Artvoice: Buffalo's #1 Newsweekly
Home Blogs Web Features Calendar Listings Artvoice TV Classifieds Contact

Cover Story

Those Wacky Republicans

It’s enough to make you die laughing

Activists took to the streets a generation ago to protest nuclear power, unpopular immoral wars, sexism, homophobia, police violence, racism, sweatshops, environmental destruction, human rights violations, union-bustinig, and anti-labor trade pacts, to name a few causes.Protests such as the 1982 New York City march against Ronald Reagan’s nuclear weapons policies drew historically unprecedented crowds with, for example, police estimating 750,000 participants and organizers estimating over one million at that demonstration. Despite the size of these protests, corporate media organizations did their best to minimize, trivialize or outright ignore these events.

Today we’re seeing a new wave of angst, only this time it has produced relatively small numbers of rather inarticulate protesters, buoyed by an intellectually vapid mass media that celebrates their semi-lucid intellectual flatulence at every opportunity. It’s the last hurrah of angry white Republican guys, rising to protest the conspiracy to guarantee their right to receive healthcare and perhaps avoid being pauperized by the experience.

Or at least, according to recent polls, they aren’t going to accept healthcare reform from a racist, white-hating, fag-loving, anti-American, terrorist-sympathizing, socialist-capitalist, Hitleresque Anti-Christ, foreign-born president.

The 15-year-old boys weaned on Beavis and Butthead are now 30-year-old Republicans phoning death threats in to congressional offices and gathering in small numbers to scream incoherent phases to Fox News crews whose wonks deify them as “patriots.”

This is one of those weird junctures in history when we have to stop, take a deep breath, and gather some data—if not to figure out what has happened, at least to chronicle the moment for future comedians.

Republican beliefs by the numbers

Perhaps some recent polling data can shed light on the zeitgeist of this new Know-Nothing Movement. A March 2010 Harris poll surveying a “representative sample” of slightly more than 2,000 voters found that 24 percent of Republican voters think President Obama “may be the Anti-Christ.” Of course, it’s telling that such questions make their way into a political poll in the first place, but to put it into context, a Gallup poll found that 18 percent of Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth, so hey, I guess if enough people suspect a political candidate has cloven hooves, that can turn an election. For the sake of understanding, let’s indulge the Republican political debate, if for no other reason than to understand how nutjobs like Pennsylvania’s Rick Santorum get elected to the US Senate. “M-i-s-t-e-r,” that’s six letters; “B-a-r-a-c-k,” another six; “H. O-b-a-m-a,” another six. That’s it, smoking gun, 666, the beast. I get it now.

According to the same Harris poll, 47 percent of Republicans believe that President Obama “resents America’s heritage,” 41 percent say he’s anti-American, 42 percent think he’s a racist who hates white people, 22 percent say “he wants the terrorists to win,” whatever that means, and 38 percent say “he is doing many of the things that Hitler did.” (Like eating and sleeping, perhaps?)

Two thirds of Republicans polled believe Obama is a “socialist,” while 40 percent, seemingly unclear on the concept of socialism, think he’s under the control of “Wall Street and the bankers,” who presumably must also be socialists, albeit in denial.

Most Republicans, according to the poll, think the president is a sort of one-man sleeper cell who “wants to turn over sovereignty of the United States to a one world government,” which makes sense to them since 45 percent of them think the Hawaiian-born president was, like the Panamanian-born John McCain, not born in the United States—a premise with which many native Hawaiian rights activists would agree. And 57 percent of them think he’s a Muslim. You’d think all his church-going and his lack of any affiliation with a mosque might have clued them in otherwise.

Forty-five percent of Republicans polled think Obama “is a domestic enemy that the US Constitution speaks of.”

Another recent poll, conducted by Research 2000, and using a similar sample size and methodology, came to relatively similar findings on similar questions. One fifth think he’s not a socialist, an observation that’s perhaps informed by his right-leaning determination to preserve the private banking and health insurance industries and a tax system that favors the rich. But the survey found that two-thirds of Republicans thinking the president who rode into office on a wave of corporate campaign contributions is a socialist, while 16 percent struggled with the question. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans in this poll either think Obama is a foreigner (36 percent) or are not sure where he was born (22 percent).

