The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Larry Jankens's picture

    Video: Those At The Tea Party, Drink The Koolaid

    By Larry Jankens on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 12:30pm |

     

    Let me encourage folks to be compassionate towards these people and not just respond in vitriolic idioms.  After watching all 9 minutes of this reporter completly upending these peoples' logic it will be hard.  For example:

    "Thank God for Glenn Beck."  "He's such a logical thinker."  "Live by the Constitution, die by the Constitution."

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Wow, Larry.  I thought Max Blumenthal's video was intriguing.  This was on a whole different level.  My mind is still reeling.

    I actually feel bad for that poor kid.  He doesn't look like he's old enough to have to pay taxes or vote, but he's sure that taxes are being raised like crazy, that we somehow elected Obama, but didn't vote for healthcare reform, and that most of the country has literally been destroyed in less than a year.  It almost seems like child abuse.

    I absolutely loved the guy holding the "Joe Wilson for President" sign.


    by DF on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 2:06pm

    I have mixed feelings about these wingnut-on-the-street videos. First, asshats and crazies can be found in any crowd, and it's hard to get a sense of whether we're seeing average participants or just the extreme wackos. Second, there's something condescendingly voyeuristic about the videos, as if the caption were, "See how dumb the Republicans are." I thought that the best part of the video went beyond the voyeurism with an extended discussion that showed a little of the thinking that the led these people to their beliefs.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 3:42pm

    Do you perhaps mean lack of thinking?  As in when the young fellow with the mic explained a bit of the history of "czars" and the older guy responded by asking him how he knew that, as if simple facts were somehow esoteric or mysterious.

    I think your criticism is valid to an extent, but this makes me think back to your recent post about Glenn Beck.  It's not just that you can find a crazy in any crowd.  It's the sheer uniformity and insanity of the shared beliefs in this particular crowd.

    You wonder about whether we're seeing average participants, but nothing that is displayed in this video strikes me as being materially different from what the leadership of the event was saying up at the podium throughout the day.  It was the same nonsense about destroying the country.  Mike Pence said the same disingenuous crap about czars.  So, am I to believe that it's just the leadership and a few crazies that sound nuts, but that's there some silent, unrepresented majority of people there that don't identify with these beliefs?  That hardly seems plausible to me.


    by DF on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 3:55pm

    What DF said. Crazy is the new Republican orthodoxy.

    And this "extremists on both sides" mantra doesn't fly, Genghis. Polls say a solid majority back health-care reform, so by the law of averages there should be some crazies at every pro-reform gathering too.

    Where's the video? If it existed, Glenn Beck would be airing it 24/7.


    by acanuck on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 4:35pm

    And yes, these people ARE dumb as rocks. They are scared because they know deep down their beliefs are rooted in ignorance. That's the safe, comfortable country they want to return to.


    by acanuck on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 4:39pm

    My point was not to suggest that there are equivalent degrees of extremism on both sides. Far from it. I do believe that right wing extremism is pervasive; I'm even writing a book about it. I just don't think that pervasive extemism can be effectively demonstrated by a few sound bytes from random goofballs.

    (I also note that the responses by many of those concerned about right wing extremism have been inconsistent--at one moment minimizing the number of participants and at the next, using the participants to demonstrate the pervasiveness of extremism.)


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 5:22pm

    I'm not sure if you could ever put a firm number on either side, but I think there are roughly the same amount of left-wing idiots than right-wing idiots.  One of the difference being that the left-wing cooks are too busy having fun (read: drugs and rock and roll) to waste time spouting their stupid views even though they are just as misinformed as the right-wing nut jobs. 

    Any non-principled extreme is stupid in my opinion, left or right.  It is easier to make fun of the right (thank goodness Colbert Report is back!), but it doens't make it any more stupid. 


    by Larry Jankens on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 5:53pm

    Yet there is a method to the madness. The tea partiers may not question their information sources, they may be ignorant of the facts, and they may be extremely confused, but they are following a specific narrative that they find compelling. When they're represented as simply crazy or stupid, then it's difficult to see what has shaped their worldview. Max Blumenthal's video is weak because it doesn't do what his new book does: present a rich picture of the motivations behind the paranoia.

