Heh. The GOP is now haunted by birthers. I think this is what happens when you only fulfill half of your duty as a leader. Surely part of it is to represent your folks. But another part of it is to protect them from the mob mentality. But when you actively cultivate Schiavo, "intelligent" design, Confederate Flags, and homophobia, I'm not sure what you expect.
To paraphrase Douglass, a Party is worked on by what they choose to work on. Work on stupid, expect to get stuck there. Expect to have to take meetings with a Russian-born dentist/lawyer about who's American, and who's not.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
It's just strange in a way; I feel like everything is starting to get so fragmented that two parties won't be enough. There are people like me who believe Democrats generally aren't liberal enough. There are these birthers, who while they share some Republican ideas, also made friends with a lot of Hillary people. Then there are the the Ron Paul/libertarian people who have some overlap with the birthers and GOP, but who hate the GOP for Bush and don't see a lot in Christian conservatism. They also have overlap with 9/11 truthers, but some of them are extreme liberals. There's moderates who seem to decide their party on the abortion issue, and then theres a lot disengaged or ill-informed people.
It's gotta be a headache for the two parties, I almost feel bad for their leadership. But in the end, they all sell out to lobbyists. Argh.
Our constitution is set up in a way that strongly favors two parties, so much so that I do not think we will ever have more. But the coalitions that make up the two parties have changed many times. The segregationists moved from the Democratic to the Rupblican party in my lifetime.
In the twentieth century christian fundamentalists were strong enough to get prohibition passed early in the century, then withdrew from politics, then resurged in the 80's. I look for the GOP to disentegrate and reform with a differnt coalition and perhapse this will cause the Democrats to do so as well, but I doubt seriously that we will end up with more than two parties for more than one election cycle.
I smell a Whig party comeback.
Bull Moose anyone?
Perhaps, I don't know but it seems to me that a lot of GOP party members are scared. Scratch the surface of any reactionary person, whatever their ideology and there is usually a good deal of fear. I don't know for sure but I would say a good deal of it has to do with people seeing the world change around them and not being sure if they can cope or compete
It's just a thought, but the world isn't what it was 20 or even ten years ago. I think that scares a lot of people.
Sorn, I think you've made that point before -- scratch the surface of any reactionary person, whatever their ideology and there is usually a good deal of fear -- but i think it's right, and bears repeating. But those of us on the other side shouldn't be dismissive of it, because fear often leads to really irrational thinking, and occasionally violence. Some GOPers -- maybe not mainstream Republicans, but certainly the loudest ones -- really are like the young plantation-owner's daughter mentioned in an earlier Civil War thread, fearful of what freed slaves would do to hear and her family, now that the old social order had been overturned. What will they do to us after all we've done to them? Some wingers -- consciously or not -- are finding themselves, figuratively, in exactly that same position, complete with Black folks living in the big white colonnaded house on the lawn. They're scared because it really does upend their sense of the rightful order of things.
I'm not defending these reactions at all -- as human beings, we have the ability to rise above our baser thoughts and prejudices -- but it's useful to understand where these attitudes come from. And so they latch onto any crazy idea that reinforces their internal notion, their own comfort zone, that regardless of his title and current mailing address, Barack Obama couldn't really be president.
I'm not defending the reaction either. However, we need to understand what causes this type of thinking so it can be appropriately dealt with.
A group of people motivated by fear act differently than a group of people motivated by thirst-for-power or money, or status. Fear is one of those things. In small doses it's beneficial. Only someone who's never been shot at will say "I ain't never scared," but too much fear and a person or a group of people have a tendency to circle the wagons and take pot-shots at those outside.
In times of change some people look for oportunities, others stay at home under the bed. There's a Merle Haggard Song that covers this:
Are the good times really over for good. It's worth a listen because it explains so much of what is going on even though the song is dated the feeling is current.
Whenever I hear a song like that yearning for the Fifties, or some one talking about our moral decline, I think that they are yearning for the days when; their women had few options out side the home and no birth controll so they were compelled to say home barefoot and pregnant, gay was still a diagnosis, and they could slap a black man off the sidewalk for failure to show deference with no repercussions. Life is so much easier when over half of the population is prevented from competing for resources.
This is true but the sentiment needs to be understood. It isn't all racism, sexism, and homophobia. I think, although I don't know for sure, that there is a human tendency to mythologize the past. Some people look back and see the racism, the sexism, and the homophobia. Others look back and see the days where a person could work at General Motors for 30 years send the kids to college and retire with a pension.
We owe it to people to try and see the world through their eyes as much as we are able even if we disagree.
You are absolutely right about those rose colored glasses that are used for looking in the rearview. I have even heard people that went to school with me talking about how kids to day have to fight temptaions with drugs that we did not. I can assure you that they are mistaken. The drugs were readily available. According to survey data we went to school at the hight of drug use in America's highschools.