A Research 2000 poll breaks into other areas of Republican thought, showing that 33 percent of Southern Republicans would themselves like to be foreigners: They think their states should secede from the US. The nationwide number of Republicans no longer wanting to be American is just under one quarter. A majority of Republicans polled believe that reality show host, half-term Alaska governor, and former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin “is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama.” One third weren’t sure about that, while 14 percent thought that perhaps the president was smarter or more experienced in worldly matters.

Glenn Beck says Obama surrounds himself with Marxists. And people believe him.

Republican intellectuals

This recent data is contextualized by a University of Maryland poll conducted in 2003 that found that people who got their news from commercial networks were more likely to believe that the secular Iraqi government was aligned with its fundamentalist al-Qaeda enemies, and hence presumably linked to the 9/11 attacks; that US troops actually found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; and that world opinion supported the US invasion of Iraq. Fox News viewers, the poll showed, were the most confused and misguided, with their misconceptions informing their political opinions and actions.

Fast-forward to the present. Radio host Rush Limbaugh reacted to the Harris poll last week by bemoaning that only 67 percent of Republicans believe Obama to be a socialist. His argument: “I mean, the facts are the facts. The president is a socialist.” If that empiricism hasn’t put your skepticism to rest, try Fox News host Glenn Beck’s argument on for size. Obama, he argued earlier this month, “has surrounded himself with Marxists his whole life.” Of course, with Marxist economic scholars producing some of the most prescient economic predictions, perhaps a capitalist like Obama would stand to benefit from immersion in an intellectual environment that included such thinkers. Alas, Beck made it all up. There’s no evidence of any such associations in the president’s past—just a lot of hobnobbing with the usual crowd of neo-liberal conservative capitalists.

Beck’s Fox News colleague, Sean Hannity, argued last week that Obama’s decision to fight against the popular demand for a Canadian-style single payer healthcare plan, and instead further entrench a for-profit private health insurance industry in his healthcare proposal, was “the single biggest power grab and move toward socialism in the history of the country.” I guess Hannity is unaware of Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” the expansion of the military, the creation of Social Security and Medicare, and the creation of public education and the interstate highway system. Sadly, Stephen Hayes of the Wall Street Journal quickly chimed in to agree with Hannity. I say “sadly” because until its recent acquisition by Fox News’ owner, Republican activist Rupert Murdoch, the Wall Street Journal was a reputable conservative news organization.

The racism allegations don’t stem from anything Obama wrote, said, did, or supported, but from the Republican noise machine. Limbaugh, for example, proclaimed last July, “They’re finally hearing me. He’s an angry black guy. I do believe that about the president. I do believe he’s angry.”

Not to be outdone, Glenn Beck, on the following day, told his Fox audience that Obama harbors “a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture,” whatever that may mean. “This guy,” he went on, “is, I believe, a racist!”

There we have it.

Republicans in action

In Washington, the Republicans may be the Party of No, trying to gain idiot points by opposing all Democratic and independent attempts to rectify or even address the economic, environmental, and social destruction left in the wake of the Bush presidency. The reality is that the Bush wars and tax cuts for the richest Americans compounded the structural problems created by the Reagan tax cuts for the rich, ultimately turning the budget surplus left by the Clinton administration into the worst deficit in history. Likewise, decades of apocalyptic consumerism and environmental inaction have left the world with an ecological deficit that is coming due in the form of catastrophic climate change and species extinctions.

Now that the grownups have returned to the White House, it’s time to start cleaning up the mess. Like the austerity measures the Clinton administration imposed, mostly on the backs of the poorest Americans, after the fiscal irresponsibility of the Reagan and Bush Senior presidencies, the new fiscal and environmental medicine will be harsh to swallow. If history teaches us anything, it is that Republicans will grandstand against all painful remedies, leaving the Democrats to impose them, then retake power on the “are you any better off” platform. Then they will once again loot the economy and leave the mess for Democrats to fix—again, usually on the backs of poor and working folks.

