Don't Fuck Santorum

[kelley]

part two of artist john miller's 'politics of hate' just published at e-flux:

http://www.e-flux.com/journal/politics- ... d-beliefs/

it relies heavily on jim ridgeway's earlier research into right-wing hate groups. part one of miller's work:

http://www.e-flux.com/journal/politics- ... tolerance/

and part three is forthcoming. much of this will likely be familiar to RI readers. this seemed a good spot, but it might deserve its own thread once miller's series is complete? i imagine part three will delve into contemporary american politics quite deeply; at least it seems that's where miller is heading.

[bks]

Oooh, scary fake Christian nutjobs! Better vote for Obama! He won't take your porn/contraception/rape you!

He's the good guy!

Can you for once see that this powerful extremist movement exists and has an enormous impact on this country, and not pretend it's all just a trick to legitimate the present government? They are not fake, and they don't have to be scary, they are all too real. If not for the religious extremists, the two-party dynamic would become impossible. This is the main reason the Republicans start out with an automatic 40-plus in any election: thanks to the religious right-wing vote. They are the most populous faction supporting empire, crusade, military culture, xenophobia and corporate rule. All US politics is forced to kowtow to their neuroses, to the way they frame God and country, not to mention other key concepts like family, work and property.

.

But Jack, all US politics is not "forced" to kowtow to their neuroses. That's the faulty premise. There's an obvious question here that brings out the error: Ask yourself why the Republicans don't take the same stance toward the religious right that the mainstream Democratic party takes toward its left wing? That is, why doesn't the Republican establishment tell the right wing, in Emanuelesque fashion: "you're a bunch of fucking retards who have no option to vote for us anyway, so shut the fuck up!"?

You know why?

1. Because the religious right is actually willing to break off from the party if their platform is taken too lightly;

2. As currently constructed It's to the Republican party's benefit to have a bunch of baying hounds in the party, since they can point to them and complain to the Democrats that, "hey, from time to time, we have to throw them some red meat or else they're going to make trouble for BOTH of us."

But in reality this is complete bullshit. It is a calculated stance on the part of Republican, as Nordic says, because:

3. There is a far greater overlap of worldview and political sensibility between the mainstream right and the rabid right, than there is between mainstream Democrats and the real left. The mainstream Democratic party is center-right. It is profoundly at odds with the OWS-left [regardless of what it may think]. The mainstream right shares with the far right a deep economic conservatism [with the significant blindspot for any and all military spending, of course]; it's just less socially conservative than the nutjob right. But that difference can always be negotiated each election cycle by rhetorically promising a return to the times when men were men, and blaming the liberals when it doesn't happen, blah blah blah.

Therefore, those on the left have to be willing to break from Democrats when they are getting no representation at the national level [and that's what we're getting: zero], or else they invite the same exact Emanuellian logic to be used on them the next time around. MAKE THE BREAK. Don't give your vote to a party that has shown it has absolutely no interest in what you think.

The best strategy to get the Democrats to become truly oppositional is to make them a majority party in Congress, but to deny them the presidency. Obama is basically a center-right Republican. With him out of power, and with another center-right feeble type in the White House, at least the Democratic party will resist the same policies that, when Obama forwards them, they're obliged to support.

[Nordic]

Plus, by giving credence to the right-wing-psycho-nutjob-"evangelical" part of their base, and collaborating with the mainstream "media" to give them credence, take them "seriously" and give them press, it moves what is considered "reasonable discourse" in this country ever right-ward.

"Concentration camps for gays?" It's not hard to imagine that headline popping up on Fox News in the next few years.

You know, always use the question mark.

Basic Overton Window stuff.

Also, the right wing nuts are always quick to pull out their checkbooks and send LOTS of money to the Santorums of the party. It's free money for the Repubs (like they don't have enough). Just look at the Abramoff e-mails to see how that worked. And how seriously the GOP'ers actually took the right-wing nuts. They mocked them.

[JackRiddler]

Rick's out. Aww.

A more substantive reply: Later. At work.

[seemslikeadream]