TPMDC

Democracy Corps: Republican Base Voters Living In Another World

Spread the word and support this article. Share it on Digg!

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

A new focus-group of Republican base voters by the Democracy Corps (D), the consulting and polling outfit headed up by James Carville and Stan Greenberg, presents a picture of the GOP base as being motivated by a fundamentally different worldview than folks in the middle or on the Dem side -- and they see the country as being under a dire threat.

"They believe Obama is ruthlessly advancing a 'secret agenda' to bankrupt the United States and dramatically expand government control to an extent nothing short of socialism," the analysis said." While these voters are disdainful of a Republican Party they view to have failed in its mission, they overwhelmingly view a successful Obama presidency as the destruction of this country's founding principles and are committed to seeing the president fail."

The analysis argues that Obama's unpopularity among conservative Republicans is both quantitatively and qualitatively different from liberal Democratic ire against George W. Bush -- that the GOP is more heavily conservative than the Democrats are heavily liberal, and that the hatred of Obama is more intense than Dem hatred of Bush was. All of this adds up to a powerful set of emotions that the Republican Party as a whole cannot ignore.

One thing that the firm makes clear, though, is that this is not about racism, but about ideology: "Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters' beliefs - but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson's incendiary comments at the president's joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion - but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point."

The voters in these focus groups saw Obama as being deliberately out to destroy the American economy in order to undermine personal freedoms, and that the speed of his agenda was a part of this strategy:

"I think that he is deliberately misleading people... if he is not deliberately trying to do harm to the country, which is my view, he doesn't understand anything about how the economy works."
"There's a school of thought that if you overload the system with programs and bailouts and all that, that it will create an opportunity, some people believe it started in the 60's with welfare and Medicare and Medicaid; if you load the system down enough till it totally collapses it, I mean, I know it sounds kind of like a conspiracy theory, but it opens the door for this whole new way of governing. I'm not saying he's a sleeper or anything like that, but it is something to think about... I think your statement's correct. I think it's intentional."
I'm sure there are a lot of well-intended people in Washington, but I don't really believe that they care about our health. I think that this is a control issue... It is absolutely.

By contrast, Democracy Corps also interviewed a separate group of somewhat conservative-leaning swing voters, and these attitudes were not to be found: "One of the most telling differences between the partisan Republican groups and the independent groups was the language they used. Conservative Republicans fully embrace the 'socialism' attacks on Obama and believe it is the best, most accurate framework for describing him and his agenda. Independents largely dismiss these attacks as the kind of overblown partisan rhetoric that obscures the facts and only serves to cheapen the political discourse."

Conservatives see themselves as an oppressed minority, holding on to knowledge that isn't represented in the wider media and culture: "Conservative Republicans passionately believe that they represent a group of people who have been targeted by a popular culture and set of liberal elites - embodied in the liberal mainstream media - that mock their values and are actively working to advance the downfall of the things that matter most to them in their lives - their faith, their families, their country, and their freedom."

So who are the protectors of this knowledge, the sources of information they trust. Obviously, Rush Limbaugh is widely admired -- but at the same time, he's seen as being overly abrasive at times.

The real unblemished champion, the one they most identify with on a personal level, is Glenn Beck: "Two aspects of the discussion on Beck among conservative Republicans were particularly noteworthy. One was a common fear among the women for his personal safety, a belief that his willingness to stand up to powerful liberal interests was putting his life, as well as the lives of those working with him, in danger. Of course, his willingness to face this danger head on only adds to his legend."

And the base sees themselves as an emerging, growing movement -- manifested in the Tea Parties -- that will restore the country to its proper roots, but that is dismissed by the media:

"The tea party things, their point of view is, you are all crazy. You know, you are all nut-jobs out there holding these tea parties, but at least they were showing that something was going on where other people just totally ignored, I mean we are ignored... I didn't attend a tea party but we, the people, were non-existent according to some of the news stations."

(Additional reporting by Zachary Roth)

Join the Conversation!

270 comments

Recommend Recommend (4)

October 16, 2009 12:27 PM   

There is no reasoning with these people. None. Their minds are made up (of styrofoam).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:46 PM    in reply to de TOQUEville

It would be funny if it weren't so true. But hey when you're being led by stuff like this, it's no wonder they are crazy to the core.

Is it possible we have underestimated their insanity?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:56 PM    in reply to de TOQUEville

Oh I dunno... Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh can probably reason with them... same with Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the cadre of fools that make up the line-up/guest list on Fox everynight.

Honestly, as soon as I read the line about a successful Obama Presidency being the end of the Republic, I actually faulted these people for not being original... Glenn and Rush have been saying that for months now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 17, 2009 10:26 AM    in reply to jenzinoh

Goes to show, there is a large body of fearful lemmings who will parrot anything the wingnuts say. Ask them their opinions, without offering multiple choice questions, and they all sound like the same stuck record ('scuse me, "stuck CD") repeating the same lines.

As I have said here at other times, the wordsmiths who give Rush and Hannity and Malkin and Beck et al their talking points aren't available for public scrutiny.

We may never know their names, but they know just who they are. They are the common Q (quelle) from whom all the ignorant, unoriginal wingnut talking heads get their trash.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 4:30 PM    in reply to de TOQUEville

Yeah those conservatives are just plain NUTCASES for thinking that the money being taken out of their paychecks is not being used sparingly and responsibly by this administration.
And they wish they could have KEPT than money?
How demented can they get...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 5:41 PM    in reply to Edwardo

I actually agree that Obama is badly undermining the country and the economy, but in different ways than the TeaBaggers believe. I think the bank bailout at $12.8 Tn is profoundly destabilizing; and I think spending is and has for a long time been used in this program of undermining, but I think it is not the social programs, which are appropriate, but the Pentagon and warfighting expenditures + tax cuts, and more. Also, the banking crisis in the first place is destabilizing, caused by the militantly inappropriate lending practices, repeal of Taft-Hartley, and Bush admin. handcuffing the regulatory powers of the states through the Comptroller of the Currency.

