Rep. Gohmert depicts refugees as ‘hundreds of thousands’ of rapists, claims ‘existential threat’ to U.S. | Raw Story ow.ly/znFTy
Heritage Foundation Analyst’s Dissertation: Hispanics Have Lower IQ Than Native Whites
The 2009 dissertation of Jason Richwine, a white (I think mentioning that in this context is relevant) (former) senior policy analyst at the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, claims that Hispanics have a lower IQ than “white natives.”
Richwine concludes that “the low average IQ of Hispanics is effectively permanent” and that “new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren [emphasis mine].”
The Heritage Foundation itself distanced itself from Richwine’s dissertation after the public outrage.
To be fair, I have only read the report from HuffPo. You may read the whole dissertation here. But the gist of it seems to echo debunked theories of race and natural racial hierarchies from the nineteenth century.
Update: Richwine resigned from the Heritage Foundation.
Parallels in Contemporary Germany
In Germany, a similar scandal around concepts of immigration and intelligence was caused in 2010 by Thilo Sarrazin, a politician from the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and former member of the Executive Board of the Deutsche Bundesbank. Sarrazin’s book Deutschland schafft sich ab (“Germany Is Doing Away With Itself”) linked immigration from Muslim-majority countries to Germany to a collective dumbing down of the population.
The Chuck Hagel Hamas Smear Job
Conservative Activists/GOP/Fox News Claim That Obama’s Republican Nominee for Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) Is Funded By Hamas-Affiliated Group.
While there are many legitimate criticisms of the Obama administration, as I mentioned in my earlier posts, the level of absurdity in American political theater is almost always guaranteed to rise to unimagined heights when one turns their attention to today’s GOP and the vocal ultraconservative conspiracy-minded base.
Case in point: President Obama nominates former Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) for Secretary of Defense. Not only does the GOP plan to filibuster Hagel’s nomination, which is unprecedented. [Update]: The Senate GOP did filibuster Hagel’s nomination.
Unfounded Claims Of Links To Hamas
No, some conservative activists try to prevent Hagel’s appointment by linking him to terrorist organization Hamas (!). Seriously.
The absurd claim includes an allegation that Hagel received foreign funding from a group called “Friends of Hamas.” According to the Treasury Department, which monitors charitable groups connected to Hamas, this group does not even exist.
Furthermore, does it sound plausible that an organization trying to funnel money to a terrorist group would include that groups name in its own name? Absolutely not. It would be quite a bad disguise.
[Update (2013/02/17)]: As it turns out, Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), who led the filibustering of Hagel, is quite the massive hypocrite when it comes to accusing Hagel of a friendly stance towards Hamas. As Salon reports, Inhofe’s own words on Hamas from 2006 sound at least as friendly to that organization as what he accused Hagel of. As Alex Seitz-Wald puts it, “using his current standard, Jim Inhofe might have a hard time voting to confirm Jim Inhofe.”
One Probable Reason For The Smear: Hagel’s Harsh Criticism Of ‘Jewish Lobby’
In the past, Hagel had criticized the “influence of the Jewish lobby,” i.e. AIPAC (which, by the way, describes itself as “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby” on its own website) in Washington, and in return received criticism by the above-mentioned and other pro-Israel groups.
And while the legitimacy of Hagel’s comments and the degree of influence in Washington by pro-Israel groups can be a subject of reasonable debate, the unfounded claim that Hagel must be associated with Hamas contains a classic fallacy: the excluded middle.
In my opinion, there are many shades of gray between supporting everything a particular government does and supporting a terrorist group that wishes for the murder of that state’s citizens. Criticizing particular activities of any government, be it the American, German, or Israeli one, does not make one anti-American, anti-German, or anti-semitic. It is the tonality that makes the difference.
One final word on lobbies: By definition, any lobby organization is supposed to represent their constituency’s interests. Despite the fact that there can be several lobbies claiming to represent the interests of any particular group, it is by no means conspiratorial to assume that there is a lobby for virtually any cause. A quick search with your favorite search engine will confirm this. Just read the mission statement of your organization of choice.