Larry, one thing about the fifties is that it was also a time of the lowest income disparity this country has ever known. It was a time when people could have stable careers without a college degree, when work was plentiful. Economically, this is even true in the context of segregation. It was JFK who introduced policies that began a widening gulf between rich and poor, and the gulf is now an order of magnitude greater than it used to be.
Those times of small economic inequality are something that even I am nostalgic for. To bad it is a fringe idea that we should have political policies that encourage a flatter income distribution curve.
During the campaign I heard a few stories on NPR with quotes from people who were sure that Obama was going to institute policies that favored "his people." I think one of them even talked about those policies in that way -- he'll do to us what we did to them.
The weirder thing about that was that sometimes I got a sense that they thought he was a good guy, might make a good president (I think some of them were Democrats) but that it was just a fact that people favored their own race. They expected politicians to favor their own, and that in itself wasn't wrong. It was just scary when it might not be your people that benefited.
It made me think about all the people who pass and support laws that are nominally race-blind but really favor the majority... the representatives may or may not believe it, but there's a certain contingent that really thinks that's the way it should work.
I completely agree. And I'd argue a source of that fear is the almost complete lack of a safety net for the middle class and unfettered capitalism at work. Yes, if you end up dirt poor, we'll lend you a hand, but not if you make a dollar over x amount. Folks look at that x dollar amount, and think, 'that sure is a long way to fall'. The financial insecurity of a down turn only feeds this.
Alice AN wrote:
Yes, if you end up dirt poor, we'll lend you a hand, but not if you make a dollar over x amount.
A practical example: In my county in Texas, to qualify for indigent health care, "x amount" is the absolute minimum required by state law: 21% of the federal poverty level. For a family of four, that's $4,631 gross annual income, from all sources. Make a dime over that, and you're on your own.
Do you have a link for this?
Sorn, the poverty guidelines for 2009 are here:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml
I happen to know about my county's (Galveston County, Texas) indigent care sponsorship eligibility because, at the moment, we're embroiled in the question of whether or not to establish a county hospital district that would provide more reimbursement for low-income, uninsured residents. It is a contentious debate locally. However, I now see that I erred in giving the 21% figure. It was 21% until a few months ago, when it was increased to 50%. (That change may not have gone into effect yet.) Apologies. Here is a link to a county webpage that includes the old, 21% threshhold (see 5th, 6th questions):
http://www.gchd.org/4cs/faq.htm
Thank you so much. This will come in handy.
I should also add that we do have things like SCHIP that help specific populations. But for the adult, working poor, it's a bad situation.
Wow! I didn't realize it was that bad. I was thinking family of four on 20,000 is a long way to fall.
On 4,600$ - even doubling it is no better - once you factor in renting a living space for four people - there's nothing left to feed and cloth a family with, much less health insurance. There should be a law requiring that all law makers live on that much money for a year...
Like the article says, lots of people in one party holding a fringe belief is not an unusual phenomenon. But man, TNC, I couldn't imagine Byron Dorgan going out there and saying about 9/11 Truthers, "They have a point...I don't discourage it."
The weird thing is that I don't even understand the political benefit. I don't think anyone besides Taitz think there are enough of these folks to "remove" a congressman. Granted, I know quite a few people who have bought into this conspiracy at one point or another--but I can't think of a single one who would refrain from voting for a candidate opposing President Obama's policies simply because they didn't agree that our President was really an immigrant citizen/non-citizen/illegal immigrant/whatever we're on these days.
Is it possible that in some really close district it might make enough people "refuse to vote" that the Democrat wins instead? Probably not likely, but really that's the alternative, isn't it?
Hoekstra and Inhofe's refusal to condemn this bullshit speaks volumes about themselves and their base.
I still can't believe that mainstream outlets have given this story any credence at all. The fact that Lou Dobbs has a job and Dan Rather doesn't is baffling to me.
"The fact that Lou Dobbs has a job and Dan Rather doesn't is baffling to me."
It is easily explained by a lack of concern for the truth. Media companies are only interested in profits.
Did the 9/11 Truthers ever get this much real publicity for their lunacy? Obviously it's a different story because I don't recall any House Resolutions put forth by Dems that specifically addressed the Truthers arguments, nor (aside from Cynthia McKinney) any pols who were even willing to wade into the crazy.
I think the legislation did it. They'd actually been around for quite awhile. Also Cythia McKinney was punished for her insanity. I have family in her old district. As opposed to a politician trying to appease people, McKinney is known to be a nut.
Yeah, I know. I included her parenthetically as a sort of after thought. I meant to imply a sort of distinction between her and what's going on now.
One word for you: Palin.
That is what the GOP has become. This spineless party leadership is gaga and in denial about a clueless woman who has to be about the most White Trash politician to appear on the national level.
Palin's self-pitying farewell rant on Sunday said it all.
Please don't call her that. I know you're probably white. Still, please don't do that.
Can we at least point out dyed platinum blond from California? Prerequisite for prime time cable news spot.
