In a typically observant and thought-provoking piece yesterday, Glen Greenwald called out the American Right for their cowardly surrender to terrorism. The piece focused on the right’s disapproval and resistance to the concept that terrorists detained by us can be effectively given due process and tried in standard American courts.
After quoting Boehner’s recent public objection to federal trial of KSM in New York, Greenwald writes:
This is literally true: the Right’s reaction to yesterday’s announcement — we’re too afraid to allow trials and due process in our country — is the textbook definition of "surrendering to terrorists." It’s the same fear they’ve been spewing for years. As always, the Right’s tough-guy leaders wallow in a combination of pitiful fear and cynical manipulation of the fear of their followers. Indeed, it’s hard to find any group of people on the globe who exude this sort of weakness and fear more than the American Right.
Cynical manipulation? Absolutely. Ever since 9/11, we have had years of unsubstantiated or downright fake threats, intended to frighten the American people. Yellow-cake uranium, threats of mushroom clouds and non-existant weapons of mass destruction have now morphed into "the government is going to kill your granny with their federal death panels". The list of efforts at cynical manipulation by the Right is a long one and I will not inventory all of it here, aside to say that their most recent fear-inducing offering is that we can’t afford to give people due-process in this country. Thus Greenwald’s broadside of yesterday.
But I may disagree with Greenwald as to motive on the part of the Right’s leadership. He appears to at least allow the possibility that the Right’s leadership–people like Boehner–are actually motivated by fear. I simply don’t see that. When conservative leaders like John Cornyn, or Boehner, John Kyl or Pete Hoekstra speak from the floor of the House or Senate, I have never seen one slight inkling that they themselves are fearful. I don’t see it in their mannerisms, their language, or their behavior.
I think this is an important distinction to make, as people who are truly afraid can be expected to make poor decisions and unwise statements, but they can do so honestly, because fear is an honest emotion. It is at least an honest mistake to make a bad choice because fear is impacting one’s thinking. In my view, by leaving open the possibility that GOP leaders are actually themselves fearful, Greenwald leaves open the possibility that all the nonesense we’ve heard from the leadership of the Right, or much of it, has some shred of honesty to it, because these guys are truly scared and aren’t thinking straight. Being permanently scared for eight years after 9/11 may not be a very admirable trait, but at least it’s an honest one.
But I’ll repeat–I don’t think that GOP leaders are actually afraid (John Boehner isn’t yellow, he’s clearly orange). And if that is true, and conservative leadership are no more than cynical manipulators of fear. The conclusion is inescapable: just as terrorists utilize violent acts to manipulate fear in civilian populations for political ends, the rhetoric of the conservative right has exactly the same motivation and impact. One strategy uses violence. The other, rhetoric. But the product of both strategies–control through fear–is the same. This places the leadership of the conservative right in very close quarters with those they claim to oppose.



22 Comments







Why Would anybody listen or care what these people think or say.
Both Boehner and McConnell have never done anything in their lives, to even qualify themselves as any kind of leader.
That’s what’s wrong with this Country is that an election has become a King Maker.
Because their are groups of ignorant people who vote these guys into office, the Country is forced to suffer for having them there.
Democracy at it’s worst.
To be fair to the GOP who else do they have to lead them thats any better:)
Sometimes nothing is better than something.
Hey they could always go out in the garden and get a couple slugs.
Lobbyists wrote the speeches for the health care debate; it is likely that they are writing these ‘fear’ speeches, too. Control through fear is terrorism.
*********
“In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.
Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?_r=1
Lobbyists work for cash where is the money?
I think you have this all wrong. In politics it’s actions and only actions that matter, not “intentions” or “motives”. The only place I’d ever care about those is where it might make a difference in which tactic to choose.
If somebody assaults me, which these despicable persons have, I don’t care about his mindset.
(Were you one of the commenters Greenwald referred to in his update?)
