First!
One of the scariest things that's happened over recent months for me is seeing the neocon practically praying that there is another terrorist attack on this country out of bitterness at their falling fortunes and the misguided belief that those fortunes would turn around if another 9/11 happened.
I'm not one to believe the 9/11 conspiracy theorists ideas about the US govt destroying the World Trade Center but I can't help but feel even more vulnerable knowing that a bunch of right wing kooks who at this have nothing to lose are in charge of the machinery that keeps us safe.
They won't directly responsible for such an attack but indirectly...
too damm long to read.
look we are comeign to an endgame real soon here..people are startign to wake up to just how nuts the theocrats are...there power is at its apex right now and starting to wayne...their youth is abandoning the fold, the movment is loseing momentom....this makes it very dangerous....they will get desperate, they are fallign short of the brass wring adn may make one last leap to try and grabe it....
I don't put good odds on it mabey around 45% but I would not eb shocked if they tried to indefiantly postpone the next elections.
moony, please have a PBR on me. say hey to your s.o.
NP. shes startign her first pice of fiction..near term scifi, post thocrat takeover of america (parelles to 1930's germany) . should be good.
give her a biiiiig toke...
As a Charger fan, I resent Lower Manhattanite's prevent defense analogy.
i would expect nothing less. Go iggles!
Pacific John:
Yes, but you overcame Nat Moore and the “Hook n' Trailer” to win in OT, so it all evens out in the end. 
This picks up a strong theme we saw just when R/W AM radio rapidly grew in the late '80s and early '90s.
It became obvious, fast, that most of the insults and accusations and motives Dittoheads attributed to Democrats were simply projections of their own worst impulses. Their assumption was, and still is, we are as bad as they are. Little do they know that our side has the opposite problem and assumes that right wingers are humans who are capable of good if we only cut them enough slack.
What I thought was the craziest projection out of R/W radio was that if Clinton won in '92, he would make himself an emperor/dictator. I had a sales guy from a major electronics company go off on this rant. Very odd - if you know business, you know how uncommon this is in major sales relationships.
But that is their impulse: authoritarian leadership, and their excuse for it is they assume we'd do the same to them given half a chance.
To burrow down a little bit more, the right and the left are not structurally similar. A close friend of mine from socially conservative circles pointed out that while liberal leaders accurately reflect liberals as a group, conservatives pick authority figures to handle important decisions, leaders who have different DNA than their worker bees. Ergo, Darth Cheney, and all of the 27 percenters are okay with that.
Great discussion, my take is that the situation is very fluid and that it is roughly somewhat less than 50-50 that things will go bad, with the Pinochet future being the realistic worst of these variants. This is the main reason why I wish Al Gore would run for president for I think he is the only one who truly grasps the situation.
Sara, I think you make a good point that the country wil be utterly different in 15 years and I think this is what scares the right wingers. They thought Cheney/Bush was their best, last chance to turn back the clock.
For in this future, it will become obvious that the problems in the country and world require something very different from croney capitalism
and neocon imperialism. My 2 cents worth.
I hope you are right about this country being radically different in 2020. I hope all the crap we're going through now is the precursor to a new liberal enlightenment, but I don't believe I'll be holding my breath.
Good job on the analysis everyone.
Pacific John: re the structural differences between left and right culture. I've been poking at this idea for over a year at Orcinus: my tenure there actually began with a series examining these differences. A few notes:
1. Social psychologist Bob Altemeyer has in fact documented the very wide differences between authoritarian leaders and "worker bees." The leaders are amoral, all about dominance, and often have strong sociopathic traits. The followers tend be black-and-white thinkers who are very conforming and fearful. Books have been written on these differences; they are indeed real.
2. One of the big differences is that liberals take the measure of their leaders. We grant them authority where it's appropriate, but are quick to recognize the limits to what should be accorded. In the end, we're pretty clear that the power to grant authority is ours; and we grant it fairly grudgingly. And that's healthy.
Conservatives, on the other hand, give their leaders far more control. Their leaders get to be the all-knowing boss of everything -- and everybody just loves doing what they're told. Which has important implications for how we speak to (or attack) their culture.
3. Most of the attacks on female bloggers come from highly authoritarian men, whose view of social hierarchy demands that women be seen and not heard. So they try to silence us -- sometimes with death threats and real-world harassment at our homes and work.
Feminists that we are, it's hard for us to admit that we're pretty much powerless to draw our own boundaries on these guys. We're very used to saying "NO" and having it heard by liberal men. But these guys, being authoritarian, do not hear "NO" when it's said in a female voice. If there's no penis present, there's no authority around worth respecting.
