While many are pondering what exactly Sarah Palin’s approving radio comments on the birther issue and her subsequent “clarification” mean to her possible 2012 run, there is a more fundamental question: what does this bode for our democracy? The answer is this is yet another indicator that extreme is the new mainstream.
In a radio interview on the conservative Rusty Humphries show yesterday, the former 2008 Vice Presidential Republican candidate answered a question about her possibly using the President’s birth certificate as an issue if she ran again for office: “I think the public rightfully is still making it [the President’s birth certificate] an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers." She continued: “I think it's a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records -- all of that is fair game” She later deftly stated on Facebook that she never directly asked the President to produce his birth certificate or suggest that he was not born in the country. True, she only inferred it, when she could have done what both her running mate, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Ann Coulter all did—reject the lie.
Her careful elevation of a foundational conspiracy theory used by extremists to demonize the President as being everything from an illegitimate imposter to high office to a secret radical Jihadist Trojan horse warrants unequivocal condemnation and study from across the political spectrum—just as the horrendous anti-Bush 9/11 truthers do.
If you think that these detrimental wacky theories don’t have traction in this troubled decade of ours look at some recent polling numbers, or alternatively read the comments section that will invariably appear below this post. In a September analysis Public Policy Polling stated, “Is extremism becoming mainstream in 21st century American politics? Our latest national poll would seem to say yes- 35% [of] voters in the country either think that Barack Obama was not born in the United States or that George W. Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur so that we could go to war in the Middle East.”
Both sides of the political spectrum offer a disturbing picture. One quarter of Democrats think President Bush let 9/11 happen so he could go to war, while a plurality, 42% of Republicans believe the current president was not born in the United States. If that’s not bad enough 10% of voters say that President Obama is the “anti-Christ” with another 11% not sure. Its no wonder that various preachers have outrageously made headlines by publicly praying for the President’s death. President Bush fairs slightly better with only 8% conclusively saying he is in fact the anti-Christ, and another 11% unsure. And here I thought the anti-Christ had to be Gay and (partially) Jewish. If these Biblical “scholars” had thrown in “California resident” I would have advised Adam Lambert to turn down singing at any future Palin fundraisers.
One of the key things our Center analyzes is how the use of tactical falsehoods can create a bridge from the extreme into the mainstream. There are important ramifications at stake here. There is nothing illegitimate about spotlighting a candidate’s views, qualifications, associations, experience, judgment or integrity. However, when clear broad falsehoods become a key currency to delegitimize and demonize institutions and leaders democracy suffers.
First, on a micro level, it relieves the accuser of engaging in an actual debate on real substantive issues as well as clearly articulating their own concrete solutions. As analyst Chip Berlet notes, “ Conspiracism is neither a healthy expression of skepticism nor a valid form of criticism; rather it is a belief system that refuses to obey the rules of logic.” It also does something more damaging, but somewhat subtle on a macro level. These broad conspiracy theories loop together to provide a justification for people to reject not merely candidates or single positions, but the elemental processes and institutions of our pluralistic democracy. At their extreme a sliver of those who angrily opt out of these processes and institutions pose a risk of violence to our country because they view these leaders and pillars not as guarantors of freedom, but rather as direct threats to liberty. Oftentimes, bigots will weave their own racial, religious, or sexual orientation prejudices into a folklore that relies upon conspiracy theories.
There are several things worth noting. First, conspiracy theories exploit real and sincere fears and disagreements that many mainstream people have about actual leaders, policies, events, trends and abuses of authority. Second, while these theories are often intertwined with a small element of truth, factual gaps are filled with a much larger dose of emotion and wild conjecture. Third, they are usually part of a much more broad tactical assault on leaders and institutions. These theorists offer a convenient tool to attract mainstream converts by appealing to their fears, feelings of disenfranchisement, prejudices and the lure of a simple answer to complex circumstances. Governor Palin’s statements are particularly disturbing because they constitute a tacit celebrity endorsement of conspiracies by a former officeholder who is viewed as a legitimate political player.
John McCain demonstrated a different approach as his campaign mostly rejected the overt use of the birth certificate and related “issues.” During a rally in Minnesota he took the microphone back from a supporter who said she couldn’t trust Barack Obama because he was an “Arab.” McCain responded, “No, ma'am. He's a decent family man [and] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign's all about. He's not [an Arab].” Notwithstanding, the insulting and regrettable inference that Arabs can’t be citizens and family men, McCain should at least be recognized for his awkward attempt to reject some conspiracy theories. Whatever you want to say about her parsing of words, Palin knows her base—82% of those who say that President Obama is the anti-Christ have a favorable opinion of the former Governor.
Follow Brian Levin, J.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/proflevin
The stigmatization of any critical analysis of 9/11 as a "conspiracy theory" is obviously par of the course on this forum, although "conspiracy theory" ought to be a generic expression designating a comprehensive study of a pattern of human behavior as old as the world, involving a variety of political deception schemes called conspiracies -- i.e. an analytical approach to the subject matter by means of a survey of relevant historical data, political and personal motivations, historical case studies, etc.
