Conservative hate speech

On Point with Tom Ashbrook did a segment on conservative hate speech being spewed by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, right-wing talk radio and their counterparts on Fox News. Here’s how the program is teased:

[T]he language lately on air has grown particularly fierce and apocalyptic: President Obama called a dictator and sympathizer with terrorists. His policies called socialist, Marxist, Bolshevik, dangerous. Americans called to rise up in revolt. All this while the economy tanks and gun sales surge.

That last line is the operative and, frankly, scary one: while the economy tanks and gun sales surge. Let’s not forget that conservative right-wing blowhards animated, if not inspired, two recent terrorist incidents: 1. A gunman that opened fire at a church for its liberal views, 2. A second man in Pennsylvania ambushed police officers because, he thought, they and Obama were coming to take his guns away.

I wish Tom Ashbrook, the host of On Point, had been unabashedly critical of the vile rhetoric being spewed by conservatives on Fox News and talk radio; but, like a good “journalist,” Tom maintained his objectivity and largely agreed that liberals were guilty of similar offenses during the Bush years. To which I simply respond: bullshit! When was the last time any liberal went on TV or radio to call for armed revolution against the US government? Tom Ashbrook’s default fallback of journalistic objectivity is simply weak, and irresponsible in this instance.

GOP: First Religious Party

This frankly deserves a lot more attention than what I can give it here in this quick post that am writing just before going to bed — this subject is certainly worth revisiting at length, which I certainly hope to do.

Kevin Phillips, author of American Dynasty, among other books, has recently published American Theocracy, which takes a close look at the relationship between the Republican Party and the religious fundamentalists right in America. Kevin Phillips goes even further than merely describing the relationship, however. In fact, he suggests that the Republican Party is now the first religious party in American history and that it is this phenomenon that has influenced the Bush Administration’s total lack of a policy apparatus — essentially, the Bush White House has given up on formulating a governing policy and, in stead, has catered to the demands of this extremely influential constituency within the Republican Party by using the White House as a political tool to consolidate control over the religious right.

Now, Kevin Phillips is not some media pundit writing about the Republican Party from the outside, as he’s been an inside player of the Republican Party as a member of Nixon’s White House team. It was during that time, in the early to mid 1970s, that Kevin Phillips began to observe the inroads that the religious fundamentalist right was making within the Republican Party — just around the time that Nixon was launching the Southern Strategy to courtship Southern Whites unhappy with the progress of the Civil Rights movement. Today, of course, the Republican Party is apologizing for its use of race as a wedge issue to courtship the bigot vote in the South; never mind that they continue to use race and other social wedge issues to divide the public, and to attract the bigoted and close minded elements to the Republican Party come election day.

All right, back to Kevin Phillips. As I mentioned above, with American Theocracy, Kevin Phillips does more than merely describe the nexus of religious fundamentalism and the Republican Party. He goes on to describe how the erosion of the manufacturing base, and the transformation of our economy to a finance centric one, are colluding to destroy the social and economic security that America’s middle class enjoyed for much of the twentieth century. This is how NPR’s Fresh Air, the program on which I heard about American Theocracy, describes the author and his book:

Kevin Phillips rose to prominence on the heels of Richard Nixon’s political triumphs. His 1969 book The Emerging Republican Majority was hailed as a visionary work of political analysis. But his new book, American Theocracy, argues that the Republican Party — and the country — is headed for disaster.

Subtitled "The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century," American Theocracy puts the trials of modern America into the context of other great historical powers. From Rome to Great Britain, Phillips identifies the keys to their decline — and draws parallels to modern America.

Phillips wrote a 2004 bestseller, American Dynasty, about the Bush family. American Theocracy is a harsh criticism of the current Bush administration and the Republican Party. Phillips, a senior strategist for Richard Nixon’s 1968 presidential bid, registered himself as a political independent in 2002.

I encourage every one to hear Kevin Phillips’ radio interview with Terry Gross, of Fresh Air. At one point during the interview Terry Gross asks the author to describe whether he’s now a Republican or Democrat, and he simply answers that he’s an independent. He then goes on to lament about how the Republican Party has been totally taken over by the religious right, and how the Dominionists’ apocalyptic end-of-days vision of the world has rendered that party incapable of dealing with the economic issues that he raises in American Theocracy. At this point Kevin Phillips, as if thinking out loud, offers that Democrats are equally incapable of addressing the same economic concerns, though for obviously different reasons. Now, here’s the part that intrigues me and, by the way, I have to agree with Kevin Phillips when he says that: Democrats are incapable of dealing with the economic issues, because they too receive big time money (though not the same amount as Republicans) from the financing centers that are pushing our economy away from manufacturing and into a finance centric one (an economic model that benefits multinational corporations at the expense of virtually everyone else).

So, where do we go from here? Now, I know that in the short term the goal is one chamber of Congress — hopefully both chambers. And then, there’s 2008, for sure. But both of these goals are easy by comparison to the more monumental task of creating one party — just one party — that’s responsive to average voters and, too, a party that’s not beholden to the big money interests that fill the election year coffers of our politicians.