This means that we're more dependent than we'd like to admit on the men of our community to step up and set those boundaries for us. They'll hear a male voice, loud and clear, in situations where our voices don't register at all. It's frustrating to admit, but it's not about us; it's about who these guys are and how they operate. They don't hear "stop" until some GUY gets all up in their face and says, "Look. The lady said STOP." Our protests mean nothing until they're backed up by the presence of male authority.
This is why the women who get the worst harassment are the ones who are out on the Web "unescorted" by a male co-blogger. They'll still deal shit on women who are paired up; but there's a line they won't cross if they think they might have to deal with an angry man.
A few men have been upset with me for pointing this out (spare me, Mooser); but when I stood up at the female bloggers' forum at YKos and noted this, there was huge agreement and recognition.
Understanding the ways in which authoritarian culture is different is crucial because it allows us to understand, explain, and fight them far more effectively.
And Periwinkle: "They thought Cheney/Bush was their best, last chance to turn back the clock."
Word. If this one gets away from them, their War Against the 60s will be over for good. And we'll be off into the next change cycle -- with or without them.
There was a letter in the Minneapolis Star Tribune a couple of weeks or so ago, stating that should the Dems take control of the presidency and Congress, Conservatives would be prepared for action as necessary (paraphrase based on aging memory).
.........which got me thinking.
Pacific John, this leads to an obvious weakness: the winger crowd can't act on their own very well. There's a competence gap: and it leans liberal. The competence rests on guilt-ridden closeted fundy gay people, which is one reason why they fulminate so against gayness, and hardly mention heterosexual deviancy (in their view) at all. And they resent that dependency.
The same thing is true with the church. If every closeted gay left, a lot of churches would have practically no staff and support. At lot of churches would have no clergy.
Excellent discussion. Is there a chance that the roundtable might become a regular feature, say once or twice a month? I quite like the format, and as odd as it may seem - given how unrelentingly grim this particular discussion was - I rather enjoyed it.
As to the substance on display here: It looks like Bush is definitely staying on until his time's up (I also thought Steve was always a little too optimistic when it came to the little bastard either caving out of weakness or getting the heave-ho), but I don't think he'll want to stay on any later. It seems the "plan" - if it can be called that - is for the current gang to hang on until the time comes when they drop the whole mess into the upcoming Administration's lap & thus avoid any blame whatsoever. (All the better if it's a Democratic Presidency they pull this shit on, but I doubt they'd mind a bit if it's another GOP group...depending on who the next Rethug Prez happens to be, I think Bush might actually prefer fucking him over!)
I'm convinced this is what they're aiming for, so I don't think we have to worry about a Pinochet style coup. (There's a silver lining to everything, eh?) Of course, I could be wrong...
Another thing: I notice y'all didn't address the Democrats overly much (perhaps they could be the subject of Roundtable # 2?), but I do agree with the comments made by Sara and HB: The Dem "leadership" has absolutely no intention of rocking the boat. As Dennis Perrin has put it, they're simply waiting their turn at the wheel, to prove they can efficient managers of Empire.
So I have to say, I found some of the more alarmist talk about Bush and Cheney (but especially Cheney) doing anything to avoid an upcoming Democratic administration to be almost humorous. Big Time Dick has the mettle of the so-called opposition party far better than we do, and if we know they're not going to lift a finger against him, how can that little gem of information possibly escape his notice?
Which is not to say that Cheney and Bush - and the entire cadre of thugs surrounding them - aren't sociopaths, aren't dangerous, aren't utterly ruthless or incapable of any crime. There is nothing I wouldn't put past these pigfuckers, and they may indeed commit any number of further atrocities before they leave office (in fact, they certainly will)...but fear of the Democrats hasn't stayed their hand yet, and I very much doubt that fear of any upcoming Dem administrations will change that. Not with people like Kerry and Pelosi and Reid and the Clintons "opposing" them. So can we stop kidding ourselves on that point, please?
they do see bush as teh last best chance...thats wh ythere be one last desperation grasp before its all over...desperation grasps can be very dangerous to both sides.
I think that we're all "kinda nuts", in our own way. I don't mean that in a bad way, but I think that all of us have these nagging feelings in the back of our mind that just won't go away. We don't want to say them, as others might thing we're..well..nuts.
Should make this a routine feature..call it "Roasting Nuts".
Here's some of mine:
#1. The next terrorist attack will come from some Iraqi group ravaged by the war. This is the end result that the Democrats are terrified with that they are wanting to keep some presence in Iraq.
