The first hint that someone doesn't have a clue what they're talking about is when they contradict themselves. Saying everything, anything, in hopes that something will stick. It's like a punch-drunk boxer flailing his arms like a windmill, desperate to hit whatever he can.
This is what we see when the Far Right and members of the "Tea Party" corporations swing at Barack Obama. It's not that the arguments are bizarre -- but impossible. Further, contradicting yourself removes the very argument itself.
Yet their contradictions mount, because in reality Barack Obama isn't evil incarnate any more than George W. Bush was -- and Mr. Bush got America involved in two wars (one on a lie); collapsed the economy, turned a budget surplus into a $480 billion deficit, and ignored warnings before an "imminent" attack hit U.S. soil. So, the "accusations" can't possibly merit the hyperbole -- and the proof is the contradictions:
When Barack Obama's pastor ranted on an old videotape, Republicans demanded how could Mr. Obama, as a member of that Trinity United Church of Christ sit there in church as a good Christian?! And the same mouths cry that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Raised a Muslim, schooled in a madrassa as a Muslim, bringing Muslim ideals to America.
Of course, Barack Obama can't be a Catholic and a Muslim. Not possible. Polar opposites. Raging enemies. Killed each other for centuries during the Crusades. To charge both refutes the argument of either. Which demonstrably shows that the Far Right doesn't have the vaguest notion what it's talking about.
And another windmill: "Barack Obama is a Nazi." And "Barack Obama is a Socialist." Once more, Barack Obama can't be a Nazi and a Socialist of the kind this second argument refers to. Not possible. Polar opposites. Raging enemies. Killed each other during World War II. Nazis murdered 30 million Russians!! That the Far Right thinks anyone could be both a Nazi and a Socialist shows again their total cluelessness. And in contradicting themselves, prove to refute both their arguments.
The contradictions continue (like the fiscal conservative call to eliminate budget deficits and cut taxes). But there's a much larger issue. It can best be demonstrated by an exchange I had with a friend. It not only shows how contradictions undermine one's own standards, but more how people self-delude themselves.
My friend is a wonderful fellow. And once upon a time was liberal. About 15 years ago, he started becoming conservative. A few months back, he wrote me:
"I am no policy wonk, I merely read these articles, get so angry with the Far Left that is destroying the country I love, that I immediately forward them. But I am no writer and debater of all the details. I just know my basic JFK (my political hero) mantra: 'Smaller Government, Strong Military, Lower Taxes.' The Far Left," he wrote, "... now stands for everything I detest." Later adding, "I voted for Bill Clinton twice and would not change that vote today."
He wrote on other subjects -- blasting President Obama, of course -- but it is this above which is of note. Because riddled with contradiction, it demonstrates the underlying fallacy of all his issues.
If JFK is indeed your personal hero, I wrote back, don't think for a single second that Kennedy would be anything but aghast at what the Republican Party and Far Right has been doing for the last decade. If you think that your personal hero would say, like you, that he detests the Far Left because it is destroying America, you are seriously mistaken. Kennedy pushed to start Medicare, created Food Stamps, eased immigration for Latin America, and began the Peace Corps. If you actually support what John Kennedy stood for, then you are bulldozing those very beliefs by your own entrenched support of the Far Right. In today's America, Dwight Eisenhower would likely be drummed out of the GOP -- he wrote diatribes against the military-industrial complex and against Republicans who fought Social Security. Even Richard Nixon might have a hard time getting nominated by Republicans today. Heavens, he began diplomacy with Red China and started the EPA. So, to continue to hero worship JFK while embracing the Far Right is a contradiction in terms. If John Kennedy had a chance to speak with you, I'm sure that he'd make quite clear that his philosophy is far, FAR different than "Smaller Government, Strong Military, Lower Taxes."
And there we have the problem. This comforting, but delusional belief that one's hero can be John Kennedy, yet detest Barack Obama - the man most equated to Kennedy, even by JFK's own brother and daughter. That you can proudly support Bill Clinton - a man so reviled by the Far Right they impeached him - yet decry "the Far Left" because it is destroying America. (My friend considers Republican senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to be Democrats - so, "Far Left" to him is basically anyone to the left of...well, him.)
When you spout diametrically opposed contradictions, you can't have a supportable foundation to your beliefs. And that's what comes when one writes, "I am no policy wonk, I merely read these articles and get so angry."
You know "these articles" well. They rail how Barack Obama is a Socialist-Nazi-Christian-Muslim terrorist. He reads them and gets angry. Angry? I'm shocked his head doesn't explode.
Having no supportable foundation to your beliefs is the problem the Far Right has created for itself. With only thin air to grasp, what breeds is fear and anger. Fear of another party leading the nation, led by a black man as president. Anger at losing what you believed yourself entitled to. And anger and fear at an economy that collapsed under George Bush, at America attacked under George Bush, at two wars started by George Bush. And fear and anger at knowing all this, but unwilling to blame George Bush as the central cause of your greatest anger and fear.
And so you lash out, throw around vitriol that contradicts itself and cannot be supported, which only makes one angrier. And anger -- getting "so angry" -- feeds on itself. And the anger builds and spins far out of control.
But there's nothing there. Except contradictions that refute themselves. And in the end, it leaves one empty and howling at the moon.
Editor's Note: This post has been updated. President Obama is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, which is a Protestant denomination, not a Catholic one.
How many times have we seen Republicans get called out on being 100% wrong? What do they do? They run away, switch subjects, or just start insulting the one calling them out
It is atrocious yet the common right-wing tactic
The ability to believe two contradictory ideas simultaneously was addressed by George Orwell back in 1946, in his didactic novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four". He called the phenomenon "doublethink" and, in his book, it enabled huge military dictatorships to indoctrinate and control entire world continents.
