In the 1960s the right wing in America was in a rage. The ascension of Earl Warren to the Supreme Court in 1953 and the Court's subsequent turn toward an activist liberalism, meant that the country, like it or not, was propelled into a period of judicial activism marked by progressive policies and limitations of executive power. This was anathema to those on the Right, who found themselves threatened with repudiation and marginalization. From Wikipedia:
To the surprise of many, Warren was a much more liberal justice than had been anticipated. As a result, President Eisenhower is perhaps apocryphally said to have remarked that nominating Warren for the Chief Justice seat was "the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made."[2] Warren was able to craft a long series of landmark decisions including Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954), which overthrew the segregation of public schools; the "one man, one vote" cases of 1962–1964, which dramatically altered the relative power of rural regions in many states; Hernandez v. Texas, which gave Mexican-Americans the right to serve on juries; and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), which required that certain rights of a person being interrogated while in police custody be clearly explained, including the right to an attorney (often called the "Miranda warning").
The Far Right reacted with unhinged anger:
Warren retired from the Supreme Court in 1969. He was affectionately known by many as the "Superchief," although he became a lightning rod for controversy among conservatives: signs declaring "Impeach Earl Warren" could be seen around the country throughout the 1960s. The unsuccessful impeachment drive was a major focus of the John Birch Society.
The John Birch Society was infamous for its racist and anti-Semitic ideology and the reluctance of the Republican party to alienate part of its base was one of the reasons that Republican became know as the party most comfortable with racism and anti-Semitism; the legacy of that unholy alliance remains today a primary reason Republicans routinely receive less than 25% of the Jewish and Black vote.
Rage interferes with rationality.
In 1964, Richard Hofstadter wrote about "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" and focused on the Right. (I wrote about Hofstadter's seminal paper here.) The Warren Court, and the leftward swing in the country post-war had left significant segments of the Right feeling dis-empowered, threatened by the upending of their secure position in our political life and increasingly repudiated. Those who were convinced of their absolute correctness, and consequently unable to incorporate the changing face of America into their world view, were unable to tolerate their repudiation and marginalization. Their rage at being rejected led them to abandon rationality and adopt various dysfunctional psychological defenses, especially projection and its attendant paranoia, which facilitated the swing into overt anti-Semitism and racism. It took the disastrous failure of Barry Goldwater to induce the Republican party to begin the long and painful process of introspection that ultimately culminated in Ronald Reagan and the Conservative revolution. Of note, the movement forward of the Republican party required the overt rejection of the Far Right.
Now it is the Democrats turn. The Far Left has seen their ideology resoundingly rejected by the American populace. While it may well be that a majority of Americans have grown weary and disgusted with the Iraq War and willing to punish the Republicans for our failures there, in fact, socialism and socialism-lite, ie the European model, have been found wanting by the voters. This is partially recognized by the fact that the Democrats routinely eschew calling themselves liberals and focus on the language of their politics rather than the ideological beliefs that underpin their policies. The recent unearthing of the memo from the early 90s suggesting achieving universal government run health care in stages, by stealth (re: the S-CHIP debate), is another example of the Democratic perception that a straightforward approach to their goals of increased government control over the economy is a losing proposition.
When one's ideas are rejected, especially when those ideas form an important part of one's self-image, it is a personal injury. People respond to personal injury with pain and anger. When the anger is internalized, the risk of depression and despair becomes significant. Many find it more tolerable to eject the anger, ie defense known as projection, and are then drawn into all the psychological problems that flow from that. One's opponents then become evil, rather than wrong, misguided or simply in disagreement, and every reverse simply fuels the rage burning inside. Such a cycle would appear as follows:
Anger -> Projection -> Attribution of unacceptable impulses to the "enemy" -> Fear of the projected/disowned anger being returned (retaliation) -> Overt paranoia -> Further rejection -> Intensified anger
Under the influence of such rage, encapsulated by the feeling that one is manifestly correct and no other possible interpretations of others' behavior are tenable, reason is lost. We see this rather graphically in the imbroglio over Rush Limbaugh and his supposed anti-military comments. I rarely listen to Rush and have not read a transcript, however, on the face of it, the charges against him are risible. No one with any sense is going to believe Rush is anti-military and people like Harry Reid and Tom Harkin are pro-military in comparison. Even the Far Left should be well aware that this is a losing argument. Yet they convince themselves they have a winning argument and only the weakness of their champions in the Senate and House prevent them from beating Rush and getting him off the air. Jane Hamsher, the proprietor of a major website on the Left, (see Siggy for a rather witty and biting appellation) can barely contain herself:
Is That A Fat Lady I Hear Singing?
Pills Limbaugh just keeps diggin’ and diggin’. I’ve been delighted to see that it’s been all over cable news today, and Wes Clark has been promoting the move to get Limbaugh off Armed Forces Radio Network.
She goes on to approvingly quote Digby:
Newtie's now irrelevant. Delay is gone. Only Rush remains and he is probably the biggest prize. On a purely practical, hardball political basis, the Democrats should have been working to take him out for years. Now is their chance to turn the Republicans' patented hissy kabuki back on them and hoist an avowed political enemy with his own poisonous petard at the same time. There are many others who will happily take his place, no doubt about it. But his voice is uniquely associated with the radical wingnuts, and it is an important symbolic message to the country if they can finally make an example of him.
I have become extremely reluctant to link to any Left wing sites because when visitors come here from their sites they come armed with invective and rarely read and understand what I write. For any visitors from the Left, I am not here commenting on your ideology; I have no problem with your distaste for Rush and I have no reason to support him. Beyond the fact that he hardly needs my help, I rarely listen to him, preferring NPR when I am interested in gaining any depth on issues (despite the fact that I so rarely agree with NPR's point of view.) I am suggesting that your tactics and strategy involved in going after Rush Limbaugh suggest an inability to adequately appreciate how your attacks are being and will be perceived. Your anger is blinding you and confusing you.
As for the Democrats, ultimately, unless they can find a way to repudiate the most angry within their party, they will find themselves irredeemably tarred with all the worst aspects of the Far Left.
Recent Comments