I don't believe that conservatives and TeaBaggers are entirely bloodthirsty idiots who care nothing for gratuitous death as long as it gives perhaps only even a superficial appearance of serving US "interests" -- but I don't understand how they could be so gullible as to accept so many fact-free rationales for murder. It is the greatest sadness.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

RWN

user-pic

October 19, 2009 6:20 PM    in reply to Soulipsis

No there is no real rationale like what you are expressing.

Frank Schaeffer described it succinctly as to what is actually motivating them in an article in Raw Story:

"It is fear of facts. Look, if you believe in the earth being 6000 years old, that gays chose to be gay and can "change," that Jesus will come back soon, that war in the Middle East is good = what you fear is the real world, the reality-based Americans who know you are dumb, crazy or both. It is resentment that drives the right."

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%253A%252F%252Frawstory.com%252F2009%252F10%252Fformer-right-wing-leader-warns-of-religious-right-violence-anyone-can-be-killed%252F&h=7f18ed733e86bb5f26dff2ce373af5b8&ref=mf

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

October 16, 2009 11:30 PM    in reply to Edwardo

Uncle Sam borrowed the money to keep the country afloat after Bush almost sank it. Yes, we think they are demented. Never had any trouble with Bush spending hand over fist for absolutely useless wars.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 17, 2009 9:43 AM    in reply to AJM

Most of the tea partiers are constitutionalists who OPPOSE the Iraq war. They are REAL conservatives, not neocons.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

October 17, 2009 9:49 AM    in reply to Edwardo

Sorry,won't wash. I spent three hours standing in line with actual real live tea-baggers arguing with them. The only thing that shut them up was to remind them that they were suckers who had voted for Bush twice.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 17, 2009 10:30 AM    in reply to Edwardo

Edwardo, that's one of the funniest things I've read in days. If you really believe it, you need some serious thought-reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:27 PM   

These people are batshit crazy. Just sayin'.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:38 PM    in reply to LisB

Sure it's easy to dismiss them as being crazy. But make no mistake, they are dangerous. If in their mind they believe Obama poses a genuine threat to what they see as the American way of life, they will stop at nothing to stop him.

The Republican party in general and Fox News in particular has only served to stoke their paranoia about Obama being different. Race may not play a conscious role in their thinking, but just the fact that someone named "Barack Hussein Obama" is President of the United States definitely fuels their paranoid delusions.

Unfortunately, I fear the chickens will come home to roost sooner or later

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:04 PM    in reply to tonigo

I'v e no doubt you are right about this. How it will manisfest itself is the only question.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

wyt

user-pic

October 16, 2009 5:13 PM    in reply to tonigo

But you see, something will stop them. We (the real Americans, the good and sane people) will have to round them up and put them in FEMA camps. And they know it. We're (some of us) the only ones in denial about this. They are vermin. They are not compatible with the ongoing of civil society, let alone civilization. And if you are right that "nothing will stop them," well, something will. They will finally step too far out of line (note how much rope Obama's administration's giving them) and there will be widespread public support for rounding them up and imprisoning them.

Which will tragically sad, but also absolutely necessary, should it come to pass.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

October 16, 2009 11:36 PM    in reply to wyt

Are these the camps you mean?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4312850.html

The right wing got a little carried away and relabeled pictures of camps in North Korea among other things.

Must be real easy to scare these folks silly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:45 PM    in reply to LisB

I don't believe it's not based on racism. These people have learned to be careful how they phrase things, but it damn sure is based on racism.

BTW, Lis, this is my favorite of your avatars!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:19 PM    in reply to Riesz Fischer

You sound racist to me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 2:07 PM    in reply to shooter242

you sound like a troll to me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 3:33 PM    in reply to rynato

Don't worry about this guy....he's from Neptune and does not realize that teabags are nutsacks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 3:36 PM    in reply to Armageddon T. Thunderbird

SOMEBODY TELL SHOOTER THAT TEABAGS ARE NUTSACKS!!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 3:35 PM    in reply to Riesz Fischer

I'm with you.

Birthers are bigots. The person that are "frightened" that the America they once knew is slipping away are bigots. The people that say he's not like us are bigots. All of them.

Now, some ruralist pinheads *hate* educated people; that's true. But a *lot* of these people are bigots.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

October 16, 2009 5:23 PM    in reply to Riesz Fischer

I don't think it is based on racism; I am quite willing to accept that racism is not the driving force that most pundits have made it out to be. These people would be wigging out over any Democrat in the office of president, of whatever color. And certainly they were dismissive of Bill Clinton, too; I can remember, not so long after Bush2 took office, when Bill Clinton appeared on Letterman, and I said something about missing a president who could speak in multiple syllables and expound at length off of the top of his head on myriad complex subjects, that Bush-supporting friends sniffed, "Well, if you go in for the merely glib...".

There are a lot of echoes of that in the way that they now talk about Obama. But I do think that there is an element of racism in it that deepens the distrust and makes it easier for them to regard Obama as some kind of alien being that wasn't part of their reaction to Bill Clinton.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 7:12 PM    in reply to slb

Here - try it like this:
"I don't think it is entirelybased on racism"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 18, 2009 2:34 PM    in reply to kenga

Yes. BTW, Chris Matthews did a good job of demolishing this blarney on I think his Friday show. If it's not about race, how come Southerners are something like three times as likely to say he's not from USA? These people are *very good* at throwing one of the scent with dishonest euphemisms, "he just scares me," blah-blah.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:28 PM   

Fascinating in its findings. Is there an active link to the whole report?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 4:29 PM    in reply to Minnesotan

Here is the .pdf to the report titled GOP Focus Group Report.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:30 PM   

I respect what Carville and Greeberg are trying to do. The more race is brought into the criticism of the anti-Obama folks the easier it is for those same folks to cry "you can't even criticize him without being called a racist". That is not close to true by the way. However, what citizen in 2009 embraces racism or admits it. Is the likelyhood of all the conspiracy theories about Obama made more believable to some people because he is black and has a name that sounds Muslim? Of course. But seasoned political pros like Carville and Greenberg don't have to come out and say it. It is smart politics but not very reliable in its argument on race among Georgia Republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:37 PM    in reply to Seeryer

Also. I would argue that the entire edifice (or should I say house of cards?) is build upon the fact that he is black -- there is no way that the most "conservative" person is going to believe the socialism/fascism schizophrenic lunacy about a white President, just no way.