Other Probable Reasons Why The GOP Filibustered Hagel’s Appointment
Of course, Hagel’s statements on the ‘Israel Lobby’ are not the only reason why the GOP stonewalls his appointment.
According to Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post, the following reasons might also have factored into the GOP’s decision to filibuster Hagel’s appointment:
- Because they can.—This should not be surprising. Since Obama took office, the main GOP tactic was obstructionism.
- Some GOP senators believe Hagel to be inexperienced.
- Rallying the party.—Romney lost the presidential election, the GOP did not win a majority in the Senate. Therefore, Senate Republicans needed something new to motivate themselves.
In the words of one man who arguably knew a thing or two about theater in the English-speaking world at the time, the great Chuck-Hagel-Hamas-conspiracy is much ado about nothing.
A Tea Party Senator From Texas Opens Another Smear Front: The Communists Are Coming!
In the context of the Chuck Hagel Senate confirmation hearing, Tea Party Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) alleged, without providing evidence, that Chuck Hagel was funded by North Korea. So now it is not only those Islamist terrorists (Hamas) that Hagel is supposedly in bed with, but also those darn commies.
Furthermore, according to Senator Cruz, Harvard Law School was completely infiltrated by communists in the 1990s (!), when he himself studied there. Cruz even claimed, like Joseph McCarthy in his day, to possess a list of said communists, who schemed to overthrow the American government.
And because Harvard Law School was supposedly such a hotbed of communism, Barack Obama must have become a communist there, which totally proves that therefore Chuck Hagel must somehow also be a communist. Of course, Cruz himself was able to resist the influence of marxists and communists.
Even fellow Republicans Lindsey Graham and John McCain thought that this nonsense was a bit too much, and some liberal commentators rightfully noted that Cruz’s mannerisms were indeed quite McCartyite.
“Why John McCain turned on Chuck Hagel.” (David Rogers, Politico, 2013/02/17) – Op-Ed: McCain voted against Chuck Hagel to help make South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham appear more right-wing.
“How unprecedented is the Hagel filibuster?” (Rachel Weiner, Washington Post, 2013/02/15)
“Lindsey Graham, watching his right flank.” (Dana Milbank, Washington Post, 2013/02/15) – Op-Ed: South Carolina Republican Senator opposes Hagel’s nomination to appear right-wing enough for his own re-election.
“More GOP Hagel hypocrisy.” (Alex Seitz-Wald, Salon, 2013/02/15) – Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), who lead the filibuster against Chuck Hagel’s nomination, had some friendly words for Hamas himself in 2006.
“Friends of Hamas”: The Scary-Sounding Pro-Hagel Group That Doesn’t Actually Exist.” (David Weigel, Slate, 2013/02/14)
“Defense Secretary Hagel? Not So Fast.” (Jonathan Karl, ABC News, 2013/02/14)
“Why Republicans are filibustering Chuck Hagel.” (Chris Cilizza, Washington Post, 2013/02/14)
“Israel group slams Chuck Hagel over Israel lobby comments.” (GlobalPost, 2013/01/07)
“Chuck Hagel’s Experience as a Soldier Uniquely Qualifies Him to Head Defense.” (Matt Pottinger, Daily Beast, 2013/01/05) – Interesting fact from the article: In 2012, only 20 percent of Congress had military experience. In 1970, by comparison, 75 percent had military experience.
American talk radio is a phenomenon of its own with no comparison in the German media landscape. This is likely due to less strict broadcasting regulations on the US side of the Atlantic, especially since the fall of the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine in 1987, a much broader definition of freedom of speech in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in general, and the comparatively longer distances traveled in cars in the US. All of the above factors into the popularity of AM talk radio, especially political talk formats.
For the past decades, American talk radio has predominantly been the domain of angry white male conservative populist agitators, among them figures like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who have made a fortune feeding their audiences’ fears of American decline, multiculturalism, and the whole palette of issues subsumed under the term culture wars. A key trope of most far-right talk radio hosts has always been the claim of defending ‘freedom,’ a term so vague in the arsenal of political rhetoric that it can easily be loaded up with the most illiberal ideas, not in the meaning of liberal as in political ideology, but as in the theoretical political concept.