Side matters: (1) CanisLatrans was correct as to the glaring error of placing Protestants (who first came into being in the 1520's) in the Crusades (which ended in 1270's). (2) Also, it was German Nazis and Russian Communists (not Russian Socialists) who killed each other in huge numbers in WW II. Although the Nazis (right wing totalitarian militarists) named themselves "National Socialists" and the Communists (left wing totalitarian revolutionaries) called themselves "Soviet Socialists", neither were actually Socialists in the legitimate sense of left wing, little "d" democrats who espouse social reform by legal means and have nothing to do with militarism or dictatorship other than opposing both (the British Labour Party, for example). That said, the 20th Century German and Russian dictatorships did oppose and periodically murder actual Socialists.
But as for contradictions-- they go much farther. Remember, they also call Obama a "Communist" and a "Nazi", which is even more of a contradiction, and the very notion that a Black man would be a member of any Nazi party chapter is beyond ignorant.
But let's go beyond the rhetoric and get into the details: the REAL sticky points of far-Right ignorance.
The Conservatives say they are against "big government" but we heard not a peep from them when the Patriot Act was passed or when $750 billion was shoveled to the banks under W. Bush without even an idea of where it was going (remember redecorated offices and private jets?). But-- when Obama gives $750 billion to banks, and says that everyone must buy health insurance, it's "Obammunism!"
The far-Right also wants government "so small it can be drowned in a bathtub", but routinely expect Federal power to step in during individual, and state-sanctioned, end-of-life issues (Terri Schiavo), to get involved in gay marriage choices; and to end abortion.
The hypocrisy of these loons is staggering in scope; I'm a little disappointed that more wasn't touched on, really...
I didn't write that. My original text says, "Catholic." And you can see the same piece over on Open Salon, where I posted it. It says..."Catholic."
http://open.salon.com/blog/robert_elisberg/2010/10/14/how_the_far_right_proves_its_own_arguments_wrong
For reasons I can't explain, an editor here must have thought this was wrong and changed it. I've changed it back.
Second, our elections are often fueled by the cult of personality, and the issues, ideas, and the meat of sound governance is lost to who the voter wishes to have a beer with. Right-wingers hatred of the President has more to do with the man they perceive him to be then the actual policy decisions he has made. While this may make it easy for the opposition to galvanize support, it does nothing to actually address the issues and challenges we face today.
They'd be funny if they didn't have actual political pull.
This is a stinging indictment of how right wing talk radio is corrupting America's information cycle with lies, untruths, and the BIG LIE. Your friend is, unfortunately ignorant (ignorant means unaware of facts, stupid means not accepting facts). His ignorance is the issue, not the tax rate.
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39517
The Tea Partiers believe "lower taxes" is a catch-all, employing it as a solution even in situations where it does not work.
Of course that is the big difference between liberals and conservatives.
Big government for liberals is only a means to an end. If we had another way that was both strong and equitable, we'd consider it.
For conservatives, small government is an end in itslef. To hell with the consequences.
That's what exists now. It exists today. It was put on speed during the Bush era.
It's why nobody can figure out what the hell Homeland Security is doing with all those employees. They aren't government workers. They're contracted.
And that's just one example.
The "government", especially of the last 10 -15 years has been your private sector saying:
"How ya like me now?"
Now, the rich are not paying enough to pay the country's expenses. The federal tax rate is a lot lower and so are many of the state taxes on the rich.
Behind all the propaganda, brilliantly designed to stir the mob, is the emerging evidence of the corporate takeover of America. What the anger junkies can't grasp is the fact that their unhappiness stems from other sources than they think. They see a country changing, becoming more diverse and let themselves be manipulated to hate "the other." They feel economic uncertainty but let themselves be misled as to the root causes. This is old stuff. In Psych 1A it was labelled a "psychological trap," a situation where the ego is defended at the expense of reality.
Thus the reason impaired and information challenged seize on slogans and falsehoods rather than acknowledge that they've been played. Their masters, the reactionary billionaires behind the Tea Party, et. al. have no interest in their lives. They want raw power with which they can repeal the 20th century and get back to the Gilded Age. The fools on the right suffer from a Stockholm Syndrome. They have bonded with their captors. Sic transit gloria Americana.
Makes me want to find out more about this idea of the "psychological trap."
Fanned and Favved!
It doesn't work, and it annoys the pig.
"“Conservatives,†or those who call themselves this nowadays, have an equally good and much longer record of faulty analysis and wrong prediction. In order to exist as a viable movement, they depend on everyone forgetting that they’re basically always wrong..."
--jefferson smith
http://www.badrepublicans.com/conservatives-always-wrong.html
That was a long article, but definitely worth reading! It really sums up a lot of conservative history.
ignorance breeds intolerance, which breeds complacency, which in turn leads to the target population being very easily manipulated.
The tactic of delay and corrupt any possible positive that President Obama attempts has given Republicans a well earned title as The Party of No.
Against all the obstacles put in the way this President has managed to lay the foundation of a far better nation in the future.
One of my favorite examples of this was by Brent Bozell, the head of the Media Research Center. Right after Obama's inauguration, he contradicted himself on FOX News about why Obama won the election.
He said that Obama ran on the most progressive platform of any presidential candidate in at least 15 years. Just a few seconds later, he said that Barack Obama won the election as a conservative, and therefore has no mandate to enact a progressive agenda.
No kidding.
I was so amused by this blatant contradiction, that I made this poll about it: http://www.pollsb.com/polls/p2051008-brent_bozell_really_think_president_elect_obama