Finding The New "Other"

Well, well, well...

LaShawn Barber is surprised by and disappointed in her commenters. Here she is making a worthwhile, practical and realistic proposal - impeaching George Bush over illegal immigration - and when she asked for suggestions as to additional impeachable abuses of power by George W. Bush, all she got was a bunch of vitriol and nonsense from a sampling of the blogosphere's whackjobs.

Boy, who'd have seen that coming, eh?

But it's worth quoting Barber at some length to demonstrate just how morally and intellectually bankrupt she is in all this:

I’m really quite disappointed with commenters on this post. It’s not about dissent; I allow non-ad homimen dissent at LBC. But I asked for two things on this post: other examples of abuse of power and other possible articles of impeachment. Exactly one commenter attempted to answer one of the questions. Many disagreed and didn’t address the questions. A few told me I was crazy (although most of those didn’t make it past the troll filter). Even commenters who agreed with the post didn’t answer the questions.

The hypothetical Article I drafted was deliberately vague. You’ll notice that I created a (1) but didn’t add (2). I wanted readers to come up with additional articles and examples. It was an exercise, an experiment to see what commenters would come up with.

But most didn’t bother. I could have added something like, “If you don’t think he should be impeached, don’t comment,” but people would have commented anyway. That’s the way we are. Whether people ask or not, we want to tell them what we think. I know my opinion about what should be done with Bush is controversial. Controversy sells. I can handle controversy. It’s the reason I’m a high ranking blogger. But this little impeachment hypothetical failed. Oh, well. On to the next post.

Yesterday I asked the fundamental question related to LaShawn Barber's call for the impeachment of George W. Bush. That question was, "Why now?"

Evidently it's either career, filthy lucre or ego. Take your pick. Not very pretty, eh?

Barber has drawn an incorrect conclusion from a false correlation. That is, she has looked at her site statistics and her media guest spots and taken them as an indication of a depth of knowledge and thoughtfulness on her part. That is the false conclusion. They could be and indication, but as her call for Bush's head demonstrates, it isn't. She has also come to the conclusion that because she is a "high ranking blogger", generating faux controversy for the sake of commerce can be done without readers noticing they are being manipulated in the pursuit of cold, hard cash.

But alas, there is no more correlation between site traffic and quality in the political blogosphere than there is between TV ratings and program quality. Masterpiece Theater doesn't win time slots, American Idol does. And because of this, Barber is incorrect in thinking that she can endlessly manufacture "controversy" from whole cloth while maintaining the posture of a "serious" blogger. It doesn't work that way: You're either serious or you're not. Your "ranking" is about your popularity, not your smarts.

Or your integrity, for that matter...

In addition, I would suggest it is equally incorrect in thinking that any blogger can build a career from the endless manufacturing of "controversy" from whole cloth. At some point it degenerates from something new and stimulating (to some, at least) to shtick. Therefore, at some point one has to move beyond "controversy" for its own sake, or one simply becomes the media equivalent of a trained seal.

Or maybe that's the whole point... To become a well-paid trained seal. And then do whatever it takes to make it last.

And to a certain extent, I would find that reassuring if that was all there was to it. But, unfortunately, I think there's some ass covering going on here as well.

It is hard to shake off the idea that this isn't about either illegal immigration or the supposed failings of George W. Bush. In fact, the very hysteria of the "conservative" pundits on both these issues suggests that there is something else going on that people like LaShawn Barber don't want to admit or discuss.

I think it is the spectre of political failure and defeat.

I'll wager this whole sudden, and very desperate, search for a new "Other" will be the first in a series of bids between now and November to secure a hold on power past 2006. Terrorists and Muslims worked in 2002 and 2004, but it is clear that until there is a fresh al-Qaeda atrocity on U.S. soil, both are past their political sell date. And let's face it, that terrorist menace - along with banning abortion and persecuting homosexuals - is just about all that "conservatives" like LaShawn Barber have to offer these days.

And I think they are sensing it won't be enough...

The LaShawn Barbers of the world sat around for 6 years without a single complaint about massive Republican deficits, crazed Republican spending, unbelievable Republican incompetence (Katrina), rampant Republican corruption (I don't have the bandwidth to list 'em all) or, that that matter, the "crisis" that illegal immigration now is. That was the Faustian bargain: Overlook all those things and you'll get a shot at putting enough judges on the bench to rule by judicial fiat.

But now that Bush has shown his colors on the one issue "conservatives" really care about (by nominating Harriet Miers), and now that Bush has approval ratings in the low 30s, these same "conservatives" realize they may not get all they bargained for if things go badly in November. Hence the crazed thrashing about for some way to continue to rule in Washington. They've come to the conclusion that Bush is an impediment to maintaining power. Ergo, Bush is now something different than he was 2 years ago... He's the Great Betrayer.