I have to say that the Birther/Truther arguments (while stupid on their face) do not strike me as being borne out of stupidity, but rather frustration and willful delusion. It's far easier to deal with the dumb. The deluded are a different breed entirely.
Nah...they are dumb.
It is the same "low information" base that the GOP has been scamming into voting for tax cuts for wealthy republican wide boiz forevah. Now, sadly, the low information base doesn't have enough IQ points to see how birfermadness is bad for the GOP, or enough IQ points to understand the concept of paperless archives.
Bad for the GOP, but deliciously hilarious for the rest of us.
nucking futz
schiavo'd, defn. v
to schiavo a congressperson….to publically force said congressperson to endorse insane conspiracy theories embraced by their low information base. As in, insane constituents forcing congresspersons to vote in a role call vote for Terri’s Law [or face impeachment or lynching], even though the congresspersons knew the lady-was-a-carrot.
use: Republicans were schiavo'd by the birfers.
See also, bork'd, screwed, and BOHICA.
original usage attributed to Ta-nehisi Coates.
I didn't mean to say that these people aren't stupid. All I meant was that if only they were JUST stupid, this stuff would be easier to be rid of. But they're far more than merely stupid. They're stupid, angry, and willfully delusional.
They believe, as many have asserted, whatever they choose to believe, but they don't choose to believe it consciously, and it's very difficult for them to consciously override their subconscious. It's not their stupidity that's keeping them from accepting the clear truth. Though, without a doubt, many (most?) of them are stupid.
no..it is the lower half of the bellcurve of IQ. those people deserve representation, but sadly their representation has historically just scammed them for votes. Racebaiting, IQbaiting, elitebaiting, the southern strategy, culture war gypsy hooks like abortion and homophobia.
as the GOP shrinks it moves farther right, and the extreme right fringe becomes the center of what is left.
moderates are running from the distilled hard right like scalded cats, making the crazee/non-crazee ratio go up, so the party collectively loses mean IQ points.
teh birfers are essentially holding the GOP congress people hostage and forcing them to declare solidarity with insane conspiracy theories.
I'm hoping that this, and Palin, and the various related hate-crimes, mark the beginning of the end of the fantasy of the heroic/authentic nature of the rural/frontier archetypes. Almost every modern facist regime has used some romanticized version of the salt-of-the-earth peasant as a rallying cry for anti-intellectualism/anti-cosmopolitansim. And this has given cover, as it did with Bush and Cheney, for a really extreme version of corporate, versus civic/govt, model of a country/society to make serious inroads into our social/political structures. In the field of mental health for instance most states privatized the majority of their psychiatric services and then low-bid them to the point that they are now counter-productive when they exist at all. Just watch what is left of the social safety net in California with this new budget. Until we find a way to replace the jobs lost by the collapse of our industrial base we are going to have to come to terms with the idea that many, well-intentioned hard working, people will be dependent on the govt. This isn't socialism, it is just the price of being in community.
I think its the "anti-intellectualism/anti-cosmopolitansim" part of your statement that is what means the most. Right or Wrong waving a bloody shirt often gets people elected, and once elected they often forget about the interests of the people that put them in office. There's a reason we call it demagoguery, it represents the classic bait an switch. Sucessfull politics requires that people become "excited" and "engaged" about issues. If people get too excited they stop thinking rationaly, and the emotions that are aroused lead them right over a cliff. The upside to populism is that everyone gets a voice, the downside to populism is that everyone gets a voice.
thanks for translating what I wrote into comprehensible english. My related worry is that we now equate democracy with everyone having an opinion, instead of the possibility of people having informed opinions. Including the all important knowledge of the limits of one's knowledge. Everyone decries the state of our education system but few people want to acknowledge that perhaps this has limited the capacity (already so limited by biology see: http://klugethebook.com/) of our citizenry to grapple with the ever increasing complexity of our politics/lives. As we have learned here the question of standards of practice/involvement in group activities will always be a problem regardless of how populist one wants to be. There will always be hiearchies.
The most important thing a citizen can know is the limits of their knowlege. Our self esteem fetishism prevents us from teaching the proper humility to recognize our limitations though.
Yeah when I said that it was "all important" I was obviously exagerating but in terms of its negative impact that estimate may not be far off. Can't go out like Socrates but somedays...
correctamundo Sorn.
This has been going on since Pythagoras and Kylon of Croton.
You might remember Kylon as the pissed-off plutocrat that raised a mob of local farmers to protest his failed attempt to get into Pythagoras' school for rulers by chopping up the teachers with scythes and burning down the school.
it is the old democracy vs. meritocracy conflict.
and it won't ever stop.
its hard-wired.
the more populous populists, the 'slines and Noble Yeoman Farmers, feel like they should be able to selfgovern on the base of their vastly greater numbers and salt-o-teh-earth-commonsense.
Alas, they are constitutionally unable to govern either wisely or well (cough..cough...GW).
So in America we have a democratic meritocracy.
Anyone can be president, but luckily for us, not everyone will.