    At the very least, I think that the wingnut-in-the-street videos need a richer context that would include the more articulate (if equally nuts) words of people like Glenn Beck, which would demonstrate that this is not a group of random crazies, the likes of which can be found in any NYC subway station, but a kind of calculated mass hysteria.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 4:47pm

    Well, you're kind of shifting the goal posts here.  At first you protested that they weren't representative of the crowd.  Now you're saying that the video gives their "worldview" short shrift.  Frankly, I think you actually have to be seeing something of the real world to be said to have a worldview.  I don't know what these people are viewing, aside from their daily dose of indoctrination, but it sure isn't the world that I live in.

    The bit about the czars is particularly telling.  I'm still pretty young myself, but it's not difficult for me to remember czars back to the Reagan years.  Several of the people in the video trying to make hay over this were quite a bit older than me.  Did they somehow miss Nixon appointing his czars or the subsequent decades of appointees informally referred to as "czar"?  You seriously have to be living a fact-proof bunker somewhere to avoid this knowledge.

    No one is making them say anything.  They're being asked plain, simple questions about why they're out there.  No one made that guy go out with a sign that read "Joe Wilson for President".  That was the message he wanted to (or didn't want to, as the case turned out) project.

    As for the context, I don't find it be necessary.  I'm already well aware of who Beck is, what he says and where he finds his inspiration.  The context you suggest sounds appropriate for a lengthy documentary, or book as you note, but that's not the aim of these shorter films.

    What I see at work here is relatively straight-forward: Rank, unchecked paranoia.  The smell of fear is thick.  And why shouldn't it be?  For decades, these people have been told by their leaders to hate the intellect and to indulge in the most fundamental religious convictions.  Now, suddenly, someone has appeared to pull the wool from their eyes and deliver the truth: The end is nigh.  It doesn't matter much that they've been diligently instructed not to think because someone has done their thinking for them.  This is, of course, exactly how propaganda works.  The whole point is get people to make moves based not on what they think, but on their knee-jerk emotional responses.


    by DF on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 1:22pm

    i think Genghis' complaint isn't that the protesters shown aren't representative of the crowd, but that the video doesn't demonstrate this. I.e., it would be easy to go to any rally of significant size, find the craziest people, and produce a similar video, even if the majority of the protesters were intelligent and sane (which is not the case here). I think Genghis is raising an important cautionary note in that regard.


    by Nebton on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 1:28pm

    I've considered this.  If we're talking about actual statistical representation, how is one supposed to demonstrate this in a short video?  Does a team of two people attempt to employ a survey method and then report their stats in the video?  When they do, do you believe their numbers any more than you believe the content of the video as it stands?

    Or do we instead defer to common sense and realize that there is a stunning uniformity of message that occured here, at an event that was planned and promoted primarily by Glenn Beck and Freedomworks, that went all the way to the messaging from leadership that was plain to see all day long on C-SPAN?

    Genghis' caution is perfectly fine and warranted in general, but in this specific case it simply defies common sense and evidence that somewhere in this crowd lurked a silent majority of reasonable people that has somehow not been represented or given voice by any of the coverage that has occurred, that does not agree with the stated mission and message of the organizational leadership nor with their numerous and vocal co-attendees.

    The fact is, crazy is the platform now.  Crazy is not on the tail in this bunch.  It's right in the fat middle.


    by DF on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 1:45pm

    it simply defies common sense and evidence that somewhere in this crowd lurked a silent majority of reasonable people

    The point is that these may be the dumbest, craziest people at the event--we don't know. We can make the claim with some justification that most other people at the event are crazy too only because we know the context of the paranoia promoted by Glenn Beck and co. The video does not present that context. You don't need a book or full length documentary, you just need to offer a little background and a little more than one-line clips from the subjects.

    Such context would not only support the implied critique, it would provide more information to the audience and get beyond the "ha ha, look at the dumb, crazy people."


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 4:37pm

    What about the Jay Leno schtick where he goes around town asking people questions and broadcasts the stupidest responses?  Are people in LA really that stupid? 

    I don't think we can view this edited video as an overall indictment of the opinions of the right, rather its an indictment of blind sheep who believe what ever they are told it doesn't matter if they are right or left. 


    by Larry Jankens on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 4:40pm

    I think you're missing the point of the clip.  The context is generally understood by the intended audience.  The point is not merely to laugh.  The point is to illustrate how successful the misinformation campaign is.  The marvel isn't that these people seem dumb.  It's that they're out in the world making statements that they can't even explain when given the opportunity, statements that are all on a list of talking points that are likewise parroted by the organizational leadership.