So yes, they may not think about his race explicitly and they may be sincere about it -- but there is no way that this virulent fear of having all their wealth taken away (and presumably distributed to "those people") would have applied if he looked like those "other men on the dollar bills" :-)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 2:56 PM    in reply to Radha

Radha nailed it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 2:57 PM    in reply to Radha

Republicans spent decades insanely fulminating against FDR, iirc from my childhood. [As a Canadian child, the only long-term effect this had on me was to make me a life-long fan of the Democratic Party.]

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 3:24 PM    in reply to Observerinvancouver

Yes, but did they ever say about FDR that he was going to take "their" money and give it to "them"? That I think the key to unlocking this racism-or-not puzzle.

I do understand that we do not want those in the public eye to identify this as such or even speculate about it, but I do think that the underlying unifying rage is this unspoken/unacknowledged fear/bias of the most virulent...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 4:26 PM    in reply to Radha

Right on, Rahdha. You nailed it. It is a fear of difference, which calls into question the basis of their whole being, and thus is a fear of annihilation. The racism part is buried deep where they may not even be able to se it because they "aren't racist." But at bottom it is a real existential fear, a fear of being unable to survive the changes that are happening. That's what motivates extreme anti-abortionists as well, and the people tearfully demonstrating to "save" Terry Schiavo.

It is in part the very dog-eat-dog, non-nurturing quality of our society that creates these people, but that seems to be the part they want to keep.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:49 PM    in reply to Seeryer

I think this is true, despite racist jokes such as the witch doctor poster and Glen Becks various tirades. Beck is just a media whore, not a racist - he would have gay sex with black people if it got him better ratings.

*Most* of the race baiting your hear in today's discourse is just a reach for the easy punch-line, that signals group identity.

Example : "Rush Limbaug is a Big Fat Idiot". Do you think Frankin hold a deep seated hatred of fat people? No, but it's an easy punch line that catches your attention.

That being said, children learn from jokes. Racism, and other-ism in general are useful tools that are incubated and exploited by identity politics.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 2:10 PM    in reply to mcrose68

You don't get racism if you think prejudices against overweight people and African Americans are in any way comparable.

We didn't steal overweight people from other countries to make them work as slaves for 300 years, only granting them the vote in 1968.

And if you think the only racial issue today is people falsely calling out racism or "identity politics," well, then, I just don't know what to say other than you truly don't get it (or get out of your bubble enough).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 5:22 PM    in reply to twirling fartknocker

Black people only got the vote in 1968? Try again, farthuffer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

October 16, 2009 5:33 PM    in reply to SqueakyRat

He's not so far off the mark. Not until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was there any real guarantee of the right of citizens to vote regardless of race. It may technically have been granted with the passage of the 15th Amendment, but it went largely unrecognized in the South until the Voting Rights Act provided a way to enforce it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 5:44 PM    in reply to slb

thanks for the back-up

squeaky rat is apparently one of those who choose to be oblivious to basic facts, as I have pointed out in several other comments in this thread. willful ignorance. he probably thinks African Americans have been rolling around in pink cadillacs bought with giant welfare checks since the mid-1800s

the Act you mention was actually passed in 1964 and took several years to implement, with following Acts adding more teeth to various civil rights provisions for housing, etc. hence the 1968 elections being the first to be fully racially fair (at least legally speaking) across the entire country

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 5:50 PM    in reply to twirling fartknocker

apologies: Civil Rights Act was 64, and Voting Rights Act was 65, part of follow-up I referred to. my bad.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:33 PM   

"...[W]e gave these groups...full opportunity to bring race into their discussion - but it did not ever become a central element...."

And that proves what, exactly?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:46 PM    in reply to Show Me Sanity

I'm not buying it. What is it about Obama, exactly, that makes people believe the wildest, most bizarre conspiracy theories? What made them start believing these things before he was even elected?

Obama is intelligent, articulate, moderately liberal...and the son of a white mother and a black father. I don't care if no one mentions it explicitly. Race is at the core of their complaints.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:20 PM    in reply to commie atheist

Wow, you people are race centered.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:28 PM    in reply to shooter242

Your name sounds violent.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:32 PM    in reply to Seeryer

Only to those with a limited imagination.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:49 PM    in reply to shooter242

Agree. When I read your name, I imagined that you shoot heroin, not people.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 3:45 PM    in reply to Hussein Stemper

The name "shooter" is supposed to make you think he's a gun guy. You're supposed to be impressed. It's the same childish mentality as the teabaggers that bring guns to political rallies. Real horrorshow.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 6:17 PM    in reply to Armageddon T. Thunderbird

I thought it meant shots of tequila.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 17, 2009 10:41 AM    in reply to Seeryer

Shooter, don't be a hypocrite, be proud of yourself, don't try to obfuscate the obvious. I know dogs, and that one you chose is commonly known as a violent breed.

So, why pick a name like "shooter" and a pit bull for an avatar, then deny you portray pernicious intent?

What was that Polonious told Laertes? "To thine own self be true."

Either you are a tough guy with a mean avatar and a meaner nom-de-blog, or you are a poser. Which is it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 5:03 PM    in reply to shooter242

Yes, I am. I believe people of all races should be considered real Americans, and given the same rights, benefits and responsibilities that wealthy white landowners have had since this country's founding. Obviously you and people like you have a problem with that. Too bad.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 5:06 PM    in reply to shooter242

By the way, what do you mean by saying "you people"?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:56 PM    in reply to Show Me Sanity

Yeah, I think that race and fear of the "other" takes the hatred to powderkeg levels, but I think it would still exist if a white person had the same change agenda as Obama. The crazies' hatred of Bill Clinton was comparably bizarre, and he had a less ambitious agenda. In other words, my take is that race isn't the driving force, but it's there and it ratchets things up to a very dangerous place.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 2:26 PM    in reply to Moose49

I largely agree. A big part of this, and a big schism that has existed in this country for 100 years, is urban vs. rural.

Sure, there are some larger towns and cities in the "flyover" states, but even those have more of a rural mentality. And in these communities, they are terrified of things they aren't familiar with, like African Americans or "out" gay people. They have a huge resentment towards what they see as urban condescension toward their simple and backwards thinking, some of which manifests itself in a strong anti-intellectual streak running throughout rural America. And not that there aren't intelligent and well-educated people in rural areas (and dumb-dumbs in urban centers), but I can't help but wonder if there is not an overall, unspoken intelligence gap between rural and urban America that makes all of the differences that much harder to bridge.

Race is undoubtedly a major, major factor in the anti-Obama hysteria, but there are other age-old American issues mixed up in there as well, with a more modern media twist of Rush/Beck fanning the flames for their own profit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 3:05 PM    in reply to twirling fartknocker

Boy, that's really going to help the national debate!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 4:46 PM    in reply to twirling fartknocker

A big part of this, and a big schism that has existed in this country for 100 years, is urban vs. rural.

Are you referring to 'big government liberals' vs. the 'real America'. Count me in as urban.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 4:56 PM    in reply to seashell

Yeah, that's the new face of it. I first became aware of the concept by reading Inherit the Wind about the Scope trial of 1926. Evolution was being crammed down small town throats by educated urban elites.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 17, 2009 10:54 AM    in reply to twirling fartknocker

"Evolution was being crammed down small town throats by educated urban elites."

Now there's all the proof we need that we are dealing with an ideologue. Don't you trolls realize how your special prases and catch-words are just as obvious, from the other side, to sensible folks, as they are to the dog-whistlers?

Never ceases to amaze me how the wingnuts' biggest delusion is that everyone they communicate with, especially their fellow whites, simply share their prejudice. And ehen they discover someone in their midst who actually voices disagreement with their ignorance, they treat that person like a traitor or a pariah.

When a fairly small minority is so deluded that it considers itself the natural majority, they have really departed from reality.

Still waiting for Palin's "Dead Moose Party" to pop up any day now, some wingnut is going to give these teabaggers a hero (heroine) to genuflect before, whether it is Palin or Pawlenty, (forget Jindal, he's too dark) it won't matter, these people need their own party. Considering the centrist Republicans are still the majority (thus McCain was their candidate) and the wingnuts can't abide sharing the floor with anyone who might compromise their confusing, convoluted platform, it is just a matter of time until that splintering occurs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 3:42 PM    in reply to Moose49

Agreed, they've just gotten crazier since Clinton. If you did real deep you might find some racism, but that's not the defining reason for their anger. Among these folks there is a feeling of persecution and that "someone" is going to take what little they have. Add that they live in a small echo chamber and don't venture outside it for information makes it worse.

People like this exist on the left, there are just fewer of them and with the Dems in power they have trouble getting a support from liberals who are more reality based.

The level of rancor, coupled with the anger, does concern me that a waive of violence could start. Not some broad conspiracy or joint action, but one person acting out with a murder or bombing, which gives another unhinged individual 'permission.'

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 17, 2009 11:13 AM    in reply to Frex

Fun with editing; a lesson on how projection works.

"""Agreed, they've just gotten crazier since Bush. If you did real deep you might find some patriotism, but that's not the defining reason for their anger. Among these folks there is a feeling of persecution and that "someone" is going to take all that money they think they have. Add that they live in a small country club echo chamber and don't venture outside it for information makes it worse.

People like this exist on the right, there are just fewer of them and when the Republicans were in power they had trouble getting a support from real conservatives who are more reality based.

The level of wingnut rancor, coupled with the teabagger's anger, does concern me that a waive(sic) of violence has started. Not some broad conspiracy or joint action, but one very small, violent group acting out by carrying guns and launching tirades and threats at town hall meetings, which gives another unhinged individual 'permission.'"""

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 17, 2009 12:08 PM    in reply to JEP07

This wasn't intended as a debate with the original, just an example of how a few small changes can focus a paragraph.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 2:16 PM    in reply to Show Me Sanity

I think it's different than the old black vs. white racism that the interviews were looking for (though there is plenty of that as well, as came out during the campaign). If Obama was a "typical" African-American I don't think there would have been this kind of broad reaction. It's more of a visceral reaction to someone who is visibly "other", not like either the white or black people they're used to.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 2:33 PM    in reply to midnight rambler

Uh, I disagree. If Obama was a different sort of African American -- I dunno pick your African American politician -- I think the visceral reaction would be nearly the same, save for the black helicopter, Muslim sleeper, Manchurian candidate paranoia of the most fanciful of the haters.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 3:49 PM    in reply to twirling fartknocker

If Hillary were President you would be getting the same crap. There are no more Eisenhower Republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 4:59 PM    in reply to Armageddon T. Thunderbird

oh, yes, sexism is very powerful and undoubtedly would have played a role had Hillary won. just not quite as powerful as racism in America.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:34 PM   

Oh please, Carville? Yeah, I'm real likely to take him seriously. And gosh, why is it that these people say the same things about Obama they have always said about any non-white person who has gained any prominence in civil affairs or politics. Sure, Carville, they think, after careful analysis, that Obama is a socialist, and MLKjr. was a Communist.
Racism is a lot like pornography, I know it when I see it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 2:23 PM    in reply to Mooser