It's nice that this question isn't brought up about McCain running for president, when you consider the Panama Canal is a lot more questionable than Hawaii.
The worst part of this personally is having to struggle with trying to find a common human ground with these people who are fellow citizens of this country. I don't want to feel repelled by these fronts, but I am. It's so hard to find that... relatable touch, something, I don't know what to call it... in the GOP noisemakers and constituency, the way it is now. It seems like such people are incredibly willing to subsume their identities into these banner causes, so how can you relate? How will they even let you relate?
I'm so frustrated. As others have said on here, when one party out of a two-party system is this messed up, it's bad for everyone.
this is what I just came to post. How come nobody ever asks these crazies if they feel the same about John McCain - and he was BORN IN PANAMA. Just ask them to explain that, and ask them if McCain is a natural born citizen?
I'm guessing it's cause the Panama Canal didn't tan him too much. He looks like he's from the right latitudes.
Good guess. Generations of Admirals in the family tree does not hurt, but complexion is the deciding factor for true.
The fact that he was born in Panama is completely unimportant. In fact the birth clause itself is highly dubious in a country which otherwise offers immigrants equal opportunities. Far more than necessary than a bill requiring birth certificates (which, by the way, not all native-born people have, as some are given up for adoption without their parents identifying themselves) is an amendment to the constitution allowing all citizens the chance to ru for the highest office. I don't know why no-one talks about this. I guess there are those on the left do not want to give Schwarzenegger a chance to run, and those on the right who are simply not all that keen on immigrants.
@FOARP - Since I was actually born out of the country (but to two US citizen parents, so I was born a citizen), I actually have followed this issue. Forgive me for this long response. ;)
1. People have talked about such an ammendment, including during the last election. This is because of McCain, because:
2. The constitution states the President must be a "natural born citizen" (or in the US when the constitution went into effect) but doesn't define what that is. Other legislation written a few years later indicates that they may have meant anyone born a citizen, whether in the US or abroad (i.e. two citizen parents, etc.).
But the thing with McCain isn't just that he was born in Panama, it's that due to weird immigration/citizen laws relating to being born in the Canal Zone specifically, he actually was not a citizen when he was born. (Really. Strange but true.) A few years later, Congress realized this and made a law saying that people born there (including McCain) were citizens, but the law doesn't state that it is retroactive. That means that legally, McCain could be considered "naturalized" by the law, not a natural born citizen.
It would take a Supreme Court decision to actually establish whether he qualified or not, but you can't get the Supremes involved unless the person is actually elected... so the question remains.
FYI, most constitutional scholars thought it wouldn't be a problem, and of course many people in Congress said that if it came to that they'd amend the constitution because it was ridiculous for the child of two citizens, serving the military, to be disqualified. But it is actually the closest we've ever come to electing someone who might not qualify.
Cuz even they know they can't have a campaign that says "Impeach the President - He's Black!"
The law at the time of McCain's birth clearly qualifies McCain as "native born". So does the law at the time of Obama's birth since he was born in Hawaii. The 'birther' argument is that Obama was not born in Hawaii and the law at the time was that someone born overseas had to have both parents be US citizens for the child to be native born. So McCain's birth does not raise any questions since both of his parents were US citizens it is irrelavent where he was born. Since Obama had only one US citizen parent he needed to be born on US soil to be considered "native born" under the law at the time of his birth.
Fortunately he was born in Hawaii, so he is "native born" and they are crazy conspiracy theorists that should better spend their time protesting all the attention given to the 40th anniversary of the faking of the Moon Landing.
Actually, I have to disagree. The weirdness of the citizenship laws actually meant that McCain was not a citizen when he was born. At the time, the law said that any child of an American parent "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" was a citizen. But the Canal Zone was under the jurisdiction of the US, but not within it's territory, making a very strange loophole.
When Congress realized this, they passed a law to correct it, but this was after he was born. From snopes.com: "The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday."
On the other hand, only one constitutional scholar stated that he thought this might be an issue, and Congress passed a non-binding resolution saying he was qualified.
Not saying he didn't qualify, just that there's a pretty good argument that he wasn't a citizen when he was born.
rik, are you asking "crazies" to apply the same logic that you do? that will only end up making you feel crazy.
that's the thing... but how else do you engage them? I'm reminded of Chris Rock's routine here. Most people are handicapped by the need to make sense. But the birthers won't let a little thing like sense get in the way of their argument.
It's true that under contemporary law both of them were native born, and US citizens. It's just that McCain got the benefit of assumption, and Obama doesn't, even though both qualify quite clearly.
keke, well you don't engage them directly, you defeat them in elections and create viable alternatives for people to choose. It is a serious fallacy to imagine that "dialogue" can replace politics. The founders of various govts weren't just power hungry or lazy or lacking imagination or such. There are real differences between people and we can choose ballots or bullets.
dmf
When you are arguing with the crazies you should not think of it as an oportuinity to change their minds. Your real audience is the people who overhear. That is why it is important to engage and reman respectfull. Your calm will reflect poorly on the crazies in the eyes of lurkers and onlookers.
