Wingnut Repellant

Wingnut Repellant
By: Twisted Martini Sunday February 15, 2009 11:27 am	Tweet

A wingnut friend of mine got me going this morning on Facebook with a quote from some 1940′s socialist. I would like to ask the FDL community for help in crafting a fairly bullet-proof rebuttal.

Here’s the original quote:

"Now back in 1927, an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said, ‘The American people would never vote for socialism, but,’ he said, ‘under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of our socialist program’…This threat is with us, and at the moment, more imminent." –Ronald Reagan as Governor of California in a radio address from the 1960′s

I basically told him to turn off the talk radio and go outside. Which elicited this response:

Liberals and Conservatives agree something must be done to stimulate the economy, but we disagree upon what and to what extent. When we see things in this spending bill like $1.2B to Acorn, $335M for STD’s, $500M for wetlands in Pelosi’s district, and $100M for a new sports arena in Mississippi, it makes business owners like me ask, "How does this create jobs?"Now in regards to my post, you have shown that this is truly a tough one for you because (a) a socialist equated liberalism with socialism, & (b) you went "ad hominem" ("attacked the man") when you could not properly refute premise made. This is a tough one for liberals, for sure. Is ad hominem the tactic liberals resort to when they realize that 80 years ago, America’s most notorious socialist-a 6-time loser for President- stated that he and his cronies would win in the end if they just started calling their oppressive ideology LIBERALISM?

Another one chimed in with this:

Yes, seems to be the MO of liberals to attack the person and not the message.I actually don’t listen to talk radio, and stay away from anything editorial, I just want to facts and facts show that tax cuts, across the board, especially on business, creates jobs.There is a reason the rest of the world has reduce corporate taxes, giving us the 2nd highest in the world. Corporations don’t pay taxes, they just pass it to the consumer, even those buying dog food.People forget that government doesn’t create wealth, but takes it. That Trilion $’s just came out of our pocket.

So, the 64K question is, how should I respond? Some options:1. Ignore. I already filter emails from said wingnut, maybe I should do the same with Facebook.2. Insult-he wants ad-hominem, I can really go there.3. Fisk/refute-Hard to do because they don’t believe any sources other than Fox/Rush, etc. So what I am asking, fellow Lakers, is to help me construct a short, bullet-proof refutation of their bullshit. Have at it!

23 Comments Recommend

23 Responses to Wingnut Repellant

PaminBB February 15th, 2009 at 12:16 pm 1

The “2nd highest in the world” is an over-simplified pro-business talking point. Here’s a discussion of it.

Reply
PaminBB February 15th, 2009 at 12:30 pm 2

Oh and regarding “$335M for STD’s(sic)”: The money would be to educate about and prevent STDs. Health care is one of our largest businesses, for better or worse. Preventing disease is widely considered more cost-effective than treating disease. This obsession on the right stems in part from the fact that abstinence-only edu. programs are not as effective as more comprehensive programs. Tell your buddies to buy stock in companies that manufacture condoms.

Reply
Bluetoe2 February 15th, 2009 at 12:31 pm 3

First of all, wingnuts always lie. I would question any statement they make as fact. Secondly, they have no problem with socialism when the beneficiaries are corporations and financial institutions but if there were benefits for the little “people”, well we just can’t have that now can we? Finally I would suggest you be more selective in your choice of “friends”.

Reply
KayInMaine February 15th, 2009 at 12:45 pm 4

I would tell him, “You believe what Ronald Reagan says on what someone else said? Sorry pal, but I never trusted a thing that came out of that man’s mouth!”.

Reply
Adie February 15th, 2009 at 12:47 pm 5

Rampant greed as well as a penchant for elitist attitudes and exclusionary practices, by which some “haves” would demand an hereditary right to keep a firm heel on the neck of the “have-nots”. Hmmmmm. Is that not a mighty argument FOR socialism?

Why! I do believe it is, standing just there naked before us. Yes! *rubbing eyes* Look there at those heinous scrooges in their gated palaces! What is their definition of ENOUGH? Will they always and forever more refuse to share without rancor? From whence springs this iron-clad sense of entitlement and lust for control of all things as far as the eye can see and beyond? Do they not breathe the same air as simple peasants? Rise with the same sun?

Where would they learn such a preposterous grasping habit? Is there a plague upon the land stunting the brains of these nincompoops rendering them helplessly compelled to bring forth such an irrefutable argument FOR socialism? Have they gone quite mad at last?

Why will they not share even a smidgen of their lucre without pining so piteously? How do they see long-term gain from hoarding complete unto themselves a simple but fulfilling life, safe and adequate food and clothing, even health care for the neediest among us?
Are they so blind as to attempt anything so crass and mind-numbingly stupid?!

—

[There. Howzat? No charge. Besides, it’s just a starter-kit. Go forth armed in peace, sport. *g*]

Reply
KayInMaine February 15th, 2009 at 12:47 pm 6

And then forward this to them and remind them what America went through over the last 8 years:

14 POINTS OF FASCISM
http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Reply
Adie February 15th, 2009 at 1:39 pm 7

In response to KayInMaine @ 6

Wonderful post TW, and coupled with Kay’s list it’s really powerful.

My normally non-lurker (not by lack of interest, but lack of time) hubby read the whole post and comments with great interest, when I suggested he take a look. He was unusually silent, so I couldn’t wait to hear what he thought. His immediate thought was to suggest that Kay’s wonderful list would be a terrific model for tagging each of those points of fascism with something specific Bush/Cheney did during their terms in office.

Funny he should ask, heh. I immediately thought of Hugh’s List. In other words, maybe the links have already been done, or could be without a whole lot of trouble??

Oh, not surprisingly, his next suggestion was to send the whole result off to Rep. Waxman’s and Sen. Leahy’s offices.

Has any such thing been done in the past? If not, would it be a good idea to do so, to give some incredibly pithy, sharp sticks with which to jab the rest of Congress in re: reasons for bring charges.

Maybe, TW, such an action would give your cranky wingnut acquaintances a good hard thwack to their concrete attitudes. You might even get to enjoy seeing them sneak around corners to avoid having to answer YOUR questions.

Please give it a thought, gang. I’m unworthy even of thinking clearly through such a task, but there’s a whale of a lot of talent at the Lake who could put it together in a hurry, I betcha.

Reply
masaccio February 15th, 2009 at 2:16 pm 8

I would ask for a link to each substantive point. If none appears, call them idiots for repeating crap without checking to see if it is true. When the links appear you can fisk them one after the other and then tell them about snopes.com

Reply
perris February 15th, 2009 at 2:21 pm 9

So, the 64K question is, how should I respond? Some options

like so;

you have no idea what is or is not socialism;

money itself is a social project, the roads your drive on, the electricity lines to your house, the beach, the parks, the police the fire dept are all social projects

the court system is socialism, the concept of ownership is socialism

for a government to even exist there MUST be socialism, if you and your wife were the only two people on the planet there would STILL be socialism

when reagan gave my money to rich people with his wealth redistribution that was socialism, when bush gave my money to rich people with his wealth redisribution that was socialims

I want my money back and if reclaiming middle class assets is socialism to you then you need to live in a country that has no government becuase where there is government there is socialims”

there, that should do the trick

Reply
stratocruiser February 15th, 2009 at 2:27 pm 10

“Now back in 1927, an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said, ‘The American people would never vote for socialism, but,’ he said, ‘under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of our socialist program’…This threat is with us, and at the moment, more imminent”

The American people would never vote for a dictatorship. But under the guise of protecting the nation, the American people would adopt every fragment of our Fascist program… This threat is with us, and at the moment, more imminent.

Stratocruiser, in an address to his keyboard, February15, 2009

Then append the 14 points of fascism and Naomi (Klein, Wolf?) 10 steps to change democracy into Fasism.

Reply
JoyB February 15th, 2009 at 2:48 pm 11

I recommend, actually, that you DON’T get defensive about Norman Thomas. Rather, read up on him, embrace what he was really about, and educate your friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Thomas

The quote is not about how best to trick Americans, but about how Americans already agreed with the goals, but had a negative reaction to the term “socialist.” Norman Thomas had nothing to be ashamed about, and you have nothing to be ashamed about to be linked to him. That’s all there is to that.

Reply
Millineryman February 15th, 2009 at 3:12 pm 12

In response to masaccio @ 8

I think this is a strong option.

Reply
JoyB February 15th, 2009 at 3:13 pm 13

In response to stratocruiser @ 10

Good one!

Reply
Margot February 15th, 2009 at 3:18 pm 14

I can’t help you craft a response, but hang in there, Twisted. I enjoy talking to wingnuts and find lots of useful tables and resources to rebut them.

On universal health care, I told one guy that it’s like taking care of a car. If you never, ever had money to do any maintenance, you get big huge costly problems and eventually, you have no more car. Why not pay little amounts for little problems instead of huge bills for replacing an engine? That would be stupid. He got that.
PS i agree with JoyB.

Reply
Twisted Martini February 15th, 2009 at 3:32 pm 15

Thanks guys, I am crafting my rebuttal, and i’ll post it when it’s done. I’m half tempted to post the whole thing here and make him register if he wants to comment!

Reply
Adie February 15th, 2009 at 5:17 pm 16

In response to Twisted Martini @ 15

Just a thought: who says you need to use only one type of rebuttal?

We were serious earlier, about taking a “no prisoners” approach and smacking this attack on real science and legal fact with something combining what Hugh might agree to be provided from his list and KayinMaine’s marvelous list at #6 above.

It might take some work, but trust me, this is a big problem which is driving real scientists, other educators, and health-care professionals to distraction these days. The wingnut crusade is out there and threatening our kids’ education, everyone’s health care, constitutional rights, etc.

Thank you for your dedication. I’m guessing it will be highly worthwhile for you to follow your instincts and not give up on this.

Thank You!

Reply
poopsybythebay February 15th, 2009 at 7:12 pm 17

In response to KayInMaine @ 6

I love the list of 14 and if sending that does not make a wingnut pause I’m not sure what would. If like they say they are not listening to right wing radio and such it might be just the thing to knock some sense into them.

Reply
wigwam February 15th, 2009 at 10:38 pm 18

In response to masaccio @ 8

In particular, this from Reagan is likely to be bullshit:

“Now back in 1927, an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said, ‘The American people would never vote for socialism, but,’ he said, ‘under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of our socialist program’…This threat is with us, and at the moment, more imminent.” –Ronald Reagan as Governor of California in a radio address from the 1960’s

Reagan was notorious for making shit up, and I suspect that this is another instance. For more on Reagan’s bullshitting check out http://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-…..1568584105

Reply
mgardener February 16th, 2009 at 8:24 am 19

“The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly”

Norman Thomas also said the above.He also said the below.
“To us Americans much has been given; of us much is required. With all our faults and mistakes, it is our strength in support of the freedom our forefathers loved which has saved mankind from subjection to totalitarian power.”

Was Norman Thomas an economist? No. He was also a Presbyterian Minister, an advocate of birth control, against determent of Japanese during WW 2 and against war.
So, if your friend can accept his words, does he also accept birth control, closing Gitmo and pulling out of Iraq??

I love how republicans pick and choose.

Reply
jeroen February 16th, 2009 at 1:05 pm 20

Maybe this quote will help?

Why of course the people don’t want war. (..) That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Hermann Goering

Reply
perris February 16th, 2009 at 3:46 pm 21

In response to mgardener @ 19

“The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly”

he doesn’t quite get it either

the differance is democrats understand all government has to have socialism and they want those projects to help people, republicans want socialism to help industry and not people

that’s the real differance

Reply
tejanarusa February 16th, 2009 at 3:47 pm 22

In response to jeroen @ 20

Ah, you beat me to it. I was just about to get a link for THAT quote.

Reply
Twisted Martini February 16th, 2009 at 6:41 pm 23

ok, Here’s my rebuttal:

Actually, it is pretty easy to dismiss your tired straw man argument. Typical conservatives, call people names until they respond, and then whine about people attacking them. Ok, I’ll bite-All conservatives are liars, and that one will be hard for you to refute because it is the truth.

1. Please show me where Norman Thomas actually said what Reagan”quoted”. Saint Ronny never made shit up.
2. Please show me where in the stimulus bill Acorn is getting money.
3. Tax cuts create jobs-Really? In the last 8 years we have had nothing but tax cuts, and Fredo Bush is the worst President for job creation, according to the WSJ.
4. Government doesn’t create wealth-Really? Tell that to any contractor who has ever sold to the Government, or any defense contractor.

So there you go, 4 lies exposed, my premise is proved correct. QED.

A “business owner” like yourself who doesn’t understand how STD prevention or wetlands restoration or building an arena in Missouri creates jobs is clearly ignorant of how economics works. Spending stimulates the economy, period. You could spend the entire $800B on hookers and whiskey and it would still stimulate the economy and create jobs.

I leave you with this…The Republicans did such a good job of running things that they lost. Indiana. To a black Democrat.

Reply