I think that if you want to understand what is truly going on, in politics or in any other walk of life, motives are important. They help one to understand. I do not believe that all that matters is actions.
I read the update. I doubt whether Greenwald has read this, and assume he’s addressing commenters at Salon. His update simply reiterates what he said in his post. I disagree with him in a fairly minor way, for the reasons I’ve written here.
Oh, I agree as far as general intellectual curiosity goes. Artists, philosophers, historical figures in general.
I was questioning its utility in a real-time political firefight.
Here I think all that matters is what motive it’s most politically effective to impute to them. Future historians may have the luxury of doing more than that.
So I don’t see how it helps to extend these vile criminals the courtesy they would never extend to us of giving them credit for any kind of “sincere” feeling. Fuck their feelings.
Of course they are continuing their ongoing attemtp to sway the Great Unwashed (I am convinced this is their perspective; not mine) using terrorist tactics of their own.
It still does not lessen the underlying truth that they are preaching a) a doctrine that has zero faith in the system they are sworn to uphold and b) a doctrine of cowardice.
We can’t bring TEH TERRIBUL MAGICKS of these EVIL GENIUS TERRORISTS to our shores because we can’t protect ourselves!!!
Indeed. Cowards in practice, regardless the Machievellian underpinnings.
I’m putting my vote on why the GOP does not want trials of Terrorists in America because then the Terrorists would have rights according to our laws rights to discovery like who gave the order to torture them. Its no accident Darth has been fighting this.
One of the most illustrative quotes I remember that has bearing on this question comes from Addington, who said “We’re one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious court” when referring to the FISA court. My money is on manipulation coming out on top at least at about a 70-30 split. There may be a bit of fear, but it is embraced for the opportunities it brings.
Great point Jim. Addington was nearly yearning for such an attack–it would have blown away whatever resistance was left supporting due process, 4th amendment, etc. He was in no way fearful, in my opinion–nor are any of the other GOP leaders still in power.
Again, I disagree with GG, and Russ (above) that motivation isn’t important. This is not an issue of detached intellectual whimsy. If GOP leadership are themselves truly frightened, you define their actions in one way. If they are not themselves frightened, but actively do what they can to increase fear among Americans for GOP political gain, that behavior places them much closer to the terrorists themselves.
In a way I’m surprised Greenwald is dismissive of this point. It’s not like an attorney to ignore motive as unimportant.
Yes, Glenn’s update on that point did seem uncharacteristic.
I tried to strike my word “dismissive” above, but too late for comment editing. I don’t think GG is dismissive of this, but I do think he is overlooking its importance.
And today, if you look at his post–he has written an excellent piece having to do with the motivating factors among radical moslems.
How can it be important to consider what motivates terrorists and their recruiters, but not important to pay similar attention to whatever factors are motivating a segment of our own political leadership (the GOP)?
If you mean we should call them terrorists, i.e. impute the worst motive which explains the action, then hell yes. Like I said, whatever’s tactically best.
But if you mean, and perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, that if we think they really are “scared” that we should be more patient or gentle with them or something, then I can’t follow you there.
Unless you mean that when we’re trying to appeal to the teabagger rank and file (which I do think should be done if possible), many of whom are really scared, that the best way to do that is to pretend to care what their leaders are feeling…
As someone who does want to make a real populist, anti-corporate appeal, I’m just trying to think it through. I’m still trying to see the practical utility of knowing the enemy leadership’s “real” motivation.
(Which, BTW, I agree with you is utterly cynical. Maybe I was being needlessly argumentative, or conflating this post with Greenwald’s comment on his commenters, some of whom apparently did want to feel the Republicans’ pain or something. Greenwald often seems exasperated by some of the comments. Which I guess you are now. :) )
No, I’m not saying that at all–I explained specifically why they are not terrorists–because the definition of terrorism requires violence–violent acts.
Again, the motivation behind behavior is critical in understanding that behavior. To understand terrorists, and to combat them, you need to understand what motivates terrorists. The same is true for any other group of people you are trying to understand and combat–including the GOP leadership.
The GOP “leadership” (such as it existed) may have been genuinely scared or frightened in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but they then instantly turned it into a golden opportunity to manipulate citizens endlessly.
Tom Ridge initially wrote (and then seemed to verbally retract) that the Bush Admin used their stupid terror alert system during the 2004 general election to gin up fear in the populace so that Bush would have a better chance at re-election. We can argue about whether the votes were counted fairly in Ohio, but I do think the terror scare tactic worked.
I don’t believe that any of these tools in congress or elsewhere have been genuinely afraid for quite a long, long time. For them, it’s all about what their lobbyists tell them to say and do, while handing them the money.
Are Teabaggers genuninely fearful? Probably some are, but my personal opinion from observation of my family & others I know is that they’re not really afraid of terrorism anymore either, or the dreaded muslims and so forth. It’s all pretty much a knee-jerk reaction and willingness to diss BHO, the Democrats, and whomever else they perceive to be standing in their way. In my experience, the teabaggers I know are just ticked off that a black guy’s in the white house. If they have any “fear” at all, it’s mainly that they might have to pay more taxes.
Good comment. I agree that many of the leadership–GOP and Dem, were likely truly fearful of additional attacks in the weeks/months following 9/11. The national populace were as well. Glen cites a study and links to it in his piece that documents how terrorism was a big issue at that point. However, that study also shows that within a year, terrorism had diminished in importance among the electorate to the point that other issues were of more concern.
You are also correct, imo, that the rank and file on the right are probably still fearful of terrorists. After all, they are the targets for much of their leadership’s rhetoric. This is why I am discussing here only the conservative leadership–as does GG in his piece, when he says “the Right’s tough-guy leaders”.
It was a normal response to be afraid of another terrorist attack right after 9/11. I had a number of politicially progressive/Democratic friends who were honestly terrified of another attack, so much so that one friend actually moved out of San Francisco because they were convinced that the Golden Gate Bridge was next to go (I kid you not).
At the same time, though, my same (and other) Democratic/progressive friends abhored how the Bush Admin responded to 9/11, especially the lies that came forth on a regular basis, plus the demonizing of muslims and all the rest.
But yes, many US citizens, including politicans, were genuinely fearful of more terrorist attacks after 9/11. Of course, if the Bush Admin had listend to Bill Clinton and Richard Clark, perhaps (maybe) 9/11 would have been averted??
It’s all water under the bridge, but as I said, I’m extremely skeptical that anyone inside the Beltway is “afraid” anymore. They just try to gin up fear to manipulate their base. And they use anything, including the threat of more taxes (a more realistic concern) or tossing granny down the chute (idiotic), to whip them in a frenzy. Do Republican politicians really believe in death panels? Pull the other one, please.
At the same time, I DO think the GOP is a-skeered about KSM getting tried in NYC because of what might be revealed… but NOT because they are “afraid” of terrorists. They just don’t want the truth to come out, as Dickbreath Cheney has been rattling his sabres about.
Yep. I suspect that Emptywheel and Greenwald–and many other astute bloggers–are going to have much to say about these trials. Looking forward to it…
Oh yes, please! Bring on the trials. It is what I am also eagerly awaiting, while I also have a good laugh watching the GOP machine twist and bend itself into a pretzel trying to “explain” why due process is not meant for such as these, or why we should all ignore the 6th Amendment to the very Constitution that they so profess to love to pieces, which states that a criminal should have the right to a speedy trial in the state or district where the crime took place.
Well, yadda yadda. pass the popcorn, and let’s watch the GOP bust some more veins trying to prove that night is day, that black is white, that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, that the earth is flat, and that 2 legs are better than 4.
The GOP machine is transparent, predictable and, yes indeedy, onitgoes, they are irrational.