LG, what I was trying to get across was two things, one that some things won't be changed by conversation (contrary to most liberal education and Obama's election rhetoric), and two that the way to make real advances on the big political/social issues is to win in the political realm. Almost every advance in social justice issues came first in the political realm and then in the majority/public opinion. Save the people at risk first and then if you have time worry about converting the contrarians. There is only so much time in the day so maximize your effectiveness. Make sense?
dmf
The political areana, including legal action, is certainly the way to correct legal injustices. I do not dispute that for a minuet. I was merely saying that often when you argue the audience you are adressing is not the person you are arguing with. Rembering this has helped me to keep my cool and suffer fools on ocasion.
One of the ggod things about this board is that trolls get shut down fast and there is little need to suffer fools. Even when I disagree with people here I do not think they are disengenuous.
Well, in their defense (ugh, kill me) some of them do feel that way about McCain and a lawsuit was filed in New Hampshire about his eligibility and whether he is a "natural born" citizen.
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html
Some, although not all, birthers did claim McCain was not eligible to be Prez.
I try to avoid their genius level arguments because it is clearly beyond me, but the birthers make a whole lot of different arguments regarding the issue of being eligible to be Prez.
Some birthers claim BOTH parents have to be American.
Some claim BOTH parents need to be American and the potential Prez has to have been born in a STATE.
Regarding President Obama some claim that while his mother was clearly American she was under 21 and therefore could not confer citizenship on her child.
Others claim that because Obama was taken to Indonesia as a child he gave up his citizenship for a variety of reasons.
Then there is the he was born in Kenya argument.
You'll never please those folks. You could show them the exact certificate that was issued to him at birth and they would want to see the typewriter it was typed on, the doctor who was at the birth and the typist who typed the certificate.
Anything less than that and he is not an AMERICAN.
I don't think the fact that Obama may have some "extra" melanin in his skin motivates all these folks. Some of them are just plain nutz. Others would welcome a President Alan Keyes. For others it's clearly a racial issue with that terrorist fist bump of his and his love for South Side Michelle.
For some a black President has put the Batman whammy on their tiny minds.
For those folks I like to emphasize his white mama and his distant Irish roots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xkw8ip43Vk
I wonder if they buy it?
LOL - They will never buy anything. You could show them a video of his mother giving birth to him on the beach under a Pearl Harbor memorial and they would still not believe it.
I love how they pronounce "Barack" in that song. I sent this to my ol' Dad right before the election and it actually did warm him up a little. But, just a little.
Yeah, when one party is that messed up, it is bad for everyone. The question is, what happens in 2010 when they continue to lose seats? Do the Republicans start to come to their senses, or do these fringe groups continue to grow?
What drives me crazy about all this is that birthers don't even understand the damn law.
If one of your parents is an U.S. citizen, it doesn't matter where you're born you are considered a natural born citizen. Unless somebody is alleging that Obama's mother was not, in fact, a U.S. citizen, then there's no point in even raising the issue.
(I was born overseas and moved to America at ten, but was considered a 'natural born citizen', rather than naturalized)
I didn't know this bit ... my brother was born on a US airbase in Germany, and all these years we thought he didn't qualify under the "natural born" label. Of course, it's also possible that my parents bungled the paperwork. Not that it matters much. The only job I'm aware of where that's a deal-breaker is one that no sane man would want (i.e.: President of the United States).
Yeah, as I understand it, being a natural born citizen means that you have rights to citizenship the moment you're born, via either being in the states or having 1+ American parents.
There is some minor dispute over that but its just minor. The term is not really defined in the constitution and it has never really been clarified in any specific way since. But you're basically correct that there really isn't much of a legal argument, even if one were to stipulate to the birther's facts, that Obama doesn't meet the constitutional requirement to be President. Its difficult to imagine any court deciding that the State has some interest in defining two separate classes of those who are born American citizens. Indeed its so absurd that it has never really come up.
TNC, I think they key phrase here is "Surely part of it is to represent your folks". How many people really believe that we are represented by our elected officials? And this is not just cynicism on my part, although there is certainly plenty of that to go around. Look at the scandals and the idiotic posturing and the mindless legislation - elected officials often seem to be orbiting in a very different world than that of the people who voted them into office. They are also too busy representing their own self interests and the interests of their well connected backers to be concerned with, let alone responsive to, what their constituents are going through. It's upsetting and people have felt so slighted for so long that they are just angry and it is easier to be angry at the other (even in insane ways) than at the person you put into office.
Expect to have to take meetings with a Russian-born dentist/lawyer
Thats dentist/lawyer/real estate agent. Give the woman her due.
Lol yes. Your One-Stop Shop for All Things Tooth, Legal, and Shelter Related.
I was actualy more impressed with her crazy eyes than her business card. Wow, that woman looks scary.
