprising or something, but it can be sufficiently watered down, to not be a problem. The difference between the "left" and "right" in the US at the moment is which industries each represent. Left and right are only words and can be manipulated to conjure up emotions among the public.

Here's the news flash: corporations guide the policies of the government and they like authoritarian power when they can control it. (Think of all the corporate friendly, third-world dictators that receive US support, although some require plausible deniability.) Our democracy "of, by, and for the people" is a puppet of the corporations - weak where they want it to be, and strong where they want it to be.

The people should have the power to guide their lives and their government. A left-wing authoritarian won't allow that any more than a right-wing authoritarian. Whatever differences exist between leftist and rightist on paper is subtle compared to the 600 pound authoritarian gorilla that's sitting in the room.

I saw a bumper sticker that read: "Concentration camps or Gulags: The choice is yours"

I keep hearing and seeing more evidence that this political/ideological rift is widening and becoming more widely recognized as a real problem (another article this morning at this link - given here as a particularly good example).

Does anyone still think this is just another passing phase? ... no more or less significant than political/ideological rifts in the past?

Thanks

As an observer of American politics, it appears very fearful of anything radical and its shows its disagreement in a most volatile manner. The right appears to be very good at mobilizing its troops, to send the most terrible messages of derision to the present president. We do give our politicians at least three years before we judge them so harshly.

There's a book called the Second Civil War by Ronald Brownstein. In it he basically describes the degree of partisanship in each phase that American politics has gone through.

He starts with the first age which he dubs the Age of Partisan Armies, according to him this phase lasts from 1896-1938. Out of all periods, this is the one most like our own.

The second phase he calls the Age of Bargaining, the most bipartisan era of all. The seeds of this era were planted in 1937 and it had a profound effect on how politicians behaved. Almost all major decisions required bipartisan consensus until 1964, when things began to change yet again.

The third age, the Age of Transition began in 1965 and lasted until the mid 1990s. This age saw a systematic decline in the bipartisan practices and thinking that dominated the Age of Bargaining eventually leading to the fourth age.

The fourth era is the era of our own time frame,dubbed the Age of Hyperpartisanship, deleterious stagnation in Washington and unnecessary polarization in the media and the masses are notable traits of this era.

The book makes valid points and in the later chapters, he offers reforms as to what can be done to prevent the further rise and spread hyperpartisanship such as all states adopting the jungle primary system practiced by Louisiana.

Not to beat a dead horse (but if I have to abuse a carcass I will), but there is no 'right.' There are fascists who drape themselves in red and fascists who drape themselves in blue...and morons who vote based on colors. Don't be a moron. Don't vote for either major party, and don't accept the false right-left dichotomy. Decide if you're an individualist or a collectivist and vote accordingly.