Exactly on point. Carville should know better too. Being from Lousianna, he surely knows racism when it hits him in the face. I don't believe it is all racism, but that is certainly a huge part of it. Part of it is the crazy fringe of the evangelical fundamentalist wing that thinks anyone that is not a right wing extremist is doing the work of Satan. Add the gun nuts and anti-government nuts and you have the entire ignorant mob the GOP has embraced as grassroots patriots. The most pathetic part of the whole scenario is that the media treats these lunatics as if they had some credibility instead of shining a light on their lunacy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 7:26 PM    in reply to Mooser

Do you think he's abused?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:36 PM   

Couldn't even fart and chew gum at the same time. What possible hope is there for them to hold two opposing views in mind at the same time? To think that others might be right to them is inconceivable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:01 PM    in reply to Nowukkers

True enough, and I can't close my italics tags, neither.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:38 PM   

Exactly, Show Me Sanity! Because if there is one thing Americans (except for a pretty good-sized minority) are always ready to offer as the key to their political character is racism.
Does Carville also point out that racism is actually the most rational of their reasons to dislike Obama. After all, out of all the things they said about Obama, that he is not white is the only one which is objectively true.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:39 PM   

Excuse me Mr. Carville and Mr. Greenberg but if you don't think race
is at the crux of this you are certainly naive for DC insiders.

Glen Beck is a racist. He can't say it but his tirade against the
President about being a racist and hating the "white culture" is the
give-away.

So, what can a poor white boy do? Turn it into, and he can't really
make up his mind so he mixes his messages, a marxist, radical naxi
agenda.

Glen Beck is a dangerous, hate and fear mongering demigogue. Every
time I stop by his rantalicious show, every word he utters makes me
think he is driving his minions to violence.

Think not? Just give him a watch (CAUTION: is puke producing)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:07 PM    in reply to salame

Glen Beck is only a pathetic, asshole loser. Really, that's about it. He lives for the spotlight, which only serves to highlight his psychosis.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:22 PM    in reply to rbe1

Interestingly, quite a few commenters here sound as looney as Beck. That makes Beck sound all the more rational.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 2:21 PM    in reply to shooter242

If you're crazy, sane people will sound crazy to you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

October 16, 2009 2:27 PM    in reply to shooter242

Try a logic check on that one. Beck sounds looney, these people sound as looney as he does -- this makes him sound rational?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 2:48 PM    in reply to AJM

it's called willful ignorance. that's how people like Beck thrive, on the deliberate ignorance of their viewers who choose any nonsensical argument (wizards, fairies, goblins) to just owning up to their responsibilities toward their fellow countrymen

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 2:58 PM    in reply to shooter242

shooter 2. Please note I did not pay you the dignity of spelling your non de plume with a capital S. Again, there are other venues for your ignoran babbling, this blog caters to those with a modicum of intelligence. I come here hoping to have my thoughts expanded by other careful thinkers who probably view the situation in a different light than I, however, your rhetoric is straight out of the rush limbaugh, glenn beck politics for dummies hand book which we hear and see all the time from the Get Our President party. The majority of us here know 'pugs when we read you. Know when you're not welcome and please leave. Thank you very much

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 3:54 PM    in reply to truthspeaker

Don't worry - soon his lunch 1/2 hour will be over and he will have to go back to stocking shelves at WalMart

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 4:04 PM    in reply to Armageddon T. Thunderbird

condescend much?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 5:09 PM    in reply to azerbo

Oooh, look at that big bad rifle. Over-compensation much?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:41 PM   

It's probably true that these lunatics are not primarily inspired by racism -- hell, they felt and said pretty much the same things about Bill and Hillary Clinton. But I don't think there's any doubt that Obama's race and "exotic" heritage (the "Hussein" shit) has given an extra frisson to their paranoia.

After all, these are the same stupid sons of bitches that every cynical conservative demagogue since Tom Watson and "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman have been taking advantage of.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:43 PM   

Reading the full report, I note that the symptoms of many of these wing-nuts mirror those of mental illness. They are experiencing paranoid delusions of persecution. Also troubling is the "special knowledge" that they have.

The final aspect of the collective identity shared by conservative Republicans is the call
to action. The attacks they suffer for their values and the special knowledge they share as a result
of their devotion to conservative media and active rejection of mainstream media are ultimately
meaningless if it does not help defeat Obama and his hidden agenda.

This really could be out of the DSM IV.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:49 PM    in reply to eric the red

Ah, yes, a narcissism of victimhood.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:04 PM    in reply to TheraP

"Ah, yes, a narcissism of victimhood."

And people say Zionism doesn't contribute to the American political discourse! Cossacks!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 2:07 PM    in reply to Mooser

Another sad example....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:35 PM    in reply to eric the red

As a psychologist, I agree. Psychological disorders are not either/or or yes/no; they exist on a continuum, and represent extremes of qualities mood, thought, and personality features which are widespread (to a lesser degree) throughout the population at large. I don't believe MOST of these people meet actually DSM criteria for specific psychological disorders (although I could be wrong), but many are close enough that it's noticeable. Also, psychological disorders are culturally defined to some extent. Since there are a lot of these folks (and they are representative of specific subcultures) it makes seeing them as psychologically disordered more difficult to do. But they are clearly delusional (again to varying degrees). In addition, rather than treatment, they're receiving encouragement from and being egged on by people like Beck. And many of them are armed. It's frightening. I'm especially concerned for the safety of our President. I hope to god the Secret Service is really on the ball. I honestly can't think of any good or effective way to deal with them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 3:02 PM    in reply to UTMark

re: can't think of any good or effective way to deal with them

Maybe it's time for a rural America Marshall plan. Forced re-education for millions to help pull then out of their prehistoric and superstitious fundamentalist belief system. I jest off course. Perhaps it's intractable and self-reinforcing like in Idiocracy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 3:55 PM    in reply to twirling fartknocker

Of course by jesting about reeducation camps, you fuel their paranoia. Where do you think all the fear came from with regard to BHO's school message?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 5:01 PM    in reply to Frex

that was the idea, poking firmly on their paranoia. I let everyone off the hook from the tension of that though by admitting it was a joke

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

October 16, 2009 11:46 PM    in reply to Frex

Oh, possibly from the notion that their kids could get the idea that a black President should be respected.