The Party of No strategy leaves Republicans with clean hands, because their hands never leave their pockets. Hence, the party that has controlled government for most of my life can ride to a new victory on a wave of anti-government feelings while their corporate masters continue to benefit from the social injustices of both Democratic and Republican administrations. The real difference between the parties is that the Democrats more or less try to keep the country afloat and save capitalism from collapse, mostly at the expense of working people who see their quality of life and economic security declining. The bones that Democrats have historically thrown our way, things like the New Deal, Social Security, and now minimalist healthcare reform, keep popular discontent in check, and keep a miniscule social safety net in place in order to hold rampant crime and disease epidemics at bay.

Republicans, on the other hand, just shout and loot between sex scandals.

“Dittoheads” who drink too much of Limbaugh’s Kool-Aid are the storm troopers of this new movement, and presumably the folks who are chanting racist slogans at Tea Party branded events and posting them on rightist blogs—you know, like calls to “lynch” Eric Holder, the nation’s first black Attorney General. Just last week Limbaugh rallied his rabid sheep, telling them, “We need to defeat these [Democratic] bastards, we need to wipe them out.” Later in the week, liberal Democrat Louise Slaughter, who represents parts of Buffalo and Rochester in Congress, got a brick through her office window in Niagara Falls and another through the window of her party’s headquarters in Rochester, while a phone caller left a message that snipers were readying to assassinate the children of Democratic members of Congress like Slaughter, who voted to guarantee them a right to healthcare.

Republican officials, for their part, are crying foul on their followers’ death threats, saying Democrats are playing them up for political gain. You know, threatening to assassinate politicians and their families has gotta be just some harmless dumb fun, like pranking a rival frat or torturing some Iraqi prisoners. The Republican response to these violent response has been, “Who, us, what did we do? Sure, some of the fellas are getting a bit unruly, but that’s not our fault. What, are we their mothers or something? Don’t look at us.”

But I did look. I went right to their goddess’s Twitter page on March 26, just as the bricks were flying and the phone lines were ablaze with terrorist threats, knowing that if anyone could master a tweet, it would be Sarah Palin. Her wisdom for her followers? “Don’t Retreat, instead Reload! Pls see my Facebook Page.” Reload? I went to her Facebook page. There I found a map of the US with target crosshairs over 20 Democratic congressional districts.

What I didn’t find there or anywhere else in the Republican noise machine was a coherent argument for maintaining the healthcare status quo, as Palin’s party did during the eight years they controlled the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court.

Dr. Michael I. Niman is a professor of journalism and media studies at Buffalo State College. His previous Artvoice columns are available at www.artvoice.com, archived at www.mediastudy.com, and available globally through syndication.


Reader Comments


Clarence
01 Apr 2010, 13:08
LOL at a professor of journalism and media studies at Buff State being relied upon for his political and economic insigt.

I hope people reading this are smart enough to do their own research and not trust this moon bat.

Jean
02 Apr 2010, 10:38
I watched "A Saturday on the Fringe" on the Matter Matters site. It chronicles the right recent wing rallies in Nevada and Florida. It struck me that the speakers didn't need to have any knowledge about anything to spout their rhetoric. They do manage to promote fear based responses and excitement which is a poor excuse for teaching or learning anything. So it's a simple gig their engaged in. No need to think to continue with the same old right wing line on steriods.

Beouwolf
02 Apr 2010, 13:22
Another ridiculous argument from a far left leaning wack job. Typical analysis nothing new. Please note that Obama's ratings are the lowest they have ever been. He is the lowest rated Pres. when compared to every Pres. since Truman. The fact that this article considers Glen Beck to be a Rep. Intellectual just highlights how bad this is.

Anne
02 Apr 2010, 15:15
Is this article, and its placement as the cover story, a reaction to a recent surge of conservatism, perhaps?

As is the known liberal way, our author resorts to blatant name-calling and ridiculous assumptions. He implies that Republicans view Obama as "racist, white-hating, fag-loving, anti-American, terrorist-sympathizing..."

