Consider first the wrong kind of paranoia, coming from one Orson Scott Card. You may know him as the author of the sci-fi book "Ender's Game," a movie version of which will be coming out this fall. Card has attracted a lot of negative attention recently, since, as a Mormon (itself quite a knock in Hollywood), he has made it known that he opposes gay marriage. Given that such sentiments are already becoming de facto illegal, one hardly need imagine how many indignant young liberals declared that they would never go watch the "Ender's Game" movie, the distancing from Card's views by all those connected with the film, blah blah blah.
So the author was already in some hot water. But then a few weeks ago, he did something even less forgivable--speculating on Obama as dictator. Specifically, what he did was to post on a what-if blog--which, by the way, is specifically titled "Unlikely Events"--a scenario in which Obama becomes a "Hitler- or Stalin-style dictator" who uses a new national police force and a revision of the Constitution to become President-for-life, a la Robert Mugabe or another Third World thug.
Silly? Well, yeah. It comes off as rather paranoid, and I suppose other comments from Card about how the media gives TOTUS a pass on everything could persuade leftists that he really believes Obama wants to be the next Hitler. Despite his repeated disclaimers that this is entirely fictional and would never happen in reality, that is. So it should come as no surprise that Card made the press again in a very bad way, with his essay described as "bizarre" at best. Online, the comments were much worse--and highly revealing. One asked Card to "tell us more about the magic golden plates next" (well, that didn't take long), and amazingly, another as good as said that this stuff only made sense of you applied it to Republicans: "It would be far more plausible if Card put Dubya in that spot (or more realistically the power behind the Oval Office...Dick Cheney)."
The lack of self-awareness from the Left is mind-boggling, I tell you. Apparently they're the only ones who get to have conspiracy theories, because theirs are more "realistic" and not just dreamed up. Which is a real shame, because some of their own are really inventive.
I refer to the recent publication Christian Nation, courtesy of one Frederic Rich. If you're familiar with subtext, the title should tell you all you need to know, but the book posits a future where bombings of our largest cities by radical Muslims provoke an angry backlash by Christians (especially white Christians) that sweeps everyone's favorite mama grizzly into power, who in turn quickly establishes herself as dictator. America is re-created as a land where conservative Republicans hold all political power, Fox and its affiliates control the networks, and deviation from Christian norms is banned. Which is not the definition of a theocracy, but whatever.
My own thoughts on this are 1) Is this an alternate reality I can somehow transport myself to? and 2) Give me a break. Talk about your paranoia. Plus, it's not a particularly well-written book, and in fact reads like something Aaron Sorkin would write, if Aaron Sorkin had sustained a concussion, gotten coked up, and then started writing in a fit of rage over The Newsroom being canceled. And I'd put 100-to-1 odds that the book's "twist" will be that the bombings were actually carried out by evil fundamentalist Christians who then framed good peaceful Muslims to make Palin dictator.
So, yeah, this is pretty ridiculous. But that hasn't stopped liberals from loving it. Although mainstream reviewers have been fairly negative, noting how its political moralizing submerges other elements like, you know, characters and a plot, those less afraid of making fools of themselves have praised it as "riveting," "the best book I have read in a long time," comparable to "The Handmaid's Tale," "so alarming I immediately barricaded my door with stale hummus and copies of Darwin," etc. Okay, I might have made up one of those, but you get the idea.
Any moral here? Not really; I'm not telling you anything you don't already know about how liberals think. Just a reminder that, every time you let yourself believe they can't be any more idiotic or hypocritical, they go and surprise you. Every time.
Any particular double standards from the Left you can think of?
38 comments:
Uh... are you joking? Can I think of "any particular double standards from the left"? Let me put it this way, I can't think of an instance where they haven't imposed a double standard!
As an aside, I'm so sick of the "where he/she quickly turns themselves into a dictator." It's not that easy in the US. In fact, we have a system designed to prevent that very thing. People who think that really don't understand the legal and institutional resistance that would stop that cold.
Andrew,
I did a thought experiment a while ago on the possibility of a military coup and soon realized that in order for it to be possible you would have to seriously f--k up this country.
The closest we came was under the Wilson administration -and even then Wilson was hit hard in the November elections when the Republicans made gains.
Kit, You would need to break the country beyond recognition -- probably to the point of nuclear war where there simply is no government.
Don't forget, American military culture respects civil rule... they are in fact obsessive about it. Moreover, it is made up of regular Americans, who are taught to reject illegal orders. Plus, you have a diverse power structure within the military itself which keeps any one General from having too much power. Also, the military is spread out all over the country so it's not even an effective tool to "seize power." Hence, a coup would be nearly impossible in the first place.
And that's before you factor in the problem of conquering and controlling a country where everyone has guns and where the public will get pretty ornery about any such attempt. Plus, you have to remember that each governor controls the national guard in their states.
As for the President doing it, any President who tries it will face opposition from (1) Congress, (2) the Courts, who control the Marshals, (3) the states, (4) the bureaucracy, (5) the military, (6) the states, and (7) the people. You have to get through all of that before you can make yourself a dictator, and that's not happening.
This stuff is pure paranoia for people who don't understand anything about our country.
T-Rav: You think "Christian Nation" is a conspiracy book?
Son, here's some real conspiracy books:
"The Turner Diaries". Horribly racist, violent and probably inspired the OK bombing, but a fun read in a horror show/political forbidden porn kind of way. Like when the author denies the holocaust but kind of undermines his argument by spending quite a bit of time talking about eliminating the Jews. Uh. . . okay. The original hard bound version of the book - which I've never seen - has lots of practical pointers and information about conducting underground warfare against "ZOG", which is about has hardcore as you can get.
Much more mainstream politically but still a guilty pleasure is "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. Came out after WACO and pretty decently written but long. Basically a political version of Jules Feiffer's play "Little Murders", except all the people being randomly murdered are obnoxious corrupt bureaucrats.
Note to NSA/TSA rookies - merely reading controversial books does not, necessarily, make one a criminal or even that you agree with the premises. Really!
"Don't forget, American military culture respects civil rule... they are in fact obsessive about it."
Hence the "eriously f--k up this country" part. Which is why I could postulate this (barring nuclear war) as early as 2050-ish.
Its hard to turn a democracy into a dictatorship over night. People like to point out Rome... forgetting that the government was already rather authoritarian and had, for the last 100-ish years, undergone massive problems with civil strife* unseen in US history, large numbers of unemployed military veterans** and I could go one for quite a while.
*The bloody end of the Gracchus reforms, Sulla's coup and proscription, the Cataline conspiracy, slave revolts, the Social Wars, Spartacus's slave rebellion, etc.
**This had a double effect of (1) decreasing the faith the average soldier had in the political system because the established class opposed any reforms to give them land in Italy (possibly because the Patricians often took the opportunity to buy up the soldier's farms while they were off fighting) and (2) gave them increased loyalty to their commanders.
By the way, if, having lost your farm to a Patrician Senator while you were off fighting for the glory of Rome, you go to the city to find work you find... slaves have already grabbed it up!
You know, we were much closer to that kind of situation in 1861-1863. Which kind of explains the extreme steps Lincoln took such as suspension of Habeas Corpus in certain parts of the country. There was actually a fear among several Republicans that McClellan would stage a military coup. Fortunately, those fears were unfounded.
"Like when the author denies the holocaust but kind of undermines his argument by spending quite a bit of time talking about eliminating the Jews."
Silly K, you should never expect consistancy of thought from Neo-Nazis when it concerns the Jews. Or from anyone when it concerns the Jews for that matter...
(Like how Hitler did the "right thing" doing something that never happened)
I should note re McClellan and a military coup. General McCellan did write in a letter to his wife that he felt if he wanted to he felt he could pull it off and be greeted with crowds (cannot find the letter right now)
Kit, Keep in mind that we are a different nation than anything in the past. Our system is set up in a way that a half dozen different groups hold the keys to power.
The President has no money without Congress, nor can he pass legitimate laws -- and (as a practical matter) they can't be enforced without the consent of the states and the pubic. Nor does he have a personal army to protect him if the Courts order his arrest. The states have their own authority and power as well, making the President a prisoner in DC. Congress has no people to enforce the laws they pass without the President. They can also be arrested.
The government doesn't control the media, and there's far too much of it to control in any event. The bureaucracy can shut the government down in a second if they like.
And then you have to deal with a very active citizenry who are quite happy with the current arrangement and aren't going to let you change the world.
Compare that with pretty much every other country, where power is concentrated in a handful of offices and there where the people are taught to obey... unlike Americans, who are taught that opposition is glorious.
All the comparisons, Rome, Weimar, Russia, Spain, French Revolution are simply wrong.
"Compare that with pretty much every other country, where power is concentrated in a handful of offices and there where the people are taught to obey... unlike Americans, who are taught that opposition is glorious.
All the comparisons, Rome, Weimar, Russia, Spain, French Revolution are simply wrong."
-----------------
The more I think on it the more I realize that it is near impossible. Lets a ssume a nuclear attack is launched on Washington D.C. that kills the President, the Cabinet, the Supreme Court, and the Congress and a shadow government comes into power.
Its very likely 2 rulings would come out of the Federal courts stating (1) that the House Members and Senators will have to be elected by special elections/appointed through whatever the state's methods are and (2) the head of the Shadow Government is free to remain in power until the end of the deceased Presidents term. if he wants to remain in power after that then he needs to start up his presidential election campaign.
At this point if the head of the government was in charge then he would either announce that he is only a "transitional figure" and will step down on January 20th of the end of the President's term or he will start up his election campaign.
If he is a moron and tries to override the ruling through executive fiat then you have the makings of a coup by either the remnants of the FBI or the military.
---------------------
"The states have their own authority and power as well, making the President a prisoner in DC."
This is why Lincoln handling of Maryland was so heavy-handed.
By the way, the military officers that stage the coup declare themselves "transitional" and put in place a civil government.
An extremely interesting post, Rav. I had not heard of this individual or their book. It does sound crazy, but I also understand how mass communication via the internet, 24/7 cable news, etc. not only makes propaganda and disinformation so much easier to spread, it seems to have led to an age where events can quickly spiral out of control. The first time I noticed this was the fall of the iron curtain in the Reagan/Bush years.
Put differently, dictators of the past were able to cut off the populace from outside influence. Sure we had radio free Europe, but today's smart phones are a quantum leap past. So for people who have seen how this administration has trampled the constitution, and has been aided and abetted by a media which has abandoned it's job (Benghazi and I.R.S.) it doesn't seem like quite so much a stretch. Of course, for the left, it is easy for them to see people in the religious right as dictators as well. Today's people have their core beliefs, and only want to hear the opposition demonized.
T-Rav....
"Any particular double standards from the Left you can think of?"
Let me think.....no......no......nope! Can't think of any!!
Where to start?.....
Koch brothers bad.....Soros good
Black christian athletes cool.......White christian athletes lunatics
Get gov't out of your life good......Increased gov't in your life good
Abortion good.....Death penalty bad
Islam = peace......Christianity = oppression
MSM = fair.......Faux news = biased
Decreased crime = good........Increase criminals in jail = bad
IRS after white churches = good......IRS after black churches = bad
One could go crazy trying to keep up !!
What's funny is that I think a story about how things would really go down sounds much more entertaining than any of these snatch-n-grab dictator theories. Just the idea of a president holed up in DC while the governors organize their guard units is intriguing. And even that is miles from reality.
I don't know if anyone watches Revolution but I feel like that's a pretty fair representation of what might happen. For the uninitiated, all the world's electronics suddenly go dead (but not by EMP). A handful of opportunists seize control of various parts of the nation, but a group of patriots emerges to reunify the United States. Since it takes place at generation 0, it seems pretty plausible.
Interesting, T-Rav! There will always be the paranoid among us. I think it has to be a function of our reptilian brains as a survival/ protection of the species mechanism. We must think of the worst case scenaria and plan a response for them.
Both sides embrace fools, con men, misogynists, lunatics, liars and perverts so long as the embrace isn't disadvantageous and sometimes even when it is.
Andrew--yeah okay, that was more than a bit rhetorical, I suppose. :-)
And to be clear, I'm not here to defend Card any more than the Palin-phobe. Both are kind of silly, really. It's more about how one's paranoia is "bizarre" and the other's "makes you think," or whatever.
Andrew and Kit, I'm not saying you couldn't establish a dictatorship in America; but you would pretty much have to break the country first. If there was an EMP strike (as some authors have speculated) or another apocalyptic event which caused order to break down on the most basic level, then sure, there could be a lot of petty dictators running around. But it would be in territory no longer recognizable as the U.S. of A.
I do think certain of our past political leaders could be accused of wanting to create a dictatorship of sorts--if not Wilson and FDR themselves, then certainly some of the people who worked for them. But there are too many safeguards (term limits, etc.) in the way to allow such a permanent monopoly of power.
Patriot, okay, okay! Don't go crazy on me! I'm already sorry I added that last bit. <:-)
And let's not forget the most recent addition: Bush attacking Middle East countries = bad; Obama attacking Middle East countries = good. Of course, it would be useless showing that list to the average liberal, since they've long since twisted logic to the point where they can literally reconcile anything.
Kit, McClellan was a paranoid who swung between dreams of being dictator and terror that Lincoln would have him executed if he lost the next battle. He was barely stable enough to lead the Army of the Potomac; if he had tried to make himself dictator, even after being legitimately elected President, he would have been run out on a rail within six months, if not sooner.
K, I'll just take your word for it. I don't want to inadvertently do anything that might give neo-Nazis more money.
Just about every president has acknowledged the elections -even when they inconvenienced him.
"Don't forget, American military culture respects civil rule... they are in fact obsessive about it."
I don't deny it but how are they "obsessive about it"?
T-Rav: If present trends continue, people on the right are going to be characterized more and more as neo-nazis. I've always thought some insite into the real McCoy would be a useful addition to one's intellectual quiver.
My apologies if the subject is too outré for Commentarama.
Since the paranoia theme pretty much has run any course for meaningful discussion, I recently read a couple of articles by Avik Roy, a contributor to National Review. The articles address the monopolistic power of hospitals in contributing to out of control healthcare costs. These originally appeared in the Aug. 5, and Sept. 2 issues of National Review. If you can find a way to access them, I strongly urge you to do so as they are extremely informative.
T-Rav.....Reminds me of the new poster that came out:
Good looking hippie girl with the saying: "I never knew how cool war was until Obama started one!"
Patriot, I in fact put that picture on my Syria post last week. Shows how closely you read my work.... (grumble grumble)
tryanmax, I'm a bit of a sucker, honestly, for those apocalyptic stories. Not because I find them cool (mostly), but it's an interesting thought experiment. How would a country like ours fall into chaos? Obviously we have less to fear from some quarters than others, but what would happen to cause that disaster scenario? It's worth speculating on.
I haven't watched much of Revolution. I thought the concept was good, the execution was not.
Thanks Bev! I think a lot of it is protection/what-if counterfactual thinking, but as the anti-Palin screed shows, I think a lot of it is often spleen-venting, too. Left or Right, we tend to think our opponents would destroy America if left unchecked, and books like these are a good way to indulge that line of thought. So they should always be taken with a grain of salt (or two or ten).
Anthony...
I absolutely despise it when someone uses the old 'both sides are loaded with fools' argument. Largely because whenever I debated liberals at my old job (and I use 'debate' loosely when describing conversation with liberals), and beat them with logic, this was a common misdirection they would always bring up.
In my experience, this trope is what someone says when their guy is caught and exposed as a liar, crook, or jerk. The entire purpose is to lower the side to their level. In other words, "yeah, our guy sucks. But they're all politicians/athletes/businessmen/etc. and they all suck by profession- just like your guys, So, no matter how bad our guy is, you suck just as much as us." (Evidence optional.)
Projection, identity politics, and name-calling is no way to win an argument. When you have to lower yourself into the mud and your only recourse is to drag someone else down with you, you have no argument. I hate it when people- especially idiot leftists*- use it. It ranks right up there with my most hated of phrases, "but you don't understand..."
*- Anthony, please note this doesn't apply to you. It's just that this argument has been so used many times by a loser lefty that it's become a sore spot for me. Personally, I'd like to see it rubbed out of existence.
T-Rav, tryanmax...
I was still working at an NBC station when the preview trailers for 'Revolution' came out. Needless to say, we ripped it a new one.
First, human survivors fighting for their lives in a deadly world? How could the company (NBC) that blatantly copied AMC's 'Mad Men' (with the short-lived 'Playboy Club') ever be expected to copy 'the Walking Dead?' And second, it features a heroine who uses a crossbow. Could it be reminiscent of a recent movie featuring a heroine who used a bow and arrow...something about 'hunger' and 'gaming?' I think it was a wildlife movie.
Then I read about it, and we had a ball. The government has fallen after the power went out and guns are outlawed by the gangs who control the lawless land. How many contradictions can a premise have at once? Who's going to enforce this rule? Why wouldn't the gangs use their advantage- guns- to control the population? I'm guessing this was written by geeks who don't understand life without electric devices. Later, they must've learned that guns are mechanical and wouldn't shut down. Hence, the ridiculous rewrite.
That being said, if this is post-apocalypse...why do the characters look like they just bought their clothes at the mall? Why do they never look dirty- despite traveling through the wilderness (no dirt, no beard stubble, etc.)? Why are they carrying next to no survival supplies? (I guess the geeks behind this show have only seen comic book characters carrying weapons, but never supplies on treks, and thought that's how it's done in real life.) And whose bright idea was it to imagine the Cubs would actually win a World Series before the power went out?
We just dismissed 'Revolution' as a collection of J.J. Abrams ripoffs with his geeks imagining an apocalyptic world where people have to fight with swords again. But, of course, they didn't think about the details and really botched it.
Now, all this came from us watching the previews and continuing to be pessimistic about NBC and its continued decline. I've never seen the show, and, therefore, can't comment any further. But as far as apocalypse shows go, it could be better. (Though it does sound better than 'Christian Nation.')
OK. Rant over.
Rustbelt, that was pretty much my reaction to promos for the show. It looked like a ripoff of several other movies/TV shows just slapped together without much thought at all. Good-looking people with primitive weapons, blah blah blah.
If you want a more realistic depiction of this sort of world, I recommend the book "One Second After," depicting America post EMP-strike, and how that would actually shake out if everyone did lose power. (Spoiler alert: Not fun. Probably everyone from "Revolution" would have been dead within a year anyway.)
T-Rav......Next time I'll cite my sources!!! :) I remember when you put it out, and I saw it on other sites as well. But I give you full credit for my initial chuckle, as Commentarama is on my early morning site reading list, so it MUST have been your article!!
Anyway......It is a perfect example of the duplicitous nature of the left (and most good looking hippie chicks).
Rustbelt,
Conservatism is a superior ideology to liberalism, but if I were hung up on consistency, I would never vote.
Liberals tend to talk about the Koch Brothers like they are Satan and conservatives do the same with Soros.
I remember liberals talking like Bush was going to establish himself as a dictator. Now conservatives are doing the same thing with Obama.
Both liberals and conservatives are happy to throw around racially tinged insults at the followers of the other guy who are the wrong color.
Patriot, excellent. And I don't blame you, that is probably my favorite Internet picture at the moment.
Funny story about good-looking hippie chicks: A guy I used to talk to at BH told a story once about when back in the day, he was at a party and was chatting it up with a young, just-out-of-college woman. Things were going well until he happened to mention that he had served in the military.
Apparently her eyes went very wide and she said in a horrified voice, "You mean you killed babies?"
Being quick with his wits, he replied, "Of course not! I'm not an abortionist!"
She stared at him in shock for a minute and then just staggered off without another word. One of my favorite stories, ever.
T-Rav.....That was one of the BEST comebacks ever. I'm surprised her brain didn't start smoking and her mouth start sputtering..."does not compute....does not compute" !!!
T-Rav
Obama can't be Hitler. Sorry but Card is well in to the tin foil hat land of Conspiriana with that one.
Now Obama being Benito Mussolini that is some serious $%#$... it has a dark specter of reality to it.
Post a Comment