I would like to laugh at these people, that would be my usual reaction. But this is more scary-stupid to me than funny-stupid.
true.
i'll wager that the first assassination attempt comes sometime before the mid-term elections.
that is what is being set up and legitimized, by the tsunami of right-wing hate and propaganda.
some nut out there with a gun is right now rationalizing that it is his patriotic duty to take the step of ridding the country of this illegitimate presence.
and the media is too cowardly to even address the idea that the type of hate and anger being tolerated by the republican party is establishing an environment where such an act will occur.
"Scary-stupid" is right. We've already had one case where three cops, responding to a seemingly routine domestic disturbance call, were killed by a man who was convinced "Obama's coming for our guns." I fully expect that there will be numerous acts of violence against census-takers next year, who see that process as merely a furtherance of the president's crypto-marxist-islamofascist agenda.
over at talking points memo, josh marshall, in a post entitled: "that simple" puts it as plainly as it can be stated:
"Others have said this. But the best way to understand the 'birther' craze is as a proxy for people who don't want to accept a black man with a Arabic-derived first name as President of the United States. Really as simple as that."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/07/that_simple.php?ref=fpblg
it is as simple as that. and all the noise, the sound and fury around the issue is simply designed to obscure that fact.
Indeed. When you look at the counties where McCain '08 out-performed Bush '04, the answer practically pops out of a slot.
There are two interesting things going on here:
a. Fringe conspiracy theories. The Obama-not-a-citizen one is actually fairly benign, as these go. The 9/11 truthers, the Clinton-killed-Vince-Foster guys, the folks who claimed that our invasion of Afghanistan was all about grabbing oil, the guys who think the moon landing was faked, the ones who think AIDS is a bioweapon directed against blacks and gays, the ones who think the kids at Waco were intentionally murdered, etc. This sort of nonsense is commonplace, just part of the ecology of ideas of the US.
b. The decision of a major party to play on these conspiracy theories. I think the big parties often tap dance around this kind of stuff, but usually don't directly get involved in pushing the conspiracy theory. (Didn't Obama shortlist at least one guy who was well-liked among the vaccines-cause-autism crowd for some cabinet appointment?) But I think the shrinkage of the party down to its most extreme base has made this kind of conspiracy theory much more appealing to people who want power in the party as it is now. And some of that has been cultivated for years among the Republicans, who have long been pretty comfortable explaining both the theory of evolution and human-caused global warming as more-or-less the product of corrupt, biased liberal scientists.
it's a huge mistake to lump all "conspiracy theories" in the same boat.
many of these "conspiracy theories" are grounded in legitimate questions that, for whatever reason, authorities refuse to, or are incapable of providing answers to.
often, the refusal to entertain the possibility that conspiracies exist on a large scale is simple laziness. the appeal of simple-minded solutions to complex issues.
i always laugh when people denigrate conspiracy theories because state and federal governments go into court every day and allege simple and complex theories routinely to convict alleged criminals. apparently the government is extremely comfortable alleging and ultimately offering proof of crazy conspiracy theories.
you can bet that if more than one person is involved in a crime, there's about a 80-90% chance that the government will argue that a conspiracy existed and charge that person with the crime of conspiracy. its one of the favorite charges of prosecutors.
i think it is hilarious that people constantly downplay the possibility of conspiracies while supporting its government's ability to pursue those theories on a regular basis.
i always remember how nutty the media and most folks called african-americans when they alleged that the government was involved in running cocaine in the '80's.
couldn't happen...
how crazy can those black folks be?...
now, we know that it actually happened and as quiet as authorities like to keep it, it's been documented.
some conspiracies are transparently crazy. like the obama theory, where documents are readily available for anyone interested in the truth.
the idea that i, as a citizen, should simply accept what the government tells me, while that government actively hides relevant evidence...
well, my mom didn't raise me to think that way.
like marvin gaye sang:
believe half of what you see,
some or none of what you hear.
personally, i don't believe nothin someone tells me, especially when that someone - or an entity - pointedly refuses to provide all the information they may have in their possession about a particular subject.
that's not subscribing to crazy conspiracy theories.
that's just being smart.
btw, don't want to hijack the thread and this is all i have to say on this subject.
Re: it's a huge mistake to lump all "conspiracy theories" in the same boat.
many of these "conspiracy theories" are grounded in legitimate questions that, for whatever reason, authorities refuse to, or are incapable of providing answers to.
Sorry, but of the recent "conspiracies" the original poster listed, I cannot think of a single significant question that has not been answered. Too often conspiracy theorists get by with the claim of "unaswered questions" or "mysterious coincidences" when in fact there are none.
Re: the refusal to entertain the possibility that conspiracies exist on a large scale is simple laziness.
