Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Ranteurs
Was just thinking about political conservatives this morning, thinking about what motivates them. Couple of things popped into my head.
Future shock:
Alvin Toffler warned us about it way back in 1970. I read his book back then, and I mainly remember a focus on technological innovations as the root of the psychological and social maladies.
Yet this morning, as I read that the Episcopalians had elected a woman bishop (which followed the election of a gay bishop a year or two back, and for which there is a still-threatening schism), I realized that the speed of SOCIAL change can also cause this kind of shock reaction in people.
Right now, the gay marriage thing appears to be a bit of a failure at rousing up marching hordes of "anti" voters among the conservative base, but it still sparks strong feelings among a considerable number of people, and may still play a reactionary role in upcoming elections. Yet the basic conservative rage these days is such that gay marriage is only one point in a much longer litany.
Which leads me to ...
Desire for an outgroup:
We all of us, in this tribal/herd species, have a need to identify an outgroup to fear, dislike and mistrust. Somebody to hate. It’s why we create dismissive, hateful words such as injun, kike, wop, spic, ofay, the "N" word, and so forth.
Neo-cons have "librools." An anonymous writer at Urban Dictionary described the neo-con reaction to liberals as "adolescent rage run rampant." The same writer didn’t even try to define the term, because "... most definitions are either incoherent jumbles of insults and generalizations or deliberate spewing of misinformation."
Anyway, this outgroup thing is an important factor. If you listen to the spitting anger at "librools" by someone like Bill O’Reilly, or the sly, confident, mocking hate of Ann Coulter, you’ll see the epitome of it, flowing out from them in undiluted fury.
Which brings me to this third factor ...
Media itself:
Conservative radio and TV personalities have now begun a feedback spiral with their audiences. To keep ratings high, they not only pound on every new social-shock issue like drum majors in a parade, they go back and rip open all the old wounds, all the smoldering not-completely-settled angers — religion, race, women’s rights, immigration — in order to keep the shocks fresh and alive.
Considering those moments in U.S. history when the conservatives-of-their-time have made themselves most strongly felt – for example, the hotly-fought contest over women’s voting rights which resulted in the 19th Amendment in 1920 – the idea of people creating organized negative reactions to social change is probably a total no-brainer.
Considering the long history of "us vs. them" — recognizable in race relations throughout history, noticeably in recent U.S. history in the vicious and sometimes deadly reaction to African-American kids going to the same schools as Anglos — the seeking of an outgroup as a basic motivation for a political movement is also probably a not-very-profound epiphany.
But the two ideas together, coupled with a new mass media INTEREST GROUP in continuous, never-lessening shock and rage, to me that seemed freshly significant.
Certainly there have been loud voices hectoring for this issue or that throughout history, but those voices have always fallen back into the social background noise as either their goals began to be achieved, the public focus changed to another issue and the historic moment passed them by or, simply, their voices were deliberately stilled.
Yet here and now in the U.S., we have developed a permanent ratings-driven class of "ranteurs." Within our mass media itself, we now have voices whose sole purpose is to provoke deliberate hate and division — us against them, them against us — in their audience. Regardless of any storefront cause.
Rather than to settle issues, find solutions, or to promote some sort of social harmony, the actual purpose of Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly, and Ann Coulter, and so many others, is to get people at each others’ throats. Deliberately, and forever, on every issue that comes up. To settle issues, even by the conservatives totally trouncing "librools" and winning the point, would depopulate their toolbox for whipping up ratings.
Interesting trend, huh? I’m curious to see how long things can hold together.
(Dang. For a few minutes in the writing of this piece, I thought I had coined a new word, "ranteur." But a Google search returned more than 2,000 references. Pooh.)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Ranteurs
I was trying to think of a group of people that I seriously don't like. It would seem to be conservatives, but that just isn't so. I decided that for me it's more a case of not suffering fools gladly, no matter what their race, religion, sex, political proclivity, etc. So, my outgroup would that comprised of dimwits. Hmm, it may be that "my outgroup" is larger than any other out there. What do you think?
In regards to our lack of social harmony, I can't help but remember these words of Abe Lincoln (who paraphrased a statement by Jesus), "A house divided against itself cannot stand." If the United States doesn't UNITE, then "we're up a creek without a paddle." On a more optimistic note, I recall my grandmother's oft used phrase, "This too shall pass." After every dark age there is an age of enlightenment. I just hope we live that long.
There's a big difference, see.
For the hard cons, everything serves the required ideology. You find far more libs saying thingslike, "Yeah, it's complicated," or other phrases indicating they understand shades of grey, inconvenient facts, other considered positions, and the need for discussion and consensus. For the hard cons, it's their way or the highway and damn the nuance.
Roy says it well at Alicublog!
http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2006_06_18_alicublog_archive.html#11507302...
What drives Conservatives?
What drives Conservatives? It's pretty simple. They're still fighting the Cold War. The way they see us, is ultra-leftist, proto-communists, and nothing is going to change their mind on that. And they need to stop us, and because we're so bad, it gives them carte blanche permission to do whatever they want, and need to in order to "stop us".
I think most people need to internalize this, especially if you're working for change. Because while quite a few people support our ideas, they still see us ourselves as being "red".
Both ways
Of course this name calling and labeling goes both ways. On many sites I visit the terms neocon, and fundie are also thrown around hap-hazzardly. I can't listen to Air America any easier than I can listen to Rush. As a political independent I think both sides are full of shitte rhetoric.
Many Atheists run around saying "the theocracy in coming", in similar tactics used by the republicans saying, "gay marriage in coming to eat your children." I believe that our leaders basing their decisions on the bible is more of a threat to our country than gays being able to marry, but it is important to note both sides use the same tactics. And on some level each side "knows" they are right.
I appreciate your point just want to make sure our arguments avoid falling into the same trap.
Good point
Good point, Nat. I didn’t mean to say that ONLY right-wingers are capable of being ranteurs.
At the same time, I don’t think we can imagine there’s any sort of balance in the ranks of ranteurs. However much any of us might like to say that for every Michael Savage, there’s an Al Franken, it simply isn’t true.
First of all, because the numbers just aren’t there. There are currently dozens, perhaps hundreds, of extremely conservative voices on radio and TV, compared to a very few truly liberal voices.
Second, comparing delivery or content, the left comes in a very distant second to the right on rage. Al Franken's most pointed weapon is humor. Watch Michael Savage or Bill O’Reilly, and you see naked, unapologetic hate.
On radio, TV and in books, Ann Coulter can today get away with advocating killing people she doesn’t like. The only repercussion is that she sells more books. Pat Robertson can say the same kinds of things on national TV and suffer nothing more painful than a mild off-airwave apology.
No liberal speaker today could (or, likely, would) say any such equivalent thing.
Ditto for atheists vs. Republicans, if you want to juxtapose the two in that way. Considering that there are NO mainstream media-darling atheists in the U.S. today, if you think ANY atheist voice can match even the mildest of conservative Republicans for influence, I’d like you to point that guy out.
Finally, I’m talking mainly about MSM — mainstream media. Yes, we can both find a number of “sites” where the outrageous views of one side or the other are aired. On broadcast radio, however, or television, or even newspapers such as the one I work for, the number of blatantly, provocatively, hatefully liberal voices is, as far as I know, zero.
I'm with ya.
I agree the right (BillO, Ann, etc) are much more visable than anyone on the left when it comes to spewing hate. One problem with the left in these situations (and a major difference between the two "sides") is they see the world in a variety of shades, while to the Right the world is black and white/good and bad. It is much easier to hate a memorable quote that makes the news when you don't think about the grey areas of the world. For an example, see the last election.
The "L" word
It’s why we create dismissive, hateful words such as injun, kike, wop, spic, ofay, the "N" word, and so forth.
The "N" word? Hehe. Why not the "I", "K", "W", "S", or "O" words? I guess I never understood the point of such abbreviations when discussing hate words in a social context.
That said, I recently asked, on a conservative blog, the question, "What is a liberal? Define it." I was called a shill and never received an answer. If the word "liberal" meant everything that conservative radio, television, and blogs attached to it, it would be a mental patient sitting in the corner incapable of doing anything but babbling incoherently. Some people can't distinguish the reality from this painted on definition, which is a terrible shame and a huge barrier in our ability to debate and communicate effectively.
- Matt
The "N" word
Matt, honestly I just couldn't bring myself to write it out in full. When it came to spelling out what was probably one of the first couple of hundred words I learned (growing up in the Deep South), I simply couldn't do it. The others, though they may be hurtful to individuals of the various cultures or races they're meant to insult, simply don't have the weight, for me, that the "N" word does. It took too long to get over it, and it just seems especially poisonous.
No problem, I understand.
No problem, I understand. Even academically it is a touchy subject. Hmm... I just managed to refer to it as 'it'. I guess I'm in the same place :)
- Matt