As a Republican, I'm offended. I respect the presidency. I believe in our country as our forefathers intended it to be. Would I have chosed Obama to be our president? No. Do I agree with the healthcare plan? No... But most of America is with me on that one.

This was a ridiculous article, and I'm ashamed that I spent the time to read it AND respond to it. Artvoice has lost me as a reader... Any publication that would print an article as biased and ridiculous as this one is not worth my time.

Max
02 Apr 2010, 16:49
It appears the respondents to this piece thus far have been too distracted by the dog whistles that are continually trumpeted in the far-right echo chambers which overcome their normal cognitive abilities to respond to fact, reason and logic.

mike hudson
02 Apr 2010, 16:55
this, um, article says a lot more about michael niman's own predjudices against and hatred for republicans than anything else. like many others whose livelihood depends on big government, he stands foursquare in favor of it.

i really thought this sort of nonsense would end with obama's election.


Wake Up
02 Apr 2010, 18:52
I find it laughable how most Republicans are speaking out against this healthcare legislation and promising a recall after the 2010 elections. The fact of the matter is that they won't even try. This healthcare legislation IS a travesty and only benefits big insurance. The vast majority of the country opposed the bill, and thus, we see these Repub clowns speaking out against it. Down deep, this legislation is EXACTLY what Republicans have wanted for years. Nixon and GHW Bush supported very similar legislation in sweetheart deals with the insurance companies. It is unconstitutional to force Americans to buy privately-owned garbage insurance from these corporations.

If you are going to do universal healthcare, do it right. It needs to be operated by the government and no one can be denied coverage for ANYTHING. But that will never happen.

You see, Obama IS controlled by the big banks and corporations - just like Bush was before him (not to mention Clinton, HW, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Johnson). We, as Americans, need to start looking past the old left vs right paradigm and realize that the majority of lawmakers on both sides are controlled by the same special interests.

When the Tea Parties started, they mostly consisted of Americans fed up with the actions of both the Dempublicans and the Republicrats. The movement has been hijacked by Fox News and the neo-con Republican party. It has lost any credibility and is now a joke, spewing "semi-lucid intellectual flatulence" at every opportunity. However, the O-baaaah-ma-noid sheeple are just as annoying - and just as destructive. We need to put an end to the two party system ASAP. Behind all the WWF style theatrics (the two parties take turns being the "good guys" and the "bad guys") are the same corporations and bankers pushing the buttons - and then telling you what to think in their media outlets.

Alanna
02 Apr 2010, 23:47
I enjoyed this article, but I feel the writer may have taken it a little too far. It felt like he was turning his nose up at everyone who doesn't see it his way.

I would rather see an educated response with both sides of the argument coming out in this column. Yes, there are right-winged crazies. Yes, there are left-winged ding bats. You can't have one without the other.

The Democrats and Republicans are siblings fighting for attention and I'm starting to get a severe headache from both sides.

Fox News
03 Apr 2010, 09:57
I am an avid viewer of Fox News and I let it dictate all of my political and economic opinions. Glen Beck is a brilliant man who loves his country, Sean Hannity is as well.

President Obama is a marxist socialist communist foreigner who wants nothing more than to destroy our democracy so he can install communistm. I wish I could go back in time to 1940 and live in Germany. That's the kind of nation I'd be more interested in! Large rallies, powerful speakers and a military that couldn't be stopped. What's more to like???

As for the author of this article, I hardly think that a professor of Journalism has any right to write and article for any sort of periodical with any sort of information in it. The fact that he quoted polls and my buddies at Fox News makes me furios; backing up opinions with fact is NOT something I'm used to.

Finally, I would like to point out how skewed the views here are. The article just talks about how Republicans are crazy, but then goes on to say that Democrats AND Republicans are causing problems in Washington. It's like, make up your mind!

If Sarah Palin is calling for war, then way she will get! ...once she digs her daughter, Willow, out of the trouble for destroying a house during a party. Lock and load, America!