... and where did I get that notion -- from the fact that white Presidents have made similar appearances and not gotten any flack.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:44 PM   

no wonder these people believe bachmann and her deliberate lies. they are as crazy as she is

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:44 PM   

I'm sorry but I no longer believe anything that comes from James Carville. This report is tainted by his punditry and opportunism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:05 PM    in reply to Jymn

Exactamundo!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

October 16, 2009 2:32 PM    in reply to Mooser

If you confine your attention to the direct quotes from the people who were at these focus groups they are still idiots.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 3:17 PM    in reply to AJM

sadly, you are right. if you keep in mind that over 50% of people have IQs less than 100 according to the intelligence bell curve. when you remember this, it's not hard to see how 30% of the country thought Bush could do no wrong (even if it were learned he ate babies for breakfast) and Obama is the anti-Christ (even if he helps bring healthcare to every American)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 2:19 PM    in reply to Jymn

And given that that's the best reason to disregard the entire report, it's interesting that shooter242 only responds to commenters saying they think that racism actually is a part of it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 3:06 PM    in reply to Jymn

I agree. I am sure his wife proofread the whole thing before he was allowed to submit it. To suggest that racism is not part of the DNA of these lunatics, is either being naive or deliberately misleading. Why weren't their fear as manifest during the Bush years?. Just asking

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:45 PM   

So what the people interviewed basically said was, "We are authoritarians. When people whom we view as our authorities (Glenn Beck) tell us who to scapegoat and fear, we unquestioningly believe. We fear without reason or evidence or details, as our understanding of complex issues is nil, so our fear is essentially a fear of Them. Obama and liberals are "Fair Game", which is to say, being Them rather than Us, there is no attack or smear or slur that can't be applied to them. We can believe anything about our enemies, tell any lie or spread any rumor, and *still* feel righteous, becuase they're Them and not Us."

If the "liberal media" wasn't controlled by corporations that have an interest in catering to these nitwits, they'd simply be local militias that the local authorities would have to deal with.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:56 PM    in reply to Clavis

Interesting that Beck is dressed in an East German Army uniform on the cover of his latest book:

http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/what-not-to-wear/

Probably his idea of a little joke, but I'm sure that wearing it appealed to his actual authoritarian nature.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 2:42 PM    in reply to commie atheist

Somewhat ironic also that Mary Matalin is the chief editor of the publishing company putting out Beck's screed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 18, 2009 11:47 PM    in reply to Jormungand

OOOH! That's a trip! Thanks for adding that. I thought I was being silly.I have to confess, it has crossed my mind several times that he's married to her. If he can stand that, how objective can he be? LOL! Good point, thanks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:06 PM    in reply to Clavis

I actually don't think its exactly racism -- it's Xenophobia. There's more to it than race, as a lot of the attacks on him are very focused not primarily or exclusively on his "blackness" per se, but this idea of him being a foreigner or alien. While race plays into it, its a more general fear of the Other.

This is supported by their emphasis on "Hussein" as if having a name that wasn't John Smith is an accusation, the focus on his supposed origins in Kenya, and even this idea that it is somehow a BAD thing that he spent time in Indonesia and the suspicion he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro (along with the idea that having spent any time outside the U.S. 'heartland' makes you suspect).

While the Clintons, Pelosi and others have taken hits, these xenophobic fears have lent an extra mix to the paranoia-soup and -- to them -- give credibility to the arcane fears that he is working against the U.S. Because OF COURSE he must be actively trying to destroy "us", he's an alien.

And I agree, their attitudes and beliefs are very reminiscent of people with cult members and/or an actual mental disorder (paranoia, belief of special knowledge, persecution beliefs).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:24 PM    in reply to Ian Tepoot

Projection. Keep up the good work.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:59 PM    in reply to shooter242

Brilliant response thoughtfully argued. To quote a famous philosopher: "I do not think that word means what you think that means". Suffice to say if I was afraid of the other, a mutt like me must hate looking in the mirror.

But keep up the complacent assurance of your absolute correctness. Tell me in 2012 how that's working out for you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 5:36 PM    in reply to Ian Tepoot

Don't mind shooter, Tepoot. He doesn't actually exist.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:07 PM    in reply to Clavis

I actually don't think its exactly racism -- it's Xenophobia. There's more to it than race, as a lot of the attacks on him are very focused not primarily or exclusively on his "blackness" per se, but this idea of him being a foreigner or alien. While race plays into it, its a more general fear of the Other.

This is supported by their emphasis on "Hussein" as if having a name that wasn't John Smith is an accusation, the focus on his supposed origins in Kenya, and even this idea that it is somehow a BAD thing that he spent time in Indonesia and the suspicion he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro (along with the idea that having spent any time outside the U.S. 'heartland' makes you suspect).

While the Clintons, Pelosi and others have taken hits, these xenophobic fears have lent an extra mix to the paranoia-soup and -- to them -- give credibility to the arcane fears that he is working against the U.S. Because OF COURSE he must be actively trying to destroy "us", he's an alien.

And I agree, their attitudes and beliefs are very reminiscent of people with cult members and/or an actual mental disorder (paranoia, belief of special knowledge, persecution beliefs).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:46 PM   

It's frightening, but not surprising, that people who watch Faux News and Glenn Beck everyday would hold a worldview that has no connection with reality and embraces bizarre, paranoid conspiracy theories.

It's also curious to me that these people believe that Obama's got a "hidden agenda" when what he's doing as president reflects what he campaigned on more closely than any other president in recent history. Obama's doing what he said he would, he's governing on the platform that elected him. In fact, to the extent he's diverged from his campaign promises, it's been in areas where he has governed more conservatively than he indicated.

It's easy to dismiss these folks as batshit crazy, which they are, but at the same time, you have to wonder about the health of a democracy in which a significant minority holds such outlandish views and the extent to which it might turn to violence.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:13 PM    in reply to Moose49

It's easy to dismiss these folks as batshit crazy, which they are, but at the same time, you have to wonder about the health of a democracy in which a significant minority holds such outlandish views and the extent to which it might turn to violence.

You refined the issue to its essence extremely well here. And it should scare the bejeeberz out of us all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:26 PM    in reply to SleepinJeezus

I think you'll find out soon enough that the "batshit crazies" are in the majority now. Look out below.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

October 16, 2009 2:35 PM    in reply to shooter242

Yeah, right, they are undoubtedly among the 53% who approve of Obama in the latest polls.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 5:20 PM    in reply to shooter242

I think you'll find out soon enough that you're merely whistling past the graveyard.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

October 16, 2009 11:54 PM    in reply to Signalman

Moreprobably, whistling an extremely outdated form of Dixie.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 17, 2009 11:31 AM    in reply to AJM

And waving the stars and bars...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 17, 2009 6:50 PM    in reply to shooter242

Only in your vivid delusions, child. Go get your next fix from Faux News now, ok? The sane people are talking.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 2:40 PM    in reply to Moose49

sadly, my father and his wife live in the o'reilly/beck world; visits to them include a continual fog of fox emanating from the omnipresent tv. they listen to fox's carefully distorted, world defining words for hours every day. and as a basic function of neurological processing, we are all most inclined to accept information that reinforces what we think we already know. hence those hours hammer home the "rightness" (pun intended) of their closely held views.

in our interactions, my information is always dismissed as unreliable. all i am left to say in the spirit of conciliation is that our opinions and perspective are shaped by our information and we have vastly different sources of information.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 3:04 PM    in reply to ainwa

our opinions and perspective are shaped by our information and we have vastly different sources of information.

Very true -- except I would argue that one side is getting information from a variety of sources and the other side is getting opinion, myth and outright lies masquerading as information.

And without a commonly accepted set of facts, debate and reason become impossible.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 3:28 PM    in reply to Moose49

"American society is becoming cognitively stratified, with the Cognitive Elite crossing paths rarely with those of lower cognitive abilities"

Fox caters to those not just of lower intelligence, but those who crave anti-intellectualism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 3:52 PM    in reply to Moose49

they actually believe that they get a broad based array of information and that i use limited sources.

i suspect that we seek to understand the appeal of the fox/o'reilly/beckian mindset rationally when it actually emanates from a neurologically driven instinctive response to hold on to what you know. considered from an evolutionary survival instinct, holding on to what you know has been a valued response for building bases of knowledge and useful experience. but as life, available information, and the ability to observe complex interactions has expanded, so has what we think we know and choose to hold to changed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:46 PM   

I'm glad that someone is trying to understand what these people are thinking. Pretty soon, we have to get to the question of "why are they thinking this way?" I think it's impossible for someone living in my reality to relate to this -- it really has to be studied scientifically, and the results would probably be surprising.

Underneath it all, Western democracies are founded on the belief that the voting population is ultimately (mostly) rational. When that assumption is violated as severely as it is being here, it calls into question the workability of democracy as a form of government.

The best way I can understand these attitudes is from reading about (and limited experience with) people in cults. They can maintain a belief system in spite of direct evidence to the contrary, and, at some point, more contrary evidence just hardens their beliefs. Its as though, once you have bought into a bogus belief system, the psychological toll of having to admit that you're wrong and revise your beliefs is intolerable.

One of the most insightful books I've read is "Age of Propaganda" by social psychologists Pratkanis and Aronson. The chapter on "How to start a cult" is especially enlightening. It includes strategies such as positioning your cult as an embattled minority. You can see these techniques in daily practice in the conservative media.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:52 PM    in reply to boyfoot

Pretty soon, we have to get to the question of "why are they thinking this way?"

I think one answer (among many) is that this is a classic reaction to change and modernization. In that sense, it's a similar phenomenon to the radical Islamists who want to restore the ancient caliphate, the radical Israeli settlers on the West Bank, and the radical religious right in the U.S. (though an initial look at this group suggests they are focused more on ideology than religion). Still, every change brings a backlash. And when it's powerfully fed on the teevee and the Interwebs, it can explode into something awful.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

user-pic

October 16, 2009 2:39 PM    in reply to boyfoot

An old book on the topic is WHEN PROPHECY FAILS. The cult leader had predicted the end of the world on a certain date and encouraged his followers to give up their worldly goods and huddle with him in anticipation of the end. Those who became skeptical before the alleged date and didn't sacrifice anything, recovered. Those who gave up their worldly goods and/or stayed with him through the alleged end date remained true believers and bought his argument that it was their faith that saved the world.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:47 PM   

How can they be so sure racism is also not playing a role? Does anybody think that all except total racist nut-cases would not hide their true views under the cloak of rationalized, nutty, conservative talking points?

Be that as it may, the denial, rationalization, and outright lack of compassion among these right-wing zealots is scary and dangerous!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:40 PM    in reply to TheraP

I think, Thera, that the problem is that racism is a far more subtle and complex phenomonon today than it was in the bad old days when it was all out the open and socially acceptable (in the South, at any rate). Today, very few explictly and unapologetically adhere to racism as a political and social ideology. But the very fact that yesterday's prevailing world view is today's shameful secret means that no on ever really deals with the the underlying assumptions that get transmitted to us through our social and cultural interactions.

I'm a white southern male. I was raised by liberal parents (one much more so than the other but, for the sixties in Kentucky, they were both pretty out there) in a college town founded by abolitionists. And despite that, I carried--undoubtedly still carry--a lot of deeply internalized, racially prejudiced baggage that can pop up in odd and surprising ways. It's only by acknowledging it and making a conscious effort to deal with it that you can begin to address it. Most people would rather eat a bug (as long as we're being Southern).

To put it in lawyerly terms, racial prejudice used to consist of a pile of explictly held irrebuttable presumptions about peole based on skin color. Among southen "moderates" in the segregation days, however, the prejudices were rebuttable presumptions. Rather that root out the prejudices altogether, that "moderate" view became the norm during the 70s and 80s and, having adopted them, people congratulated themselves on their open-mindedness. For the generation after that, most of those rebuttable presumptions were fully internalized and, thus, largely invisable to most of the people who held them.

Thus do we have the phenomonon of the modern southern white who insists that he or she's not racist, takes great and genuine offense at any suggestion to the contrary yet continues to act on the basis of unstated assumptions that are fundementally racist. For them, the problem, along with all the shame and guilt of the way our parents behaved, is "solved," dammit. Why do "you people" keep bringing it back up by making everything about race? It's solved, solved, I say. Time to move ahead (faster, faster, move ahead faster 'cause something, we know not what, is on our tails).

The fact that they feel guilt about racism is real progress if you remember the old days. But that guilt is also the main thing inhibiting most people from undertaking the self-examination necessary to root out the ugly remnant.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

October 16, 2009 5:56 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Yes. I'd say you've pretty well nailed it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 4:12 PM    in reply to TheraP

Have you ever been in a conversation with someone and asked them why they believe something and have them answer, because the bible says so? Pretty much ends the discussion doesn't it? Bringing up racism has the same effect.

Even if you believe it is racism or objectively it is racism, it is counterproductive to make that accusation as a discussion/argument will never get beyond that point. Its fairly easy to undermine the arguments and raise questions which can get them to think. Don't confront them, don't question their beliefs, but ask them questions about how they know what they believe is true.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 6:31 PM    in reply to Frex

I don't argue with closed minds....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 6:32 PM    in reply to TheraP

Not yours... I'm referring to the ones we both referenced.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:49 PM   

The tea party things, their point of view is, you are all crazy. You know, you are all nut-jobs out there holding these tea parties,

Yeah, I can't imagine where anyone got that idea.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:50 PM   

What fascinates me are the nearly completely divergent, yet internally coherent, narrative explanations of life in the US. In the time of the big 3 networks there was (mostly) a single "manufactured consent" on the part of the governed. A middle of the road for a mostly satisfied middle class.

As media had diverged and coalesced around market segments, this "middle" has nearly evaporated. I think what C&G's study shows is that if you watch Fox, read Redstate and go to a white evangelical church, that reality IS different from what it is if you watch MSNBC, read Kos and sleep late on Sundays. Now, I happen to be more in the latter camp, but my beliefs don't make me right - independently verifiable facts do.

What is troubling is that there seems to be little ability to arbitrate reality with facts when the facts themselves arise from the manufactured reality and there is no agreed upon judge. All we have left is one groups disdain for the other. It is depressingly like Jews and Arabs.

I think the one hope for the Democrats is that the economy and jobs rebound and healthcare is seen quickly as a tangible benefit (see Dean's medicare idea). Otherwise, I fear for the US's ability to govern itself out of a very serious mess. We can't steer towards two poles at once.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:50 PM   

"Oppressed minority" whose views are being "systematically ign ored"?

How about another take? Like: "Extremist fringe" whose exclusionary and self-righteous views aren't representative of the population at large?

"Faith, family, country and freedoms"? What a crock - what they're really pissed about is that the government and media don't seem as likely as they used to to flog their ignorant and bigoted ideology as the norm for the country. Only in America - religious fanatics and neofascist cranks ranting about how their views are being "overlooked" - on TV, talk radio, online, and in publications nationwide.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 12:50 PM   

I would love to get one of these idiots in a room and conduct a little in-depth interviewing:

Me: So do you believe *everybody* in the world wants to destroy America, or just some people?

Idiot: Only some people.

Me: And you believe Obama is one of those people, but Glenn Beck is not?

Idiot: That's right!

Me: But they're both charismatic television personalities. You aren't a private detective are you? Do you have access to secret information about these people that gives you the inside scoop on who's a danger and who isn't?

Idiot: Yes, Glenn Beck told me!

Me: So you choose to trust Glenn Beck but not Obama?

Idiot: Glenn Beck always tells the truth! He loves this country!

Me: And, again, your psychic powers to discern perfect ultimate truth gave you this insight?

Idiot: No, I just know!

Me: Right, so the entire basis for your belief that Barack Obama is a lunatic out to destroy America forever is that you "just know"? That you "just have this feeling"? That you "just don't trust him"?

Idiot: Well... yeah!

Me: You're an idiot and you should be sterilized and turned into Soylent Red.

Idiot: Liberal media! ACORN! Al Gore!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:02 PM    in reply to Clavis

Heh. We need a DSM diagnosis for these people. I suggest

Delusional Disorder - Wingnut subtype. Characterized by delusions consisting of having "special knowledge" of a Barack Obama's "secret agenda" to destroy the nation, combined with deeply held feelings of persecution and victimization.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 1:28 PM    in reply to Clavis

No psychic powers necessary. Obama's record so far is all that's needed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 2:30 PM    in reply to shooter242

Obama's record does not suggest that he's out to destroy America.

Besides, many of the people quoted talk about his "secret agenda". By definition, if it's secret, it wouldn't be evident in his record, would it?

Shooter242: obviously an authoritarian. You can tell, because he clearly takes positive pleasure from demonizing and attacking us. The only people who take pleasure from that are in some way sociopathic. So either shooter is an authoritarian protecting his tribe, or he's a lone nut.

Either way, shooter, from what I can see, your ridicule is NEVER backed up by any facts, just your own prejudices. So do me a favor and send your wife/mom over to my house for some good lovin'.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 20, 2009 8:31 PM    in reply to Clavis

Er, there's another word for that. The word is "troll."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 16, 2009 4:33 PM    in reply to shooter242

Oh you silly puppy! Since from your other posts I assume you're not joking, perhaps you could give some specifics rather than the typical sweeping and unsubstantiated statements?

Or maybe not. Pissing on the carpet is certainly a lot easier.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?