Case in point: Recently, conservative talk radio host Michael Savage has called for a new “nationalist party” with a “charismatic leader.” Talking about the decline in popularity of the Tea Party Movement, the conservative populist movement that had emerged along with the 2008 election of Barack Obama as president, Savage said that “the rudiment” of that new party might be found among their ranks. Savage, who was born to Russian-Jewish parents, used the analogy of a “King David” that was needed to unite the American Right. Savage, who calls President Obama a “quasi-pseudo-crypto Marxist” thinks that the Tea Party Movement was not right-wing enough and that a new party should challenge the Republican party from the right on a platform of “borders, language, and culture.”
If that sounds eerily authoritarian, it’s because it is!
A severe economic crisis. Extreme nationalism. Calls for a charismatic leader. Writing from Berlin, I hear the jackboots stomping in my head.
“Jewish Wingnut Wants Nationalist Party With Charismatic Leader.” (Ed Brayton, Dispatches From The Culture Wars, 2013/01/10)
“Radio host Michael Savage calls for ‘Nationalist’ third party to challenge GOP. “(Geoff Herbert, syracuse.com, 2013/01/07)
“Conservative Radio Host: America Needs A New ‘Nationalist Party’ With A ‘Charismatic Leader.’” (Anjali Sareen, Mediaite, 2013/01/06)
“Top Conservative Radio Figure Calls For Nationalist Third Party.” (BuzzFeed, 2013/01/06)
“Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt.” (Umberto Eco, New York Review of Books, 1995/06/22 via The Modern World)
Today, historian Charles Postel of San Francisco State University and a visiting scholar at Heidelberg University, visited American Studies Leipzig as part of the Fulbright lecture series to talk about the rise of the Tea Party Movement in the US.
Postel, who specializes in populist movements in America, sees the Tea Party Movement as driven by a convergence of two different forces: ideology and economic self-interest.
The Founding Myth: The Boston Tea Party
He mentioned the myth of the original Boston Tea Party of the eighteenth century in American folklore, which is widely seen as a tax revolt, but was, according to historians, much more complex, involving political ideas about freedom and economic self-interest of Boston merchants and smugglers.
In order to illustrate the anatomy of today’s Tea Party Movement, Postel noted that federal taxes are at the lowest level since sixty years and that tax levels for the highest income groups have declined even sharper than for the average taxpayer.
Ideological Roots: Cold War Hard Right Paranoia
Postel held that much of the ideology of the Tea Party Movement derives from anti-New Deal conservative movements of the Cold War Era, in particular the John Birch Society, who saw social programs such as Social Security, trade unions, and the Civil Rights Movement as communist subversion of America. The enemies of those anti-New Deal conservative Republicans were for the most part moderate Republicans of the time.
The John Birch Society, which was the first grassroots conservative movement in the US, achieved a victory in mobilizing for Barry Goldwater as Republican candidate in 1964.
Robert Welch, the founder of the JBS, even went so far as accusing Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy as communist agents. In fact, anyone in favor of the New Deal and Civil Rights was seen as a communist.
In this video clip on YouTube, you can see Welch’s presentation (ca. 1965) of the JBS.
Other leading conservative intellectuals, such as William F. Buckley, distanced themselves from Welch and the JBS.
Welch and his allies, among them writer Leon Scousen, whose books have had a revival among Tea Partiers, built their own conservative movement on an anti-New Deal agenda.
For them, America’s fall from grace began in the early 1900s with the Progressive Movement’s social reforms.
The Birchers demanded the repeal of early twentieth century reforms, the Sixteenth Amendment, which allows for the federal government to raise an income tax, and the abolition of the Federal Reserve. They also demanded that the Seventeenth Amendment be repealed, which allows for the direct election of Senators. This was subsumed under the idea that America was a republic, not a democracy.
The Tea Party Movement picks up many of those ideas. It aims at repealing the remaining elements of the New Deal. It wants to abolish the Fed and for the reintroduction of the Gold Standard. It wants to repeal the 16th and 17th Amerndments. It argues that President Obama is a socialist and points to the Affordable Healthcare Act or ‘Obamacare.’