Deacon
03 Apr 2010, 22:20
Ah yes, 'Fox News.' You have bought the corporate lies well my friend. Have fun the next time a friend of yours has to have a friekin' spaghetti dinner at the legion to pay for health care costs. You exemplify the simple minded, reactionary violent threats which are coming fast a furious from the morons on the right.

If Obama's numbers are low it is only because too many are buying the hate, lies and fear we hear on Fox, on Rush and the likes of the local wannabes on WBEN. Once the public realizes there are no 'death panels' or 'socialism,' and that Obama has done more for the middle class than Clinton, they may wake up. But, I doubt it. Paranoia strikes deep-as well as ignorance.

Merle Gorko
05 Apr 2010, 14:01
Why does Artvoice hate America?> U obviuoisly do becasue u employe left winged nuts like this. HEre are the facts.
1. Obama was born in Africa, its where his father from and he never showed nobidy his birthpapers.
2. FOx news Fox news Fox news. Rush RUsh Rush. That's all these guys ever bring up. If these guys were'nt telling the truth how could they be on the TV or radios hmmmm? They would'nt get commercial sponsers if they lied.
3. Obams health plan is NOT socialist its COMMUNIST. The govt is going to tell all of us that we got to go to the doctor, a doctor choosen for us, whose to say the doctor maybe won't like us and say we need treatments for somethign we dont even got, then this in turn ends up killing us. Thats why everyone that had a brain was talking about DEATH PANELS.
4. Sara Palin is a BEUATIFUL BEUATIFUL BEUATIFUL WOMAN. These guys that yell and critic her are jelous that she isn't there wife, just drop it and leaf here alone!!!!

Dan R
05 Apr 2010, 14:35
The Harris poll mentioned in the article is laughably controversial. Polling experts have challenged its methodology and for good reason. See Michael Scherer’s “The Challenge of Measuring The Right-Wing Fringe”, Gary Langer’s “Polling on Presidential Pejoratives”, and Mark Blumenthal’s “True Or False: This Poll Is Out There”. All three explain quite clearly why the methodology was flawed, and why it was destined to receive the results it was aiming toward. Even the Chairman of Harris Poll, Humphrey Taylor, stated that he knew the results would be skewed by way the poll was conducted, saying, “if we had included both positive and negative statements, fewer people would have said the negative statements were true."

That a media studies professor would either knowingly or unwittingly overlook these criticisms and present this poll as a representative and uncontroversial addition to a sensible conversation about political ideologies and viewpoints should make his employer blush.

And, although it has already been observed, taking FNC talking heads and demagogues as “intellectuals” is just setting up a straw man. The only people that this sloppiness could convince would be people who were already convinced long ago.

Everything else, of course, is Niman’s typical fare of hyperbolic acrimony designed to be high on rhetoric and low on content, ultimately generating a frothy screed that anyone with access to Daily Kos and a loose set of principles regarding intellectual honesty could churn out in about an hour. It would be safe to say that Niman is the left’s wingnut answer to Glenn Beck, except no one but a patch of EV hipsters and Buff State students even pay him any mind.

Dan S.
05 Apr 2010, 17:01
Merle Gorko has proven this article to be true.

Russel Nash
05 Apr 2010, 18:16
I have to at least agree with Clarence, Beouwolf, and Anne - this article is just more slanted nonsense from a nonsensical liberal.

It would be nice to see some balance in articles published in Artvoice. It would be nice to see them report on both sides, fairly, without any slant. But, as most of us know, journalism is not fair and balanced anymore. It hasn't been for awhile. Now journalism is a vehicle for indoctrination, because when you only show one side to an argument/view/belief that's all that you have left: an unchallenged view that escapes honest debate that must be accepted without question. Baulderdash!

I'd like to see Mr. Mike Niman write an article opposing the liberal view with an honest debate. He should be able to handle that if he is truly educated and has been given the responsibility of educating others. Do I now have to go into how biased so-called college "education" is these days? What a joke.

JWright
05 Apr 2010, 18:29
If anyone is at fault it is Harris for releasing a poll so wildly inaccurate and flawed, as you claim. If one can't trust a supposedly reputable & objective organization like Harris who then are we to believe? However, the author quoted other polls as well and did not rely solely on Harris.

I believe the use of the word "intellectual" was meant as sarcasm. While there are, of course, many legitimate conservative intellectuals a common perception is that people like Limbaugh or Beck are the de facto masterminds behind the ideology.

Finally, get off Niman's back, he's pretty damn entertaining. I'm not sure if anyone in the media-anywhere-maintains an objective integrity these days. I'm happy to see that someone on the left has the ability to rant with a sense of humor.


SamuelLChang
05 Apr 2010, 19:50
Russel, Russel, Russel
You almost make Merle sound rational. It would be nice to see some unbiased reporting in the WSJ or the Washington Times but it ain't gonna happen. Since when did every media outlet become subject to complete detached objectivity? Artvoice isn't required to provide you with left, right, & center views, if you don't like Niman don't read his articles, he's a liberal so guess what? he's going to have liberal points of view. Would you expect Limbaugh to start a debate of "trickle down or voodoo.. you decide?" I can't stand extreme right wing views so I don't watch Fox. Your comments actually sound biased, I guess that makes you an unpatriotic communist.

SteveW
06 Apr 2010, 13:16
Does anyone who read this actually see what's happening here? It reminds me of elementary school. Alanna said it best:

"The Democrats and Republicans are siblings fighting for attention and I'm starting to get a severe headache from both sides."

We try to teach our kids to share, be kind to others, work hard in school, etc... Basic good principles. Then we adults start capitalizing on our new found expertise in everything from politics, to business, to healthcare, and, most recently, the history of socialism and communism.

Everyone needs to take a deep breath, shut up, and listen to their kids, who will probably ask mommy and daddy why they're screaming at their next door neighbors.

Russel Nash
09 Apr 2010, 10:21
Samuel, Samuel, Samuel. You say that unbiased journalism "ain't gonna happen". And you accept it. My point is that if you are going to be an honest journalist, you should be ABLE to report fairly on all sides. Otherwise, you're not really a true journalist. People should at least do your thorough homework before they come to a view on something.

It seems to me like you can't tell left from right, and I am not just talking about your feet. You don't care about unbiased presentation of facts. You don't care if there is an unbiased slant, so long as it is not against you, I suppose.

You have accepted the new status quo in media: that there is no accountability to present a fair, honest, and logical debate anymore. You like that someone (at least a liberal) can publish their opinion as newsworthy. You even admit you can't stand "extreme right wing views".

It appears that you have accepted a thorough brainwashing and no longer think for yourself. And I don't think you are brainwashed or foolish simply because you don't agree with me, but because you have ceased using your brain actively.

You have ceased measuring yourself against a standard that is higher or at least different than what suits you personally for the sake of understanding someone with a different view than yours. You have died, in that sense. You no longer think for yourself, but anyone who will agree with you gets your full attention. Your view is narrow. If anyone disagrees with you, they are an idiot, BECAUSE they don't agree with you, not because they, like you, have ceased to look at themselves objectively.

There is a certain comfort that comes living like an obedient pet to your own disposition, but unfortunately you end up sitting in the filth of your own stool because you have ceased to educate yourself on the basic reality that good and evil exist, and that one is better than the other.

Can you tell them apart? I doubt it.




Russel Nash
09 Apr 2010, 10:27
One more thing, Samuel Samuel Samuel, I sincerely doubt (based on your first response and its irrelevance) that you will have any response that has what it takes to enter into an "honest debate" with me, so I will no longer be posting here in this thread.

Biased Article
20 Apr 2010, 22:09
I guarantee the author of biased article has never taken the time to read any of the bills being slammed through congress right now. This is one of the most ignorant articles I have ever read.

Dan R
30 Jun 2010, 14:47
Hilarious!

Dr. Niman cites two polls. I've already expressed that the Harris one is widely refuted, but now it turns out that the Research 2000 poll is flawed as well. Does it strike anyone else as strange that Niman just happened to pick the two most controversial and discredited polls of recent time to rest the only factual component of his criticism? Differences of option between right and left aside, this is just shoddy work. He should be ashamed.

Leave a Comment: