Where the hell are the real conservatives?

GOP -- that stands for Grand Ole Paranoia. Since when does being a conservative require such nastiness? There are lots of angry Republicans out there today. These are the right-or-wrong do-or-die dyed-in-the-wool partisan people. They're Nazties. The naztier the better. Obama doesn't believe in the sanctity of life, they claim. Therefore, expect summary execution of people blocking traffic or dawdling in line. Where is it written that to be a conservative you have to hate gays and that you have to refuse them rights afforded to straight couples? If gays want a fifty percent divorce rate like the straights, how does it adversely affect me? Will everyone go gay if we pass gay marriage? Will we stop having cute little babies? That's doubtful. Well, I just don't like 'em, they say. Yeah, how do you feel about ugly, pig ignorant, thieves and lie-abouts getting married -- does that make you happy, Mrs Republican? Do I really need to think about the sexual practices of my neighbors to approve of them as neighbors? Besides, how do the paranoiacs on the far out there religious-nut right know that straight people aren't having anal and oral sex? Should we break out the bedroom police to make sure? The whole thing against gay marriage makes no rational sense unless one admits that the GOP wants to be the party of hate, needs to be the party of hate in order to stay in office. But why do they want to be in office if not to be in bed with Big Business? And let me tell you, when Mrs. Republican gets in bed with Mr. Big Business, there ain't nothing she won't do. That goes for Mr. Republican too. They even like a three-way. They say screw traditional family values -- this is Business.

twl

Buzzword: socialist

Last week Geoff Nunberg had a piece on "Fresh Air." He seemed to be saying that "socialism" was not a very powerful slur against Obama's politics. I e-mailed him and asked what the heck he meant. The people we are talking about are riled by the term "activist judges." Geoff said, essentially, so what? Calling somebody a socialist is about as dull as calling her a "fellow traveler," no? Well, maybe, but I don't think so -- and here's why: "Socialist" is a word that you can look up in any dictionary. "Fellow traveler" is not simply because most dictionaries do not enter multi-word terms. With Wikipedia this will change. And anyway, fellow traveler was always kind of a euphemism for a Communist. It sounds like one at least. I've heard graduate students use the term not disingenuously as a synonym for an ally or a friendly colleague, as in: Is your dissertation reader open to your position on epistemology? -- Oh, yeah, she's a fellow traveler. Another thing that contributed to fellow traveler going the way of the dodo is the way it lends itself to over use and other applications. Socialist will always be tied to socialism. There is always the problem of socialism being a part of the name of the Nazis and the USSR.

"Socialist" will always have some connection, for those on the right, with Karl Marx. Many liberals are under the impression that you can have socialism without any theoretical tie to Communism -- and, come on! they say, the Soviets weren't real Communists. I say this only to point out that we are at a weird historical moment. What happened along the road from 1968 to 2008? When did kids in the classrooms stop wearing their Che T-shirts? I'm not an anti-intellectual but I do have a problem with American universities being rife with Marxist-Foucauldians. All Democrats are college people, and yet none of them seem interested in theory. What is the philosophical basis of liberalism? Not everyone would agree with my response to that question, but I wonder what their answer is. What books would they recommend I read. I have a list of my own for them. It would not include anything by Etienne Balibar or Immanuel Wallerstein, I can assure you that much. I might start with Simon Schama's Citizens. The first thing that Democrats need to do is sever all connection with Marx, with a hate of wealth and power. America has great wealth and power and we have a responsibility to use them wisely. History is watching.

I'm not suggesting that Obama has any real debt to Marx. Nor do I think that the paranoid right needs to given that much attention. I'm worried that the swing voters will be given a little dose of doubt by the Republicans. Blush Lameballs was not succesful in poisoning the mind of enough Americans this time around -- but next time? Namecalling -- we are about to hear a lot of it from the far right. They will try to say we may as well have elected Jesse Jackson. They will say that this guy wants to tax the life out of you and give a free lunch to gays. They will cast aspersions everywhich way. And for some Americans the dirty words will work. They will be looking for a scapegoat. The times ahead will be strange and dangerous. It is for us in the center to point out that there is nothing else we can do but face our problems. We must address global warming and our need for fuel and energy. We must insist on the full benefits of citizenship to gays and minorities.

The future will be watching that too.

twl