Actually I see it the other way around: conpsiracy theorists are the lazy ones trying to explain everything by means of some "evil power" manipulating us all instead of dealing with reality in all its numbing complexity and occasional lurid senselesness. Moreover there's an old syaing that applies here: Two can keep a secret if one of them is a dead men. The larger the conspiracy the more impossible it becomes simply because it involves too many people to ensure secrecy. The 9-11 theories for example require the cooperation of many thousands to hold up (that includes all the witnesses on the ground, and even the victims of the planes who used cell phones to report what was happening to them)
i don't know if you are being intentionally dishonest or are simply ignorant, but the fact that you imagine that thousands - including ground-level eyewitnesses - would have to be in on some kind of 9/11 conspiracy for it to have merit is not supported by facts. and the fact that you cite that as an example of how hopeless certain "conspiracy theories" are, also shows that you don't really know many of the important issues that have never actually been addressed or answered.
i know that facts are stubborn little things, but i would hope that citizens would pay attention to real facts and simply not accept what governments feed them.
in fact, your statements reveal what i've found to be most often the case: that people who denigrate serious questions about certain events are most times woefully ignorant about those events and instead rely on what someone told them or what they heard on tv or read in a newspaper article. but those folks eschew the hard work of actually digging and researching to discover truths and facts that might shake their nice safe little construct.
no unanswered questions about 9/11?
the fact that anyone would say that is laughable. in fact, even the people, the officials who wrote the official 9/11 report ackowledge that there are plenty of unanswered questions, but most times those officials claim that those questions can never be answered.
but no one ever says that all the questions have been answered.
they haven't.
well riddle me this, if you have all the answers.
why did building 7 collapse some 6 or 7 hours after the WTC towers?
why did the owner of that building state, on a recording that is readily available, that he made a decision to "pull" the building?
why was the steel from the WT towers removed from the scene and disposed of, even though the material was part of one of the biggest crime scenes in the country's history.
(in most criminal investigations, all of the material is preserved in order to determine what had occurred.)
despite the fact that the planes that hit the WTC made obvious and noted changes in their flight paths in order to target NYC, why were no military planes scrambled that morning to intercept those commercial flights?
the fact that we know so little about what happened that day is pretty much par for the course for this country.
people forget that the government, with a little help from its media friends, hid the zapruder film for almost 10 years. but when people saw that film, the warren commission was finished.
from that point on, trying to get people to believe the warren commission was similar to what folks try to do with the footage of the towers' collapse: who are you going to believe, us, or your lying eyes?
sure, the buildings look like they are being demolished.
sure, no similar building in the history of the world has ever catastrophically failed in that fashion.
but, we have our story, and we're stickin to it - the fires did it - and if you don't accept it, we'll get nasty people to call you a conspiracy theorist.
the truth usually comes out, but in a trickle most times, not a flood.
it takes courage, not simple-minded acquiescence, to question authority.
the last straw for me was the story of the tuskegee syphilis experiments. the government had one story. unfortunately, it didn't have anything to do with the truth. if this government would do that to a community, this government is capable of anything.
i don't know what happened on 9/11. but i do know that the evidence right in front of everyone's eyes does not support the official story that is being spoon-fed the american people. and, instead of stupidly accepting what someone has told me, i come to my conclusions after much reading and research and hard work.
There's an interesting meta-question in here somewhere, about how you evaluate evidence for theories. I agree that taking exactly the "party line" of the government or media or society as truth is a bad way of finding out the truth. Indeed, there are all sorts of places where the party line is pretty obvious nonsense. On the other hand, most conspiracy theories seem to be pretty obviously false, or require amazing leaps of faith to buy into.
Conspiracy theories get a big boost from one thing: Respectable sources of information are very willing to lie and mislead and spread propoganda in many areas. As a kid, the same sort of public service announcements and health class warnings told me correctly that cigarrette smoking is addictive as hell and seriously bad for you, and incorrectly that pot smoking was also addictive and would lead you to a life of drug abuse. The white house and most of Congress and most of the big media told us all, repeatedly, that Saddam Hussein posed a serious threat to the safety of the US a few years back. Etc.
In that context, conspiracy theories become more plausible, because you already know of many times (I think I could fill a page with examples, and so could everyone else here) when the respectable sources of information lied or misled everyone or spread propoganda about whose truth they neither knew nor cared.
This continues because it has no cost, because most people seem to have little memory for it, and because media (themselves big offenders in the realm of not bothering to get the facts straight or cherry-picking facts to report the party line) don't remind anyone of previous lies. It continues partly because a lot of people evaluate a source based on whether it's saying what they want to hear, rather than whether it's got a history of care in getting and reporting the truth.
That said, I think my examples are all conspiracy theories that are false.
@ albatross,
your point is well-taken, and i actually respect the fact that you've given quite a bit of thought to the issue.
everyone is welcome to their opinion and view.
my point of contention was with jon who stated that the conspiracies noted in your post had no "unanswered questions".
that is a ludicrous statement as even the officials in charge of the official investigation acknowledge that there are plenty of unanswered questions that they do not deal with and that no one has dealt with as of this juncture.
one can believe whatever conclusion one wishes to believe, but to simply state that there are no more questions about what happened that day, well that is a fantastically wrong and demonstrably false statement.
i find it interesting that you note the example of cigarette smoking and the government's anti-smoking campaign because it has been well-documented that tobacco companies conspired for decades to suppress the dangers of their product.
that allegation was essentially the basis for the federal government's successful suit against those companies.
talk about an expansive conspiracy.
a conspiracy that covered not years, but decades.
a conspiracy that involved not only a couple of individuals in one small department in one small company, but god knows how many people in several multinational corporations that employ god knows how many thousands of people.
the history of tobacco companies, and that facts revealed in that lawsuit put the lie to the idea that it is impossible to maintain a certain level of secrecy about any subject.
anytime any entity or person who is in control of certain information refuses to provide that information for review, while telling one that one should simply believe them, i would hope that any thinking individual would automatically become suspicious of that person. and whatever it is that is being peddled.
Heh. How's this for Socratic Dialogue: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/inhofe-birthers-have-a-po_n_245428.html
Senator James Inhofe: "They have a point," he said of the birthers. "I don't discourage it. ... But I'm going to pursue defeating [Obama] on things that I think are very destructive to America."
When you're a right-wing Obama-hater and Ann Coulter calls you a crank, it's time to hightail it back to McD's and pick up those fries that spilled out of your Happy Meal. Perhaps it just that Ann doesn't like anyone else trying to grab her key to the asylum..
Coulter loves these guys, they let her pretend to be the reasonable center:-)
I wonder how many Birthers cringe at the notion of Anchor Babies?
For my small sample of people who buy the birther bullshit (my family), all of them also cringe at anchor babies, since the unifying factor is racism.
I have a more practical concern here. What bothers me more than anything about this is that this party is going to be called on to actually govern again. Eventually the Republicans will start winning elections again. The no taxes ever dogma, the social conservatism, and the xenophobia are bad enough individually but if combined with this willful self-imposed mental illness it is going to be impossible for the government to function. There are concerns here rise above silly or offensive political discourse.
Even worse, it could happen soon. Let the economy tank hard enough, and the Republicans will be back in the white house in 2013, with a full payload of crazy.
A bit tangential (my apologies), but I'm always amazed, watching this whole absurd "birther" brouhaha from north of the border in Canada, that it doesn't prompt anyone to question the law limiting eligibility for the presidency to only certain types of citizens. I mean, either you become a US citizen when you take that oath, or you don't, right? I don't want to say that the distinction renders acquired citizenship meaningless - that would be overstating it - but I'm amazed there aren't more objections to what's essentially a two-tier citizenship system.
There was a link on another site (slow morning at work) and I emailed this turd telling him, in effect, that the campaign has been long over, and, instead of his party causing themselves further embarrassment,(birthing, whitey tape, socialist issue, et al), that it was time to do right by his constituency, which elected him to help solve REAL problems that they actually care about, like the economy, health care, education, a war in Afghanistan. I stated if he was not willing to do anything to help solve these issues, than he needs to get the hell out the way and allow those who have solutions to get busy trying.
You know, on second thought, maybe if this guy is this stupid, we don't want him even getting close to anything important. He might just f it up further...
Ta-Nehisi, it might be time for you to drop some knowledge on one of your Atlantic stable mates.
I can't believe Sully went there.
See, that didn't take long to fix, did it? What's Dobb's excuse again?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/the-original.html
At least he is conistent. Is there really all that much space between the birthers and his obsession with the youngest Palin child?
Doh. I should have known someone with the info would contact him with the proof and he would post it. Andrew is consistent in admiting error when he sees it.
It's why we love him. Often disagree with him. But he's honest.
It all sounds reminiscent of the John Birch Society in its glory days, with its fear of fluoridation (crazy) and Jews (anti-Semitism). The Birther movement similarly ties together flat-out nutjobs and closet racists. What a combo.
I do not believe that this hurts the Republicans any more than it hurt them to scream about Whitewater during the Clinton years. It keeps their base seething and gives the right-wing press along with much of the Village.
But that has an effect when you're trying to get people to join you.
Every party and every movement has their crazies, and holding the movement together often requires throwing the odd bone to the crazies. But you will have a hard time getting votes, if it looks like the crazies own your movement/party. And this is hard, because the crazies often make *great* volunteers, ground troops, whatever, and they're often the key to getting power within your party, or winning a nomination, or whatever.
Here's a "birther" related beauty - I know people well who, during the election, said that Hawaii wasn't really America. So, it doesn't really matter what you say to these people, it will not end.
Courtesy of a commenter on Balloon Juice, nice little trap for the Reps being laid by a Congressman from Hawaii, he is introducing a bill commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii statehood, your typical symbolic bill that everyone has to vote for, a natural part of a bill like that is listing some notable things about Hawaii, such as you know being the birth place of the 44th president:-)
Now every Rep will have to go on record.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/house-dem-putting-gopers-on-the-spot-by-introducing-measure-describing-hawaii-as-obamas-birthplace/
The Birthers are making me question my belief in intelligent design.