According to Postel, Obama is actually a centrist Democrat. A health care legislation similar to Obama’s was first proposed by President Nixon in 1974. For a long time, Republicans endorsed this idea.
The Tea Party Movement sees any regulation of the health care sector as socialism.
The Comeback of Bircher Rhetoric
If the rhetoric reminds of Joseph McCarthy and Barry Goldwater, that is, Postel says, because the John Birch Society has a revival.
Leon Scousen’s books are advertised regularly on Fox News by opinion hosts such as Glenn Beck.
Right-wing corporate lobbyists, including groups like FreedomWorks or Americans for Prosperity, but also think tanks, such as the conservative Heritage Foundation or the libertarian Cato Institute promote ideas similar to those of the Birchers.
Overall, the Cold War Hard Right has made a comeback, and it has gained the upper hand within the Republican Party.
Moderate Republicans have become a pariah within their party.
[Update]: I just stumbled upon a recent example of Bircherite Tea Party rhetoric. Congressman Allen West (R-FL) suggesting that 80 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party (article from The Raw Story).
The Politics of Self-Interest: Medicare Is Fine, But Only For Me
Besides ideology, politics of interest play an important role in the Tea Party Movement.
Postel sees this embodied in the Tea Party Movement’s opposition to health care reform as fight against ‘big government.’
The size of the federal government has remained relatively stable over the last decades. Most federal spending has been shrinking in the last thirty years. The two big exceptions to this are military spending and Medicare.
Most Tea Party supporters are on favor of higher military spending.
Regarding Medicare, typical Tea Party supporters—older, better educated, white males—have in the past most profited from government programs.
In other words, the Tea Party Movement mobilizes in the name of defending Medicare for themselves.
Tea Party figures such as Michelle Bachman have argued to the effect that Obama would take funds out of Medicare to give it to younger people.
Postel mentioned that the Paul Ryan Budget, favored by Republicans, illustrated this interest: those over fify-five would keep Medicare, while everyone else will have to shop in the insurance market with private vouchers.
The Politics of Inequality
The Ryan Budget also includes tax cuts for top earners and budget cuts for social programs.
This plan is proposed within the context of rising inequality within the US. While problematic for many, Postel noted that tens of millions of Americans have also benefited from rising inequality.
So far, Tea Party-influenced legislation at the state and local level has fostered inequality, with a clear anti-immigrant, anti-union, anti-reproductive health, and anti-voting rights agenda.
Currently, about twenty percent of Americans sympathize with the Tea Party Movement.
The Tea Party Movement has links to corporate lobbyists. Postel highlighted the Koch Brothers, the fourth wealthiest individuals in the US with an industry conglomerate in petrochemicals. The Kochs bankroll the Tea Party Movement through lobby groups such as Americans for Prosperity. They founded libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, and ALEC, a legal think tank. Fred C. Koch, father of Charles and David Koch, was a founding member of the John Birch Society.
Despite the involvement of the Kochs and others, Postel said that the Tea Party Movement cannot be called purely an ‘astroturf’ or fake grassroots movement.
Postel also held that while the mass media often emphasize the Tea Party Movement’s anti-elite rhetoric, there is not very much of it on closer look. Rather, all political movements in the US since the nineteenth century have used some form of anti-elite rhetoric, out of necessity.
Blowing Up The Social Contract
For Postel, the core agenda of the Tea Party Movement is “blowing up the social contract.” While in Europe there is general agreement about the validity of some form of social contract, even among right-wing populist parties, who want to limit the beneficiaries of that social contract, Tea Partiers want to end it. To American Tea Partiers, European right-wing populist parties might look statist, which is opposite to Tea Party ideology.
Many Tea Partiers call themselves ‘tenthers,’ in reference to the Tenth Amendment, which gives established the federal system giving states all rights not granted to the federal government. Postel noted that in the US, political movements have always swung for or against states’ rights and federal rights, depending on whether the legislation in question aligned with their particular agenda.
Postel ended his talk noting that, ironically, the Tea Party Movement has nationalized politics more than anything else in the recent past.
Charles Postel is currently working on a book chapter for an anthology on the Tea Party Movement.
Here is a video from American Studies Leipzig featuring an interview with Charles Postel after his talk: