McCarthyism is Rampant, But Failing

McCarthyism. It's a word that conjures up fearmongering, ruined careers and lives, and the suppression of free speech. It suggests lies, tied to ambition, and a ruthless, scorched earth partisanship. There are a lot of political charges flying around these days -- fascism, communism, socialism, elitism, even Nazism -- but few are willing to use the word "McCarthyism." For some reason, Democrats shy away from calling a spade a spade; running in terror from the words "liar" or "criminal" when applied to the Bush administration, for example. We mustn't say impolite things about people who have no hesitation to be impolite toward us. That would be unseemly.

Not even Joe McCarthy himself faced people so unwilling to fight -- at least, not for the same reason, anyway. Where McCarthy's critics faced national censure, along with the destruction of their careers and reputations, today's victims of McCarthyism are motivated to timidity simply from the fear of seeming rude. One doesn't bring attention to the frothing lunatic shrieking about commies taking over and peeing in the punchbowl, one simply makes a mental note not to drink any of the punch. Wouldn't want ruin the party for everyone.

But not everyone is willing to look the other way. In a new report -- "Rise of the New McCarthyism: How Right Wing Extremists Try to Paralyze Government Through Ideological Smears and Baseless Attacks" -- People For the American Way (PFAW) drops the "M-bomb" on the right.

It's rampant. It's on television and radio and it's in the halls of congress. If the right stands for anything these days, it's McCarthyism; baseless, partisan smears attacking people's patriotism and loyalty to their own country. Accusations of de facto treason are everywhere.


Today’s McCarthyism has many faces and voices, including the household names of right-wing cable television, a plethora of radio hosts, Religious Right leaders, right-wing organizations and the bogus “grassroots” campaigns they generate – and Members of Congress and other Republican Party officials. Together they engage in character assassination and challenge the loyalty and patriotism of their targets.

Fox's’s Glenn Beck, who reaches millions of Americans with his televised tirades, has become an almost cartoonish McCarthy clone, with his guilt-by-association charts supposedly detailing the communist connections of White House officials.


In the McCain/Palin campaign, there were charges of elitism and "palling around with terrorists." Talking heads on FOX News seriously discuss whether the president is a Stalinist or just a classic Marxist. As I've pointed out before, the inmates are running the Republican asylum these days. But it's a social faux pas to point out that crazy people are acting like crazy people. It just isn't done.

Luckily, this whole McCarthyism thing doesn't seem to work very well without some sort of Un-American Activities Committee and, as much as Rep. Michelle Bachmann would like to see one, they don't have it.

Without the mantle of legitimacy and authority, McCarthyism finds other outlets. And those outlets aren't exactly constructive. Cue the circular firing squad:


[Think Progress:]

Glenn Beck, who has waged a conspiratorial, hateful campaign against liberals and his other political enemies all year, has been galvanizing his supporters to run for office. Today, conservative activist Eric Forcade announced that he is running in the Republican primary to unseat longtime Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-FL). In explaing his reason for running, Forcade said he was inspired by the “values that have been popularized by Glenn Beck.”

Beck’s 9/12 project and its closely related “tea parties” have inspired a number of other challengers to Republican lawmakers deemed insufficiently “pure”...


Among the targets; Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE), Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC), Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), and Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL). Especially ironic is this wingnut targeted race:


Even NRCC [National Republican Congressional Committee] Chairman Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), charged with recruiting Republicans to challenge House Democrats in 2010, is facing a contested primary. Conservative activist David Smith says he will rely on the tea party movement to bring down Sessions.


Without any way to actually gain much from their fear- and hatemongering, the McCarthyites fall on each other like hungry wolves, to use an overused phrase. The "big Republican year" theory about the 2010 elections is looking less and less credible.

But heaven help us if these people come into power.

-Wisco

Get updates via Twitter

News Roundup for 12/2/09

McCain demands to know where he put his keys

-Headline of the day-
"McCain says Afghanistan withdrawal has to be tied to 'success,' forgets he declared victory years ago."

I'm starting to get a little worried about Gramps. He seems to be forgetting things lately -- like what he's for or against.

CBS interviewed McCain immediately after last night's presidential speech on the Afghanistan war -- because, of course, everyone gives a shit what the guy who lost the election thinks -- and John said he didn't like it much. "Success is what dictates dates for withdrawal," he said. "If we don’t have that success and we only set an arbitrary date it emboldens our enemies and dispirits our friends."

See, when you're in a war with someone, you should let their opinions of what you do govern everything. That there's what you call your "strategy." Child psychologists also call it "reverse psychology," but that's another story for another day.

Anyhoo, McCain forgot we already won in Afghanistan. A long, long time ago. In 2003, he told Sean Hannity, "Nobody in Afghanistan threatens the United States of America." Then, in 2005, he told master of the furrowed brow Charlie Rose, "Afghanistan, we don't read about anymore, because it's succeeded." That same year, he also told CNN, "Could I add, it was in Afghanistan, as well, there were many people who predicted that Afghanistan would not be a success. So far, it's a remarkable success."

John, we've been fighting a war we've already won for 6 years! At least, according to you. Isn't it about time we talked about bringing some people home? (Think Progress)


-Who do you blame/cheer?-
The rest of the Republican party are as divided on Obama's Afghanistan strategy as John McCain is. For those who think it's a bad plan, then it's all Obama's idea. But GOPers who think it might have merit are saying it's General McChrystal's idea and Obama's just a clueless dope who's doing what McChrystal tells him to -- which used to be "listening to the commanders in the field" and was the best idea any ever had.

But that was when Bush was in office. It's all different now. Because. (Plum Line)


-Bonus HotD-
"Former Fox News Host Calls Fox A 'Right-Wing Partial-News-But-Mostly-Opinion Network.'"

Y'don't say... (Think Progress)

Expecting More of Obama

Big night last night. The president's announcement of an escalation of the Afghanistan war managed to make few people happy. On the right, this can be explained -- to a large extent, anyway -- by kneejerk partisanship. For them, Barack Obama can do no right. They don't like that the president set a 18-month timeline to begin withdrawal. But it's not hard to imagine that, had he gone with an Bush-like open-ended commitment, they would be criticizing him for not having an exit strategy.

With the media stuck in the 2008 presidential campaign, it should be less surprising that they keep running to John McCain for reactions to Obama's actions. They don't seem to realize that there is now no way that McCain/Palin can still win it (it's over, guys). But they keep doing it and I keep wondering why. Still, McCain gives what we can call the unofficial Republican response on ABC's Good Morning America today:


Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the leading Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said while he agrees with the president's decision to up the number of troops, setting a timeline for withdrawal will only allow the Taliban to regroup and emerge stronger when U.S. forces leave Afghanistan.

"I support the president's decision to have a properly resourced counter insurgency strategy," McCain told "Good Morning America's" Robin Roberts today. "My only difference... is setting a date for return... Dates should be determined by success on the ground not by the calendar."


Remember that whole "commanders in the field" thing Bush used to pull? He'd basically argue that the president is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and, as such, he couldn't do anything that the Pentagon didn't agree with. It didn't make any sense then and it doesn't now, but McCain seemed to buy it at the time. You wonder why he doesn't buy it now.

"I'm absolutely supportive of the timeline," says Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top "commander in the field," "The 18 months timeline, however, is not an absolute. It's not an 18 months and everybody leaves. The president has expressed on numerous occasions a long-term strategic partnership with Afghanistan and that includes all manners of assistance."

So there's that. Other reactions have been as predictably reactionary.

It seems clear that if we want legitimate criticism of Obama's plan for Afghanistan, we'll have to point our eyes leftward.


[MSNBC's FirstRead:]

Democrat Russ Feingold (WI) today suggested there is a "significant" number of Senate Democrats with concerns about the administration's plan to increase troops in Afghanistan.

[...]

"I was just in a Democratic conference lunch, and I spoke out on this," he said on the Senate floor. "And I won't say who-said-what, but the number of people who joined me in expressing these very concerns was significant. Many members in my caucus, and I believe members of the Republican caucus -- perhaps from different philosophical prospective -- will come to the same conclusion that this is a mistake to move in the direction of this huge troop buildup."


It sounds like we won't have to look far on the left to get that criticism. A "significant" number can mean a lot of things, but it can't mean "a few." Feingold doesn't really play those word games anyway. Take it from someone who's lived in his state his entire career -- Russ Feingold is blunt. If he says the number is "significant," then it is. Or, at least, he believes it is.

But this leaves everyone on the left -- Obama, those who support his decision, and those who oppose it -- in a difficult position. For Obama, he's already made his concession to progressives -- he's included a timeline for withdrawal. Had this happened with Bush and Iraq, Democrats would've popped the champagne and declared victory. Party hats and whistles all around.

On the other hand, Democrats opposed to the increase have good reason to expect more from Obama than they did of Bush. So it's logical that they would demand more of him than they did of Bush. Where a timeline for withdrawal from Bush would've been acceptable to most Democrats, that acceptance would've been the result of what Bush himself once called "the soft bigotry of low expectations."

For Obama, there is no such soft bigotry. And this is were the problem stems for everyone. Progressives need to expect more, while Obama seems to believe he can't do more. Something has to give and it's hard to see where the give will be.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

News Roundup for 12/1/09

The Gateway (TO HELL!) Mall

-Headline of the day-
"New Website Helps You Avoid Jew Stores."

That's right, it's December, which means the annual War on Christmas is upon us! I advise cowering in your basement until -- say -- July, when this will either have all blown over or we've all been turned into Muslim terr'ists or something.

However, if you want to be one of the few brave souls to expose yourself to the heathens at the mall, you might want to check out Focus on the Family's StandForChristmas.com website thing. There you'll find out which stores hate America and want to make baby Jesus cry by saying "Happy Holidays," instead of "Merry Christmas." (Happy Holidays" is code for "Yay for the Homosexual Menace jihad! Oodle-oodle-oodle-oodle!")

Helpful hints include:


Me and my family shop at Dadeland Macys in Miami Florida.The Salespersons are very friendly and Christmas Focus.I am a very Aggressive and Bold person for CHRIST any store that i spend my money in they better tell me Merry Christmas or a VOID will be following in seconds.

Just bought an ipod from Best Buy, but then learned of their anti-Christmas/pro -Eid al Adha actions. I so regret having purchased from them. Best Buy, give glory to the one who has allowed and attributed to your success…Jesus Christ, not Mohammed!

Shopping CHRISTmas friendly stores is very important to me. I do not believe that CHRISTmas advertising should begin until after Thanksgiving. The day to celebrate the birth of Jesus has become far more too materialistic, and seems to become that way more each. year. Loacally the CHRISTmas decorations, songs, etc. began before holloween. Absurd and disgusting. Thank God for Focus on the Family and all you do. God Bless each and everyone at Focus. Myrna


So, if you start celebrating Christmas... Oh, sorry... CHRISTmas too early, it means you hate CHRISTmas. Also, if you acknowledge the existence of any other religion's holidays, it means you hate CHRISTmas. And if a very Aggressive and Bold person for CHRIST decides you hate CHRISTmas, then it means you hate CHRISTmas...

You know what? I think I hate CHRISTmas. A lot. It's stupid.

Bring back regular, not-insane Christmas. (Wonkette)


-Actually, that sounds about right-
For once, Bad Reporter's not far off the mark:


Click for full comic

Really, it explains a lot. (Bad Reporter)


-Bonus HotD-
"Warren Complains That Nobody Cares About Christians."

Twitter is quickly becoming the favorite medium for right wing morons to say stupid things on. If you need evidence, consider this bit of tweetlepation Pastor Rick Warren; "Globally last yr 146,000 Christians were put to death because of their faith. No one, except Christians, said anything."

The problem? Well, plenty of people speak out against the execution of the innocent, whether they're Christian or not. So there's that. But the bigger problem seems to be that Pastor Rick's pulled that number out of his ass. No one can seem to find that figure anywhere.

Maybe "146,000" is bible-talk for "a lot," in the same way that "40 days and 40 nights" is bible-talk for "a real long time."

I wouldn't know about that kind of thing, because I hate CHRISTmas. (Right Wing Watch)

In the Graveyard of Empires

Like most problems his administration faces, Obama inherited the the war in Afghanistan from his predecessor, George W. Bush. And, like most of these Bush legacies, it's the result of incompetence, neglect, and an obsession with neoconservative ideology. Afghanistan is a big pile of military blunders and foreign policy mistakes. Let's look at the military side and just focus on the obvious for a moment.

Afghanistan is well-known as the "graveyard of empires," an impossible terrain in a difficult to reach region of the world. It's nation of mountain ranges with mile after mile of natural fortresses. Fighting a war on two fronts is a classic military mistake and Bush made it by deciding to invade Iraq -- for no good reason. Iraq became the "central front on the war on terror," with Afghanistan becoming a nearly forgotten adventure that popped up in the news occasionally. We were fighting a war in what very well may be the most dangerous region of the world and doing it halfheartedly. Combine this with installing a corrupt puppet government and you could only screw things up worse if you tried.

But it wasn't only Bush who was making strategic mistakes here. At home, especially on the campaign trail, Democrats used the Afghanistan war to beef up their own military bona fides. They pointed out everything that I just have, while thumping their chest and proclaiming themselves better at war. Barack Obama may have inherited the Afghanistan war, but he also used it as political leverage against Iraq war supporters -- he wasn't some hippy-dippy peacenik, he wasn't against war, he just didn't like the Iraq war. Why, lookie here at the Afghanistan war -- now there's a war someone ought to win.

It's impossible to say whether this particular war would've been won or lost by now if the Bush administration hadn't distracted themselves with their fun little snipe hunt in Iraq. But I think it would've been over by now, win or lose. The Bush administration, dominated by starry-eyed dreamers who thought they were neocon supermen, were certain they could have everything and that nothing in history applied to them. They were special, they were the first realists to ever walk the face of the earth, geniuses to a one and pretty damned near infallible.

The result was disaster on all fronts. All they really managed to do was to keep the ball rolling long enough for someone else to come along and fix it all. And Barack Obama was the guy who came along.


[New York Times:]

President Obama issued orders to send about 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan as he prepared to address the nation Tuesday night to explain what may be one of the most defining decisions of his presidency.

Mr. Obama conveyed his decision to military leaders late Sunday afternoon during a meeting in the Oval Office and then spent Monday phoning foreign counterparts, including the leaders of Britain, France and Russia.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, declined to say how many additional troops would be deployed, but senior administration officials previously have said that about 30,000 will go in coming months, bringing the total American force to about 100,000.


30,000 is the number everyone seems to be using. If there's anything good to be taken away from this, it's that the kid who fixes the jams in the Obama White House copymachines is probably smarter than anyone in the Bush administration. But this is an unsatisfying takeaway.

If it were me, I'd blow off the classical military strategies in Afghanistan. History shows that this "blow stuff up and kill lots of people" way of doing things doesn't accomplish much. What I would do would be different.

I'd take all the troops that were there now and secure the largest contiguous area we could safely secure. Then I'd turn that area into Awesome City. We're talking freakin' Disneyland here. All the money we'd be spending on blowing things up, we'd spend on building. There are people in Afghanistan who not only don't have electricity, but don't know what electricity is. Simple infrastructure work would look like a miracle to many of them. Move your gaze a few countries over to the middle east; people don't like Hamas because they blow things up, they like them because they build and do charity work. The thing you don't hear about much in the west is that Hamas builds hospitals and schools. They do things their governments fail to do.

We don't have to play a classic offense/defense game -- which history shows is a loser anyway -- we can play a defense/defense game and win the war by fighting it in people's heads. If NATO-controlled Afghanistan is Awesome City and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan is Sucktown, where do you think most people are going to want to live? And how much popular support do you think that would leave the Taliban? Who's going to join the Sucktown Defense League?

But, of course, I'm not Commander in Chief. Whatever we do in Afghanistan, Republicans and Democrats should remember that they blew it. Republicans can blame themselves for backing the invasion of Iraq and Democrats can blame themselves pushing Afghanistan to prove they aren't "soft on terrorism" or pacifist pansies.

There's going to be a lot of finger-pointing down the road, but few of those fingers will be attached to clean hands.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter