Evil genius

Michael says: I will argue that the extreme ideas expressed by conservative media stars, Tea Party organizers, and some Republican leaders are not random cases of paranoid insanity.  They are part of a growing political movement to cast white, Christian, gun-owning conservatives as the victims of a vicious alliance between liberal elites, blacks, illegal immigrants, homosexuals, and other assorted villains.

1. I think we could see that coming years ago when the televangelists saw a chance to make names for themselves and add to their coffers by jumping on the paranoia bandwagon when Right Wing radio (long before Rush Limbaugh) began talking up black helicopters and New World Orders, courtesy of Ollie North and the newly-vested Neocons.  Suddenly, the entire Christian world saw commies and socialists and Welfare moms in Cadillacs around every corner, and the poetry of the psalms and beatitudes gave way to a repeat of old fashioned political fire and brimstone. 

The gun nuts came later, when the NRA saw their chance to make a name for itself and add to their coffers.  Paranoia was (and is) the gift that keeps on giving.  There's always something to be paranoid about, and every other red-blooded American has had a thing for guns  since Gene Autrey (a loyal Republican), Hoppy (he never said) and Fanner 50s in faux-leather holsters.  Add Charlton Heston, the darling of bloody religious movies, and you might as well have recruited God himself.  Nothing's gonna stop them now.

2. I didn't get that Michael actually thinks the Culture Wars started with Bill O'Reilly.  O'Reilly is a greenhorn in the culture wars.  He might have found a way to promote it to a new audience, but nothing he spouts is especially new.  The liberals have always been "the other".  They were the pinkos and rabble-rousers and folk singers and professors in blue jeans.  They built the unions and gave women the right to vote.  They kept the kids out of factories and voted in FDR any time he wanted to be president.  They were and are the dangerous watchdogs, and you can't have that and still maintain free-market capitalism.

3. Michael Wolraich:  evil comic.

I love the idea of a "paranoia safari catching glimpses of the ferocious beasts that populate the wastelands of conservative conscience" ("Visitors are advised to remain within the safety of the vehicle at all times.")  Being liberals, I assume we'll be looking through the lens of a spyglass and not the sight of a gun? 

The Christmas thing was pretty clever of him.  It's the ultimate, "Now they want to take this away from you too, your own personal Christmas."

Of course, all that really happened out in the real world is that some businesses that used to close on Christmad day decided to stay open so they can make a buck of people looking for something to do on a day that many consider nice but not religiously sacred.  All that happened was that some people of their own free will, tried to use some more inclusive language.

So why does the O'Reilly argument work?  What made it effective?  I suspect it's because for some people, a loud minority of the population, to be sure, really can't stand to not have EVERYONE conform to their personal fantasy about how things should be.  For them a "Happy Holidays" is an insult because they damned well want to hear "Happy Jesus' Birthday!"  If you don't give them that, you're taking something away from them.

To some extent, this argument basically works because some Americans are theocratic jerks.

2nd favorite funny - Orlando nabbed my first:

† The correlation between golf and moral decay suggests a link between the whacking of small white balls and the war on Christmas.

3rd favorite funny:

* "Boston Tea Party".  The gatherings sometimes resemble tours of the Liberty Bell and Constitutional Hall except that the Ben Franklin imitator carries a sign that says "NO Pubic Option [sic]."

1. Wolraich postulates that the narrators of teh crazy fall back on one or more of the three tatics. Personally, I think he makes the case that all three in one fantasy is best for fuelling paranoid hysteria amongst the eager believers. However, stay tuned for nuances in later chapters.

2. Agree on both the imagination and the ratings. But as Wolraich goes on to say, the war on Xmas (if I may abbreviate) was not the first or last instance of paranoid insanity from the wingers. The roots go back to the 1970s, long before Fox News first offered fact free opinion disguised as something like news. Looking at the focus group results that are referred to under the Don't Tread on Me heading, I now realize that there has been a vast disconnect between red and blue Americans for quite some time that goes way beyond the big gov't versus small gov't type of discourse. When I talk about social justice, level playing fields and health care for all, apparently a goodly portion of the population hears money for welfare queens, reverse racism and death panels for granny. And according to my read of the election results, as well as the crazy signs that sprout up at the Tea Parties, it's death panels for granny in a landslide win over health care for all.

3. Pure genius.

Why are we calling Genghis-Mike, Wolraich?

Has anyone written a review for Amazon.com lately? My last one was in Nov. 2009 and it popped right up on the screen. Now they are claiming 24-48 hours for moderation to go through?

So good to see everyone!

I feel like I have an unfair advantage in understanding Michael's thought process, since I'm reading an autographed copy...Ha!

Well I'm a week late but I just got the book (thanks, Donal!) and will join in at next week's discussion (which, I think will be this week). 

One thing I'll just add before I start reading it, is that I had a recollection of a moment from my past when I read your words:

In Wolraich’s eyes, O’Reilly is a storyteller at heart. The tales he weaves, with traditional hero and villain archetypes and plenty of conflict, keep people on the edge of their couches.

I couldn't help but remember the book-signing I went to with my sister out on Long Island back in 2001 or so.  O'Reilly was the featured author and he got up at a podium and a large crowd (including my sister and I) sat and listened to him before he started signing books.  At that point in time I still considered myself a conservative Republican and I had seen him on Fox News almost every night, so I was a little awed back then.  He told us of his days growing up on Long Island and he wove many of his stories into his discussion of his book, and I thought at the time he seemed so "real".  So approachable. 

He is good at drawing people in by seeming humble like that. Only after going through my total swing to the left did I start to notice how he uses that gift for the wrong reasons.  So, long story short, this is going to be a very interesting read.