one person's america-hating radical is another person's patriotic good ol' boy

Recently I was thinking about how odd it is that some folks on the right wing (e.g. Tea Partiers and the usual suspect of Fox News pundits) are so willing to show contempt and suspicion for the President, the Speaker of the House, Congress in general, various provisions of the US Constitution, basic principles of American democracy, the current policies of the government and then turn around and criticize others (usually liberals, Blacks, Latinos or Muslims) for being unAmerican. Among the most extreme we even have people like Sharron Angle suggesting the possibility of "Second Amendment remedies" to government "tyranny".

On the more apocalyptic side, during the US Presidential election we were endlessly confronted with the loop of Jeremiah Wright saying "God damn America" but most white evangelicals are willing to accept (or even celebrate as a cautionary tale) Ruth Graham's statement "if God doesn't soon bring judgment upon America, He'll have to go back and apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!” source

As a more entertaining and contemporary way to highlight this kind of right-wing hypocrisy as it relates to how we speak about 9/11, the Center for American Progress put together a Blaming-America-for-9/11-Quiz where you can try to match a set of "controversial" statements about 9/11 with the person who said them. Enjoy.

h/t to Islamicate

when is a conservative not a conservative?

For a while now I've been thinking about political labels and how we use them.

1. Firstly, our public language for describing the range of political opinion is pretty impoverished. Right/Left and Conservative/Liberal is too simplistic. For example on the "right" we have a number of different partially-overlapping groups: conservative, neoconservative, paleoconservative, social conservative, fiscal conservative, fascist, Republican, libertarian, Neo-Confederate, etc. You also have some on the "right" aren't really advocating for a vision of society with any depth, they are basically just anti-liberals (e.g. The Party of No),

2. On the "left" you have liberals, Democrats, Greens, progressives, different flavors of Anarchism and Socialism, pro-labor types. You also have folks who want to level the playing field, especially around certain issues: gender, race, orientation, religion, etc.

3. In the past I've argued that in some basic ways Islam leans to the left (see take a step to the left) especially if you focus on race and class. The community of Muslims is in principle a transracial brotherhood and the ideal Muslim government is a kind of welfare state which, while allowing private property, puts a number of ethical constraints on the use and abuse of wealth.

4. On the other hand, I was recently reading about the more traditional wings of the conservative movement (e.g. Paleoconservatives) and was struck by how one could argue that in a philosophical and abstract sense Islam is "conservative" as well. The idea of following the sunnah of Muhammad (saaws) in ones personal life, building society on the pattern of Medina, following a madhab and other forms of traditional scholarship are basically conservative moves.

5. When Muslims look to the past, we mainly mean precolonial times, e.g. Andalusia or the Ottoman Empire.

6. Another positive kind of "conservativism" which is often connected to Islam is Perennialism / Traditionalism

7. Of course when modern American "conservatives" look to the past for models of an ideal society they generally mean pre-Civil Rights era, or pre-New Deal, or in some cases pre-Emancipation.

8. Even on the Right, I would argue that very few are genuine conservatives in original sense of following Edmund Burke's thoughtful criticism of the French Revolution. In fact, the self-identified "Conservatives" on Fox News and in the Tea Party probably shouldn't even go under that name. They are more accurately described as anti-liberals.

9. I'm in the middle of reading a collection of Chomsky talks and interviews called "Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky" and I'm intrigued by how he calls himself a libertarian (among other things). That's actually a part of what sparked this post. We should try harder to understand the precise meanings of various political terms and use them correctly. Terms like "libertarian" and "conservative" should be appropriated by the Left when they apply.

10. On the other hand it is bizarre to me how multiple voices on FOX have been arguing that Fascism is a left-wing ideology. Even less coherent is the term Islamo-Fascism. It is like they don't care about what words mean and have basically resorted to name-calling.

on joe (joseph) stack

The article Terrorism: The Most Meaningless and Manipulated Word by Glenn Greenwald takes a look at the Joseph Stack incident and uses it to underline some of the hypocrisy behind how the term "terrorist" is used today (to delegitimize Muslims).

When I first read about Joseph Stack flying a plane into an Austin office building which housed the local IRS office I pretty much saw him as a Tea Party terrorist. After reading the Joseph Stack Manifesto I have to admit that he does have some left-wing elements to his "ideology" but on balance he seems more like an ordinary "Joe" who has had a series of frustrating Kafka-esque experiences with the bureaucratic IRS. At the same time,there do seem to be some tea party types embracing him as an American hero after the fact.

In any case, even if this particular incident isn't the responsibility of someone clearly in the Tea Party camp, there have certainly been other warning signs that anti-Obama conservative backlash has been becoming more and more aggressive and has the potential for moving in violent directions. (see pray for obama and the murder of george tiller)

See also: I Am Not Saying Joe Stack Is A Teabagger, But He’s A Little Teaish By Casey Gane-McCalla

the murder of george tiller

You may have heard of how this weekend Dr. George Tiller became the most recent victim of Christian (specifically anti-abortion) terrorism in the US. It will be interesting to see how this form of terrorism will be treated by the general public and the current administration. I wonder if, had this occurred under George W. Bush's rule, the government would have declared members of militant right-wing groups in the US as "enemy combatants" and sent them to Guantanamo?

In the wake of Tiller's murder, most anti-abortion groups and many individuals have strongly condemned the murder of Tiller and have acknowledged some of the excesses of the pro-life movement, but at least a few (e.g. Fox personality Bill O'Reilly and Operation Rescue founder George Terry have given comments which ranged from the ambiguous to unapologetic.

What I found really disturbing was a bit of analysis from an LA Times piece, "Abortion doctor George Tiller is killed" as follows:

UC Davis sociology professor Carole Joffe said that the worst period of violence against abortion providers was during Clinton's tenure, and that attacks dwindled under President George W. Bush, when the movement had an ally in the White House. But now, with a president who supports abortion rights and a Democratic Congress, she said, some abortion foes may be feeling hopeless.

"When social movements feel they're not getting anywhere, they get desperate," she said, adding that the vast majority of antiabortion activists reject violence. "This is deeply tragic but unsurprising."

So does this mean that for the rest of Obama's tenure we can expect more and more of the fascist/ militant/ racist /far-right wing crazies to come out the woodwork?

Planet Grenada eric robert rudolph
LA Times: A history of violence on the antiabortion fringe
Huffington: Bill O'Reilly Crusaded Against George Tiller For Years