#2. The Reagan papers. I've insisted this since 2000. Wow. That's a long time to have some nuts in the attic. The GOP cannot afford to have Reagan's papers released. This is where most of my thoughts of suspending/stealing elections come from. They can't afford to lose.
#3. Democratic candidates. Obama and Edwards are good. Really. Diamond Hil Clinton is decent. Really. Why the quote? Can't find the exact quote.."Let it be known, that when the winds of public opinion change, I will change with the winds" or something like that. Clinton is the cynic's choice for president.
There's massive domestic changes coming down the pipe. I think all three candidates are more than capable of dealing with it.
Excellent discussion. Is there a chance that the roundtable might become a regular feature, say once or twice a month? I quite like the format, and as odd as it may seem - given how unrelentingly grim this particular discussion was - I rather enjoyed it.
John D. -
Um... Hmmm.
I don't know.
This was a LOT of work. LOTS.
Mostly me NAGGING the other three to get their copy to me. (I'm talking to you, _______, you know who you are.)
If we manage to work out the production issues, perhaps. For now, no way in hell. I mean, some other time perhaps. When we have an issue calling for a major expenditure of staff time and effort.
Even if this doesn't move people like the latest LM post, we think doing it was worth it, because it clarified our thinking for us. Sharing our speculations with you is simply a bonus.
I am glad you like the format, and in all seriousness, I do also. I imagine we will do roundtables in the future. Just not right away. Need to rest for a bit first. *smiles* Getting this done truly was a LOT of work. Which we happily do all for you, our readers. *smiles sweetly*
This is a very interesting read; I found myself pretty much in a middle position on many of the issues, While not quite as paranoid/hopeless sounding as LM, I am much more concerned about the fate of the Republic and the Constitution than I was in 1969, when there actually were people plotting the overthrow of the government.
That said, I've maintained for years that the nation has been experiencing a well planned slow motion Coup since Nixon's fall. The kingmakers' fatal mistake was counting on GW Bush to remain the passive frat boy slacker he had always been. (They also didn't anticipate the rise of electronic communication - email and blogs - as an incredibly powerful Samizdat-type communication medium.) Now that everything's pretty much gone to shit it's going to be pretty unstable for a long time.
One variable that concerns me is the Democratic Party and how deeply it might have been corrupted over the last thirty years. It's not encouraging to watch them roll over on issues where there clearly is no need to do so, as seen by the apparent unwillingness to prosecute Gonzo, and even the telegraphed willingness to fold on the Surge report. It's bad when even the MSM are calling the Dems spineless and they don't even flinch. None of the current crop of candidates has addressed the shredding of the Constitution in anything close to an acceptable degree.
So hang on, Groupies, it's going to be a wild ride.
I agree with John D that this format is very useful. The worst flaw with the blog format is that is both lacks the immediacy of chat, and flies by too fast to develop ideas. This round table format has a lot of potential for you guys to chew things over and develop discussions to a satisfying conclusion in a way that normal blog interplay won't.
Mrs Robinson: I've been a long time fan of Dave's since the Table Talk days when he was one of the first people to recognize the far right style of thought. You're dead on in your observations - I haven't had the stomach to study this stuff for a while, but enjoy your fresh look. Something that Dave saw was that despite the playground bullying of the fringe right, most of these guys are insecure, fearful wimps. Of course this means they calm down when you stand up to them, and get louder and angrier when they get their way. I don't envy women who have to face this sort of filth.
The thread within right wing extremism that has most fascinated me, but I don't have the training to adequately pursue, is the role of sexual frustration. The American Right is largely fueled by sexual hangups, fear and obsessions. Dave and other authors like James Coates do a great job following religious threads like Christian Identity, and ideological threads that tie together the disparate American RW communities, but there has not yet been enough work on how twisted, sexual culture forms their foundation.
And, of course, much analysis of the American right applies directly to the violent, conservative fringes of Islam and Judaism. Too bad no public figure has been able to effectively point this out in the months and years since 9/11.
I notice that there is not a legal viewpoint offered here, and am wondering if you in the roundtable have any aquaintances who are constitutional lawyers who could weigh in. It seems to me that impeachment is too important to leave to the politicians, and that there has to exist some organization of lawyers who are in the process of building a case for impeachment--somewhere there have to be some serious dogs out there taking this on.
The reason I bring that up is the Bill Moyers interview with the two constitutional lawyers who consider impeachment a way to take back our country. You can't tell me that those guys and their colleagues are sitting on their hands doing nothing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4...h?
v=4Ld7c95jdeU
LC, that Bill Moyers interview was an important moment. If impeachment happens, we'll remember that as one of the big milestones on the path.