But what do you do to keep political power when you have no answers for deficits, spending, incompetence or corruption? What do you do when large portions of the public are either indifferent or hostile to the core of your agenda? You try what has worked in the past: You find an "Other". You find something or someone to blame for anything and everything... Ironically, the President you now loathe has managed get exactly one thing right since 9/11; he's kept al-Qaeda out of the U.S.. Ergo, the old boogey man ain't cutting it anymore.

So what do you do?

You find a new "Other". You manufacture a new enemy. And you do that because it is easy and it is simple and, first and foremost, because you have no answers to offer to the very real, complex and difficult problems that face the nation. Period.

Bottom line? If Muslims don't work anymore, look around and see what's handy.

And that's how you end up suggesting the impeachment of George W. Bush over illegal immigration in your blog.

Right, LaShawn?

Or is it really just about the money?

Comments

[Alan]

Have you noticed the wonderful advice powerline is offering the President to win back the hearts of "conservatives"--embrace the minuteman bigots. Doesn't it make you feel good that "conservative" pundits are doing their best to fulfill the librul myth that conservatives are bigots. Hell, maybe it's true--we're all born again, guns & ammo, bigots.

[John]

Totally agree with you about the money angle, but the Malkin/Barber rightwingers who are "outraged" at Bush and centrists don't seem to be aiming for more GOP votes with their illegal Mexican whipping boy; they're disaffecting people from the party, both out of disgust with their bullying and extremism and also in agreement with their "punish the Repubs" campaign.

Instead, this appears to be a push by new media types to be heard and taken seriously as opinion makers, using a manufactured new threat to do it, as you point out. They did it with Dubai! and Miers! and Spending! before that to flex their baby muscles. The Mestizo Invasion! works for them because it resonates with a public that fears foreigners post 9-11 and especially with a smaller cadre of racists and nativists who are potent (and toxic) activists.

By calling for a Dem victory this fall and some even for impeachment, they might be able to hold the party hostage to their radicalized Right core in order to become party power players in the future. But pushing the Repubs into losing in '06 actually helps these pundits to profit professionally, by "validating" their damning opinion from all along and closing a vicious loop they're trying to create.

So, all of this seems less about political conviction and any sincere desire to "help" the party which they're hurting, than it is about winning celebrity, influence and money in the punditry biz as ideologues and contrarians. Anyway, a Speaker Pelosi or President Clinton redux would provide rich material for the opinion product they sell. So your "is it really just about the money?" is the point. Blogdom on the right is trying to cash in and doesn't mind who it screws, as you know all too well.

[Guesst]

.

[Eric Blair]

While not particularly happy with the illegal immigration issue (I know too many legal immigrants, I suppose)

I'm not understanding this 'impeach Bush' stuff from the right side. Just. Don't. Get. It.

They're not thinking. I think you have in your usual laser beam sort of way, hit on it. Some people are smelling money and celebrity. Feh.

[Guesst]

Alan: embrace the minuteman bigots

As I pointed out in another post somewhere here, quite a few of the MM types are former FReakers, long banned for pushing radical extremist points of view on FR. The leadership of MM groups knows a good thing, and they've been raking it in for months and months, with the help of punditocrazies like Hannity (whose g.f. is a paid media consultant for the Minutemen and works p/t for Simcox both).

In fact, there seem to be some questions surfacing now about their financials. That aside, people like Hannity climb on the bandwagon, Malkin follows, and bloggers like those at Powerline fall in. They rarely bother to do any homework, if ever. The LaShawn Barbers of the world seem to be saying, "If it's good enough for _______(Insert pundit) it's good enough for me! Where do I sign?".

The "new" media. Bananas in pajamas.

[Terrye]

I don't think Bush is incompetent, he is just not far enough to the right for these people.

[Alan]

Here you go, Guesst. A link to the Southern Poverty Law Center concerning the women you say is Hannity's girlfriend.

[wxjames]

Bush lost the battle over Harriet Miers, then he lost the battle over DPW, now he's in retreat in the battle over the US/Mexico border. Don't be so foolish to think that Bush is in over his head. Don't make the fatal mistake of underestimating the 'enemy'.
In 2005, and more so in 2006, the American public have made connections and united, thus, we always stand tall.
Viva la internet !
May we always benefit through this broad information center, and never be misled through it.

[Tony Snow]

I'm going to restore credibility in this administration one blogger at a time if I have to.

[Doug]

One more point about LaShawn. In the excerpt you posted she writes: "I allow non-ad homimen dissent at LBC." That's utter BS. She's famous for banning dissenting comments and trackbacks that contain no ad hominem at all, they just make her look bad.

I gave up on LaShawn when she refused to tolerate dissent from her "rational" opinion that we ought to nuke Mecca, and anyone who didn't agree was a terrorist sympathizer.

[blowback]

Dennis - OT: your favourite person in the whole wide world is looking like an ass (any and all perjorative meanings apply). Makes your Spongebob Squarepants pants look positively cool

[richard mcenroe]

You have to admire Barber's timing though. Even as Nancy backtracks on impeachment talk for the Dems, there LaShawn is.

Kinda like being the last guy up the hill at Pickett's Charge...

[richard mcenroe]

But I gotta ask:

Explain what Bush was supposed to have done about deficits and Republican spending, preferably with reference to all the principled Congressional districts that were forced to take the pork against their will.

As for corruption, sure, hang them out to dry whenever you catch them. Just remember the Alternative

Itemize the unbelievable Republican incompetence on Katrina.

[Lou Minatti]

Dammit. Dennis, while you were busy doing income tax returns for your wealthy Republican clients, I was blogging about this very same shit. YOU get all the angry comments. YOU get all the "you're a liberal" comments from the idiots. What the hell do I have to do to get the volume of kooky hate mail you get?

I had the Kos kretins call me a "disturbing right-winger".
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/1/142118/645

At the same time, I was the guy ranting about the Pat Buchanan/Michelle Malkin "kick out the spics" types.
http://louminatti.blogspot.com/2006/04/i-dont-get-mexican-thing.html

Can you top that? I think not. But YOU get the hate mail. I am jealous. What's your secret? Is it your long-ago collaboration with Raj?

[Terrye]

Lou:

I have had the same kind of comments. In fact I have been called a leftist and a fascist on the same damn day.

[Tex MacRae]

Guesst:

punditocrazies like Hannity (whose g.f. is a paid media consultant for the Minutemen and works p/t for Simcox both).

Are you talking about Connie Hair?

[robert]

"Itemize the unbelievable Republican incompetence on Katrina."

How about Bush failed to federalize Louisiana years before Katrina landed, to save it from the dithering, political hay-making, graft happy, cronyistic, nepotistic, grievance peddling, poverty pandering, race-mongering and gonad-impaired donkeys elected to run N.O. and the state apparently into the ground?

I have some family in New Orleans who lost a business and home in the storm. The good news is that they didn't lose their confidence in local government and in the state political machine, since they were never foolish enough to have it in the first place. They certainly don't hold the Feds responsible for not responding faster, because they think the response was pretty good, considering the obstruction and indecision by local officials and partisan control freaks. There are plenty of good people in Louisiana, but the system is too bent and broken to give and receive help efficiently. Fortunately for them and their employees, my relatives had another house that was able to accommodate a number of them for a few months.

Now Nawlins is flooded again, this time by illegal Mexicans helping to clean up and rebuild. Since a significant percentage of African-American labor has left the city permanently, Mayor Nagin's biggest concern post Katrina is that the Mexicans might stay and turn his chocolate city into butterscotch flan. He has his priorities.

Malkin/ Barber Republicans warning about reconquistadores don't help matters much, but they may have a point, especially if tourists will have to start ordering their coffee and beignets in a foreign language like Spanish, instead of in drawl, Brooklynese, ebonic, Cajun, or Caribbean.

[Guesst]

Tex: Yes, Connie Hair, who is friends with Sean Hannity and works pt for Simcox and the Minutemen, Rep. Trent Franks, and a few other groups. Why else would Hannity spend so much time profiling such groups?

She's the Jeff Gannon of the consulting world, except Jeff is more ethical and less likely to lie when caught red-handed.

[PALGOLAK]

Don't you worry too much, buddy-- by hook or by crook, the republicans will never, ever, be out of power again.

[M. Simon]

Robert,

My take on Katrina is about the same, although I was no where near the disaster.

Think of 10 cities and 100 towns nuked and alot of major bridges bombed. Powerlines over 100s of thousands of square miles down.

Florida of course does this on a regular basis over not so extensive an area. They have been getting better with practice.

=============================================

As to the rest. It does seem like the media mavens of the blog world have been the point people on this topic.

==============================================

The economy is booming, labor is tight, and these idiots want to get rid of 10 million workers as quickly as possible by turning them into felons by fiat?

Republicans forget all about economics when it suits them.

Did I mention the drug war?

[libby]

Don't mention the drug war here M. Simon. Apparently -- judging from the post below -- Dennis is for it, based on his own inability to handle drugs. Rather shocking news to me. I expected an economist type like him to be able to look at the costs opposed to the "benefits" and come up with a better answer.

[Ryne McClaren]

I know I'm a little late coming to this, but I've just gotta say it: LaShawn Barber is the biggest effin' moron I've ever interacted with on the Internets -- and let's not even get into how thin her skin is. This post brought back good times, man. Good times.