The wrong use of the expression has been promoted by those who fear that their conspiracy will be discovered, and who unfortunately control the media to such an extent that "suspicion of conspiracy" has become synonym of "conspiracy theory", and "conspiracy investigator" synonym of "conspiracy theorist".
Moreover the word "theory" suggests that conspiration is an abstract notion, whereas in actual fact it is the standard operating mode of Realpolitik, a term borrowed from the German language because political realities are oftentimes so unbelievably cruel that the Anglo-Saxons and the French bashfully choose to resort to German spelling as a sort of cover-up (if not maybe to suggest that only the Teutons are capable of such baseness).
The way she says something is IMPLYING. The way it's interpreted it is INFERRING. Let's not make Sarah look like the smart one, ok?
Wonder if Sarah has ever considered that, in dealings with "minorities?"
I will go to my grave believing this of these immoral, money-worshiping right wing, bigoted, gluttonous idolators who cloak themselves shamelessly in the good name of the Savior they claim to follow while in practice behave like the money changers driven from the temple. Ask me what I really think some time. :)
Her fans say things like, "Sarah will lead the revolution and I am ready to die for her", or "Sarah, when President, will rid the world of all religions except good ol American Christianity".
While these are actual quotes, they are not isolated quotes. Her fans are teabaggers, birthers, Evangelicals,etc. Sarah knows how to fan the flames and that is exactly was her intent was with that statement.
http://www.observer.com/2007/coulter-culture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmDg9t5M5dI
Most have a little more smarts than to put it so bluntly in public, but that women - who is not really stupid like Sarah - is too crazy to control her mouth. Like Bush & many others, the nuttiness slips out bc they can't help themselves.
In a PM exchange with a Palinbot regarding President Obama's birth certificate, I was ROFLMAO at this one from a typical Palinbot.
FIRST: He doesn't 'believe' the information from the State of Hawaii, because it's on the Internet therefore not believable,
.....BUT he believes there is a Kenyan BC (debunked long ago) because ... IT WAS ON THE INTERNET!
You can't argue with 'logic' like that, can you???
www.archivist1000.blogspot.com”
Get a life people-EMBRACE THE SUCK, President Bush W, $ Bush H and Reagan sink America, our glimer of hope came in 1993-2000 and again in 2008-2042, THERE WILL NEVER BE ANOTHER GOP PRESIDENT unless they run as a closet democrat and act like a Republican to engineer a turn to the GOP, they are that evil people the Neocons, they have infiltrated the GOP, however the period of GREAT TRANSITION is upon them and they are screaming like vagabonds and making money sacking those without healthcare etc. What would Jesus do today, Palin a year ago talk so much about Christ and Religion today she is sucking the very dollar from the masses? Embrace the suck people the GOP was and is never your friend. Palin and the GOP are all one bunch of Hypocrites and Palin will run in 2012 only to loose but she has a plan to run for Senator of Alaska and truly believe she will be President some day, ha. After President OBAMA will come a Democratic Femal President or a Hispanic male. Follwo the dynamics the GOP and their 20% of bigoted racist plantation owners and their ignorant mobsters are OVER!
It is a sad indictment on societal values that this woman has any following at all.
Her site is nothing but a hate site, where people who HATE OBAMA congregate ... they have latched onto Sarah as their figurehead for that, not her policies on issues, since she is out of her depth there.
For instance, when questioned about whether Obama is the anti-christ, I believe that unless you are radically infused with scriptural interpretations--as so many of the extreme right are--you might think in very simple terms regarding just what this means. (I also think that the character of the slanted scriptural interpretations are more political than scriptural.)
What do I conjure up mentally about the anti-christ? Well, in the simplest terms--more from responsible biblical documentaries on tv than from the bible, and certainly not from leisure-suited charismatics who demand complicance above compassion--I image a figure who comes with great power, appears in simple human form but in a power position, and who turns out to be the opposite of what is promised, a wolf in lamb's clothing.
Depending on whether Obama appears to contradict his promises about change in the Wall Street industry, the job market, the banking industry, the mortgage industry, the insurance industry, the pharmeceutical industry, the financial services industry, and most recently his Afghan shocker, I might just have to respond in simple logic as to whether he is indeed the anti-christ.
On these days when I see Obama revealing himself in contradiction to his inspired campaign promises, a simple response-eschewing political correctness--from my logic might indeed say yes, he fits the described role.
........... Sarah is palling around with stoooopid people!
www.archivist1000.blogspot.com
Today, in a PM exchange with a Palinbot regarding President Obama's birth certificate, I was ROFLMAO at this one from a typical Palinbot.
FIRST: He doesn't 'believe' the information from the State of Hawaii, because it's on the Internet therefore not believable,
.....BUT he believes there is a Kenyan BC (debunked long ago) because ... IT WAS ON THE INTERNET!
You can't argue with 'logic' like that, can you???
www.archivist1000.blogspot.com
I'll check out your site.