PJ, there's a wonderful, underrated book called "The Wimp Factor" by Stephen Ducat that's the only one I've seen that really, seriously digs into the role of sexuality in creating the conservative mindset. I agree that sex is very near the core of the question; and Ducat pulls out literally hundreds of studies and weaves them into a whole picture of just what goes on with that. Book's been out a couple years, so you can probably find it used.
The "family resemblance" between Islamic, Jewish, and Christian fundamentalism was documented back in the 80s by a group of 60 academics that called itself "The Fundamentalist Project." They had a 12-year-long conversation, also pulling together hundreds of scholarly papers, to discover the common threads. They published the whole conversation -- and I've read most of it -- but if you're not up for 40+ hours spent reading academic research, the best popular outline of their findings is Karen Armstrong's "The Battle for God."
Just a couple weeks ago, Christiane Amanpour had an amazing three-part series on CNN that had Armstrong's thumbprints all over it. She drew these parallels very strongly. I think people are indeed starting to realize (finally!) that it's all of a piece.
Go to YouTube and look for "God's Warriors." The first was God's Jewish Warriors, the second Muslim, the third Christian. They're in pieces, but you can see pretty much the whole thing.
"This was a LOT of work. LOTS."
Heh, heh. I assumed as much, Jesse, I certainly don't mean to come across as a clueless ninny when it comes to the amount of effort a tabled discussion of this length would (obviously) take. I should have said, Schedules permitting" or some other such disclaimer before opening my yap. Whoops!
John D. -
*grins*
I was just being snarky. Actually tried putting in < snark > tags, but they vanished. Stupid Haloscan.
I know..I probably come off quite hopeless in the Roundtable, but I'm of an age where I grew up thinking assassination of people on the political stage was par for the course.
I remember, King's and Kennedy's being cut down. I had relatives who knew the BPP's Fred Hampton. I was watching a morning rerun of “The Beverly Hillbillies” oddly enough when the bullettin about George Wallace's being shot in MD interrupted it.
My family was targeted by COINTELPRO. We had people cut bugs outta the phones at my dad's business and at our home.
My experiences and upbringing DO color my outlook. Watergate and the daily discussions of it in my home didn't help me be any less cynical about the government, either.
That all said, I have tremendous faith in America as a whole—but also, deep concerns about certain sub-groups that I increasingly feel will make serious trouble.
Since I participated in the Roundtable, I feel more and more that should (when) control of the White House fall into Democratic hands to match up with the congress, more than a few wingnuts are gonna truly freak out.
They will cry “oppression!”. They will stage events designed to make them appear besieged alá Phil Parlock's typical election-season Kabuki. (See number four on the list).
They will march on Washington, proclaiming themselves the “Non-silent Minority”. Idiots like Malkin will champion these efforts. They are already drifting into a true “bunker” mentality as we speak.
And there will be those who I think...will go too far. I can see enough of 'em running an endless loop of Red Dawn in their heads and bringing that shit to the real that it could be a real problem here. Honest to God.
Again, these people will be championed—overtly, and passive aggressively—i'm looking at you, Instahack. — by the usual suspects on the right. Shit, even Reynolds has let fall his facade of wan, distaff yada-yada-isms, and lapsed into bitchy carping of late—as it seems his patrons in winger politics see their star not on the wane, but actually imploding.
I can see these nuts with guns or whatever managing to do some real damage—because the perps will look for all the world like the image of “Americana”. There'll be no dusky brown peoples in that brigade, No profiling for these folks.
“Who watches the Watchmen?”
Okay, okay...that sonds a little dark and gritty. Let's try this on for size...
“Wolverines!”
Pacific John -
I also agree with you about the extent to which the right is fueled by sexual hangups.
I've spoken here about how I'm purchasing a very high-end camera. Why you ask? *grins* In order to shoot a documentary on sexuality, specifically:
1. Sexual patterns in relationships; where they come from, how to identify them, what to do with them;
2. Love v. romance; and
3. The inevitable breakdown of trust in long-term intimate relationships, and how to rebuild trust (instead of trashing your partner and moving on.)
When people are trapped in sexual patterns, they are -- tautology -- trapped in sexual patterns. What's Your Pattern? answers the question, why do people date the same kind of person over and over again? in a way that gives people a way out of life-long patterns burnt into their body through the media and their own early relationship experiences.
Coming from Bastard Zen Productions & GNB Media LLC What's Your Pattern? A Film by Jesse Wendel
*smiles*
It's going to take a while. But it's in the works. Designed to fix this issue for EVERYONE. Not just the right wing. For all of us. And yeah, I'm not aiming low. *laughs*
I'm with Jesse.
The shit or more nuclear weapons will be flying acoss America real soon.
Dick and the neocons have dragged Osama back from the grave to scare us on 9-11.
Israel violated Syrian airspace. Syria fired on them.
The criminals aren't going down without a fight and that may mean taking thousands of us with them.
Let's not forget that Cheney is an old man with a history of heart problems. I suspect, if they think it's necessary to save the GOP, Baker and company have a "Bat-Plan" to induce a Cheney heart attack. Without Cheney, Bush would fold like a house of cards.
I consider the Chilean-style takeover scenario unlikely, though not impossible. However, I don't think it would succeed.
Oh, something horrific would happen, all right.
But the horrific thing would NOT be the establishment of a successful fascist state.
It would be the Second Civil War, only this time less neatly divided into geographic blocs [not that the first one was all that neat]. 
I'm buying a gun and ammo while I still can.
Yes, people are mad---but some are mad they were wrong about Bush and so many other things. And they blame US.
LM,
I was in 4th or 5th grade living in DC on Capitol Hill when JFK was killed. For about 3 days and nights, people lined the streets in our neighborhood, waiting in long lines to go see him lying in state.
Wonderful discussion! Thanks to Jesse for organizing it. I've done similar things for publications and I know how much work this is.
Thanks again!
Great summary to offer up what's possible.
Current, and viable, all of it.
The comments are incredible, too.
I'm delighted and humbled, by the depths of paronia and reality exhibited by all.
For THAT'S a good snapshot of the present and future.
Thanks to all at GNB, you folks are great. And your readers are living up to YOUR expectations.
Here's wishing us all well . . . and thanks to all once again, for the perspectives shared.
Like others said GNB, I'd LOVE to see this feature more often . . . best to all of yas.
Steven was indeed wrong about Bush giving up the presidential ghost, but for reasons most of you haven't even touched on and probably don't even fathom. His heart was in the right place - he just wasn't looking in the right place for the answers. John D. - you're in the ballpark, keep swingin'.
Hey, I'm no expert, Dr. Bop. If you have a theory, by all means, share it with the rest of us.
I was just being snarky. Actually tried putting in < snark > tags, but they vanished. Stupid Haloscan.
Use square brackets for pseudo-HTML tags.
Just a couple weeks ago, Christiane Amanpour had an amazing three-part series on CNN that had Armstrong's thumbprints all over it. She drew these parallels very strongly. I think people are indeed starting to realize (finally!) that it's all of a piece.
Shortly after the 9//11 attacks, I was watching that religious "700 Club" show to see just how bad the fundies were freaking out, and I wasn't disappointed. They had one segment about how those bad Muslims were evil fanatics who wanted to get us so we good Christians had to get them first! That was followed by a segment of Pat Robertson explaining to us ignorant masses in TV land that America would lose the war on terrorism unless we all converted en masse to fundie Christianity. Taken together, those two segments sure gave me my daily recommended dose of irony.
The Buried Message:
"So, yeah, I do feel some apprehension about the potential for "ethnic cleansing" against liberal Americans. Certainly the legal and physical infrastructure to make it happen is all in place, waiting to go. When a weapon exists, people are inclined to use it. And the bigger it is, the more likely they are to use it."
This is the Buried Message :--(Time until Sara has a British Commonwealth passport: P minus one year and counting....)
My comment:
I would say, best to get that back-up passport while you still can. Most don't cost very much, just take a couple of years to get, maybe $8,000.00 in fees. Think about it. You'll soon figure out why it would be worth the money. Yes, mine is on the way too. I recommend the Republica Dominicano. Nice place, easy terms on the passport.
Also, as someone who paid attention in the sixties {born 1952} I find the possibility of upheaval and multiple assassination to be very real and am deeply confounded as to why this turn of events is not already happening.
I moved far from the US political turmoil 28 years ago, but still am a citizen. I keep hoping that things will get better. I guess I am a slow learner.
We're Canadian permanent residents (that's like a green card). Applying for a PR is the most heinous, grisly process we've ever gone through: the application for the four of us was over an inch thick and contained everything but our shoe size. It takes upwards of a year for them to process it.
But that's because PR is the stage where Canada does its due diligence on people. Once we got through that hurdle, we were basically accepted for eventual citizenship. After that, they want you to wait a couple years. Then there's a citizenship application -- which we'll be eligible to file next spring -- and a few months after that, you take the test and go through a few other formalities, and that's that.
So I get my Canadian passport in late '08 or early '09. And with that, the 52 countries of the Commonwealth are pretty much wide open to us if we ever decide it's time to move on.
Commenting by HaloScan