    As I've stated several times at this point, what is germane is that the things that they are saying are identical to the sanctioned message of the day.  These are not crazies in a crowd.  They are a crowd of crazies.  It would be as difficult to find a sane person in this crowd as it would be to find your proverbial wingnuts in any other.


    by DF on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 5:43pm

    I agree with you on everything except the point of the video. I do think that one of its purposes is to laugh at dumb Republicans. If the primary purpose were to highlight the success of the misinformation campaign, I think that the video could been done differently and more effectively.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 6:15pm

    Well, you're welcome to your interpretation, but it seems to me that you're projecting it on the creators.  They conclude the video with this statement:

    All that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe the lies.

    Let's not let volume beat reason.

    That seems much more in accordance with my interpretation than it does with yours.  You may have reasons to believe that they had less noble intentions, but you haven't given them, nor have you explained the way that they failed or what you think they should have done differently.


    by DF on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 7:05pm

    Did too, many times: the intention was to ridicule stupid, crazy rightwingers.

    I also offered my suggestions for improvements: showing longer conversations (and I complimented the filmmaker on what I thought was the best part) and more context, such as clips from right-wing leaders and commentators.

    But I will clarify. I do agree that one the intentions was to counter the "right-wing propaganda," but I feel that the filmmaker exploited a temptation among liberal audiences to denigrate right-wing Republicans for the sake of partisan self-indulgence. That's the part that bugs me.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 7:37pm

    In what way, exactly, do you feel that the film-makers denigrated the people in the film?  You've stated what you think the intent was, again, but you still don't say why.  Just saying "more context" or "longer interviews" doesn't tell me much about what you think they could better accomplish in a video intended for YouTube, which has a limit of ten minutes.

    I think we should unpack this a bit.  There are three aspects to your charge here.  One is "ridicule" the other is "right-wing" or "Republican" and the last is "dumb".  One thing that's interesting to me is that you're the one calling them dumb and right-wing.  The creators of the video never call them anything.  They let the people at the event speak in their own words.  They were respectful.  They didn't post the video to YouTube with a title like "LOL STUPID REPUGS!!!!".  If you look at their YouTube account, there's nothing at all of this sort of negativity.  It's all about healthcare activism.

    So, I think we can cross off ridicule from their intention in any case.  Did they intend to show that Republicans are dumb?  I'm not sure you can make this argument either.  One of the hallmarks of Glenn Beck's 912 bamboozle is that it's supposed to be "non-partisan", as I'm sure you're aware.  Now, we both probably have a healthy amount of skepticism as to whether that's really true.  The polling alone would seem to run counter to this conclusion.  Nevertheless, I've seen plenty of people at these events on video and at the events I've been to in person who offer at least some token criticism of the GOP and prefer to identify themselves as Americans and by their grievances rather than by party.

    All of this is probably at least partially attributable to the disheveled state of the right, but at the very least we can say that this wasn't strictly a GOP event.  So there's no guarantee that the people you interview in these crowds will even identify as Republican, though we both probably agree that it isn't exactly unlikely.

    As for the charge of dumb, I don't see that either.  These people are clearly misinformed and clearly repeating things that they have been told without examining them.  If that makes them dumb, then nearly 90% of America is dumb because that's how many people believed the lie that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11, which was easily refutable based on the available facts.

    Is it funny?  Let's take the politics out of it for a moment.  A man stands underneath a sign with a slogan, then claims he does not support the slogan.  This is absurd.  It sounds like a Monty Python sketch.  Does that mean that, assuming I laugh at this premise, that I'm ridiculing him because he is a right-winger and, therefore, dumb?  I don't think so.  It means what I'm seeing is patently absurd, regardless of content.

    There are probably people out there who do what you describe, but your accusation against the creators of this video doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.  Nor is it reconcilable with the obvious fact that what these people were saying was identical to that of the messaging put out by organizational leadership, a point that I've repeatedly made that you have yet to address.  Is C-SPAN guilty of the same voyeurism?  I ask this because what I saw that day on the C-SPAN was hardly different.

    Nor does it jive with the fact that what I saw in this video was not at all unlike the attendee interviews that I saw on major cable and network news programs, where the same pattern was essentially followed: interviewer asks why they're there or why they're making the statements they are, attendee says something incomphrensible, interviewer moves on because there really isn't much of a place to go when the person you're talking to is saying things that can't really be resolved against reality.

    In fact, can you point out a single interview from this event that didn't go this way?  I haven't seen one.  Frankly, I doubt I will, precisely because the organizational leadership responsible for crafting these messages are no more illuminating on these points.  This is classic propaganda.  These talking points are not meant to be informative.  They don't require a basis in fact.  The point is not to spur rational discussion or critical thinking.  The point is to get people to react emotionally precisely so that they will not examine critically what they are being told.

    Lastly, I'm curious as to why you put "right-wing propaganda" in scare quotes, especially given your interest in the subject and in Glenn Beck's influence in particular.  Do you not see this as propaganda at work?


    by DF on Thu, 09/17/2009 - 1:31pm

    I'll back down on the filmmaker's intentions, which you do a better job of defending than I can counter, but not about the liberal voyeurism. There is a lot of it out there on the web, not just the responses to the videos--cluck-clucking with plenty of insults about insanity and stupidity. It's very partisan and self-serving, and I believe that's a large part of what makes these videos popular. Maybe I'm projecting; I want my readers to take more from my posts--and hopefully my book--than "Republicans are dumb/crazy." I'm worried about exploiting the partisanship indulgence myself.

    Your discussion with Nebton on your thread also highlights the background context that you use to judge the tea party video as an accurate characterization, in contrast with the ACORN video. You are right about that context, but I think that the videos would be better if they stood on their own by providing at least a little more of that context. Again, my position is not that the views portrayed are exceptions; it's that the video doesn't do as good a job as it might have of demonstrating that they're not exceptions.

    PS The quotes weren't scare quotes. I was just quoting the language of the video.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 09/17/2009 - 6:56pm

    I'm not surprised that you're concerned about indulging in partisanship.  I've known you to be a responsible thinker and writer over the past year and a half or so.

    If the intent is to inform those without the context, then they almost certainly could have and should have approached it differently.  However, I saw it as a piece with a different audience in mind, namely an audience that already has the context, and not for the purpose of informing, but rather for showing how successful yet superficial the campaign of the like of Glenn Beck and FreedomWorks have been in order to persuade like-minded individuals to action.


    by DF on Thu, 09/17/2009 - 9:52pm

    Thanks to the jingoism of George W. Bush, the word "freedom", once a proud ideal at the very core of the American psyche, has been reduced to a empty, meaningless chant.

    Freedom? Joe McCarthy and John Wayne were right. Communists should be, at best, blacklisted from work and, at worst, jailed for their political opinions.

    Freedom? The government is going to kill old people and we're not sure if Czars are going to be granted property and executive authority.

    Freedom? Tens of thousands of people marched on Washington with signs and slogans utterly disrepectful to the leader of the nation. There were no tanks, no rubber bullets, no tear gas. Nobody got shot, arrested or tortured.

    I know you asked us to be kind, but in this case it's a bridge too far. These people are fucking morons. And the not-so-fucking morons exploiting them are sociopaths. I guess now we know why the Republicans have never supported education reform.


    by Orlando on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 4:39pm

    I'll admit, we have no way of knowing how representative the folks on camera are.

    That said, I found this video even more disturbing than some others because many of the interviewees were reasonably personable and well-spoken. Every protest attracts a corona of raving nutters, but a large percentage of those nutters have trouble sounding normal in an interview. What we seem to be looking at is people who are not themselves crazed but who have picke up ideas that seem mainstream to them.


    There have always been conspiracy theories, but what's strange is seeing conspiracy theories that are spread top-down rather than bottom-up. These folks didn't all become concerned about "Czars" at the same moment by accident.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 8:38pm

    "There have always been conspiracy theories, but what's strange is seeing conspiracy theories that are spread top-down rather than bottom-up."

    Great point, Doctor. That's part of what I've been trying to get at. I guess that you saw that pattern in the video itself. I didn't so much, so I wish that the video had been more explicit in presenting this information.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 4:43pm