Right-Wing Delusions: The Liberal Nazi

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis

Recently my girlfriend forwarded me an email from an extreme right-wing friend of hers. You know the guy. They guy who thinks Liberals are the scourge of society and that all of society's problems can be solved with some good old-fashioned Reagan tax cuts for the wealthy. So "that guy" distributed an email which was presumably a clever attempt to associate modern American liberalism with the German Nazis of the 1940's. The email was in the form of a letter to executed Nazi war criminal Julius Streicher from none other than the Führer himself. Written from beyond the grave, this Adolf Hitler is getting the last laugh, because although the United States aided in defeating Hitler in WWII, Americans have since incorporated many elements of national Socialism into their own government. The text of the "letter" can be found here.

The letter levels an assortment of allegations at the American left, many of which are patently false or downright ludicrous. The letter accuses a recently re-elected president (presumably Bill Clinton) of "affirming the legitimacy of exterminating infants during birth" in an effort to equate liberal views on abortion to Hitler's use of mass extermination. Obviously, Clinton did not advocate the extermination of babies "during birth," and if, as it appears, the author is referring to a woman's right to an abortion, it is an extraordinary reach to compare abortion to an orchestrated genocide. Also in the letter, Hitler praises Americans for banning smoking in many public places and teaching of the dangers of second hand smoke. Presumably, the "real" author of the letter ascribes to an austere libertarian ideology, where even government's involvement in matters of public health is seen as an iron fist of oppression. There is also a ridiculous claim that gun-control laws are proposed, not to curb violent crime, but rather to control the masses.

Essentially, the objective of the letter is to locate a few areas where Nazi policy and modern liberalism more or less coincide, in a thinly-veiled effort to compare American liberalism to Nazism. Of course, a more didactic approach would have been much more thoroughly researched and contain less generalization and grasping. What the letter amounts to is cheap ad hominem attack on liberals that doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

Conservatives and Libertarians, and all opponents of a functioning government, need a way to portray government as inherently evil. Luckily for them, history has given us the Nazis, or National Socialist Party. The fact that the Nazis considered themselves socialists is convenient for anyone who seeks to quickly and easily attack any kind of social program. Whether it is universal healthcare, welfare, public education, food stamps, public works projects, they are all seen as a slippery slope to socialism, and inevitably, rampant Nazism. Of course, this is a ridiculous conclusion for one to draw. There are countless examples of free nations with socialized medicine, education, transportation, etc. And believe it or not, citizens of these nations have NOT lost basic human rights as a result of social programs. Their leaders have NOT engaged in genocide nor have they engaged in campaigns of world domination. In fact, many of these nations enjoy a quality of life greater than or equivalent to that of the United States.

The flimsy premise or ad hominem name-calling aren't even the most disturbing elements of the "letter." Probably most unnerving is the fact that this is yet antother attempt by conservatives to downplay their own ideolgical ties to fascist regimes by painting liberals as the modern-day Third Reich. While fascism may have a few fleeting elements in common with liberalism, much of the neo-conservative playbook is taken from the most fundamental tenets of fascism. Nazism especially, was a far-right political movement, characterized by opposition to communism, extreme nationalism, military domination, xenophobia, authoritarian leadership, and opposition to liberalism. Of course, the slight similarities between Nazism and liberalism (essentially, a functioning central government) are enough for right-wing pundits to have a field day with Nazi-Liberal comparisons:

• Ann Coulter Compares Obama to Hitler
• Bill O'Reilly Compares Huffington Post to Nazis
• Bill O'Reilly Compares Daily Kos to Nazis
• Charles Krauthammer Compares Obama Berlin Speech to Nazi Rally
• Michael Savage Compares "Progressive Movement" to Nazi Soldiers
• Michael Savage Compares Democratic Rep. to Nazis
• Glenn Beck Compares Al Gore's Fight Against Global Warming to Hitler's Fight Against Jews
• Michael Savage Compares Hillary Clinton Speech to Hitler, Goebbels
• Glenn Beck Compares Al Gore to Nazi Propagandists
• KSFO Morning Show Portrays (Jewish, Liberal Billionaire) George Soros as Nazi Sympathizer
• Glenn Beck Compares Hillary Clinton Health Care Plan to Nazi Infanticide
• Conservative Pastor Compares Stem Cell Research to Nazi Genocide
• Glenn Beck Compares An Inconvenient Truth to Nazi Propaganda
  

Anyway, you get the point.

This is a very fascinating article I found outlining the 14 fundamental characteristics of fascist regimes, from Hitler's Germany, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, and others.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2

You don't have to get too far down the list before you start to see very striking similarities between fascism and modern American conservatism, or more aptly, neo-conservatism (although fascism also shares a much with 1950's McCarthyism).

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

Believe it or not, a central issue in the 2008 election will be Barack Obama's alleged lack of patriotism. From his lapel pin stance to his wife's misconstrued "pride" comments, Republican's will actually try to have Americans believing that a career public servant would actually run for president of a country he despises. They did the same thing with John Kerry in 2004, and got many people believing that the draft-dodging Bush-Cheney ticket was somehow more patriotic than a decorated war veteran.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

While conservatives have fought ardently for the right to bear arms, they have not been so zealous in other areas. The Bush Administration has rolled back habeas corpus, a fundamental right dating back to 1215 and the Magna Carta. A 2002 administration memo stated that the 4th Amendment has no application to "Domestic Military Operations," which could mean almost anything. Republicans have also fought for increased privacy and legal immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the government execute Bush's warrantless surveillance program.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

In perhaps the single most prolific and comprehensive moment in conservative scapegoating, the late Reverend Jerry Falwell most famously blamed liberals, feminists, gays, lesbians, secularists, pagans, the ACLU and abortionists for the September 11th attacks. Similarly, conservatives have also found it convenient to blame immigrants and Muslims for many of America's woes. In fact, the examples of conservative scapegoating are so numerous and so ridiculous that I'll only share a few of the more insane examples here:

• Michelle Malkin blamed illegal immigration for the 2007 California wildfires


• Glenn Beck blamed 2007 California wildfires on "damn environmentalists"


• Michael Savage blamed sex-change operations for the Columbine school massacre.


• Ann Coulter faulted Darwin's theory of evolution for creating Nazism


• Rush Limbaugh blamed liberals for America's obesity epidemic


• Culture & Family Institute spokesman blames Abu Ghraib prison scandal on gay marriage


• Newt Gingrich claimed "liberalism" was responsible for Virginia Tech shooting


• Bill O'Reilly blames the poor for Hurricane Katrina

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

George W. Bush famously stated, "I am a War President." This seemed to indicate that war would be the central identifying characteristic of his administration; it has. By declaring a "Global War on Terror" and coining the vague classification "Enemy Combatant," Bush laid the groundwork for United States to be in a perpetual war against anyone, with potentially anyone being a wartime enemy of America. Bush set the precedent for "preemptive war," meaning the U.S. no longer even needs a good reason to start a war. God forbid if Canada ever looked at us funny.

5. Rampant sexism.

While I wouldn't exactly consider conservative to endorse "rampant sexism," they do generally wind up on the less sexually equal side of many arguments. Most notably, conservatives staunch opposition to reproductive rights and homosexual marriage are enough to clearly place them on the more sexist side of the aisle.

6. A controlled mass media.

While the U.S. media is certainly more free than in many countries throughout the world, there are certainly areas where government is not doing what it can to promote a free press. Despite the emergence of the internet as a varied source of information, the so-called "mainstream media" has become more consolidated in recent years. Deregulation of media corporations has been a cornerstone of conservative policy, leaving much of the mainstream media in a very small number of hands. Also, former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan (not surprisingly) revealed that conservative-leaning Fox News Channel receives daily talking points directly from the White House.

7. Obsession with national security.

This one is a no brainer. The whole "9/11 changed everything" argument has been used to promote a pseudo-police state in the U.S., where Americans' phone calls and emails can be monitored, toothpaste is confiscated, babies appear on a "no-fly" list, In addition to granting themselves the right to spy on Americans without obtaining a warrant, the Bush administration has even gone as far as to monitor the meetings and communications of anti-war groups.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.

The union of government and religion is a clearly conservative trademark. Probably the most notable cases of this intermingling of interest exists within the public school system, where many states have made it mandatory to teach intelligent design and unlawful to teach anything but abstinence as sexual education. Republicans have for several decades enjoyed an alliance with the Christian Right, which has helped them win elections while helping religious organizations have more influence in government affairs. Not surprisingly, Christian leaders David Kuo and John DiIulio claimed that the Bush White House pandered to Christian groups for political benefit, without actually taking their concerns seriously.

9. Power of corporations protected.

What will probably be seen as the trademark of Reagan-era conservatism is the enormous, unchecked power corporations have gained. Corporations enjoy lower taxes than at virtually any time in the nation's history, while trade agreements have allowed them to profit more by exporting American middle-class jobs overseas. The Bush White House has also made sure that defense contractors are not held accountable for failures and even criminal behavior in Iraq. The most clear-cut example can be seen in our current mortgage crisis. President Bush has supported a bailout of Bear-Stearns, while opposing assistance for troubled homeowners, calling defaultees "irresponsible." Bush has also made sure to fill his cabinet with industry-friendly executives, essentially installed to ensure that the regulatory bodies they are meant to oversee don't perform any regulation at all. This all leads to a class arrangement typical of fascist regimes, with most or all of the power concentrated in the hands of a few leaders and large corporations, and a deepening divide between the haves and have nots.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

Another conservative hallmark is the opposition to organized labor. While conservative claim to stand for the middle-class working man, they have for decades fought to weaken the power of unions. Of course conservatives will never actually outline their opposition to labor, but it is no surprise that unions simply do not endorse Republicans. Check out the website of the AFL-CIO, whose latest tally of union endorsement shows a Democratic candidates pitching a shutout. John McCain's own website doesn't contain any mention of organized labor, but labor's eternal nemesis, free trade. McCain believes the U.S. "should engage in ... efforts to reduce barriers to trade," and admits that "globalization will not automatically benefit every American." (no sh*#!)

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.

On numerous occasions, most notably at NASA and the EPA, Bush administration officials have edited the work of scientists and scholars to downplay information that might be harmful to Republican allies, i.e., polluters. Meanwhile, conservative pundits deride almost all university professors as elitist, liberal eggheads that are brainwashing our youth.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

See: U.S. prison population. Part of the conservative ideology is the idea that people are basically all bad or all good. The "bad" people need to stay in prison and cannot be rehabilitated. Ex-convicts don't deserve the right to vote even after they have served their time. Since only "bad" people misuse guns, we needn't make laws that restrict the right of "good" people to own guns. That's the gist of the conservative stance on crime. Demonize drug offenders, statutory rapists and other fringe-criminals, while Bush commutes the sentence of convicted perjurer, Scooter Libby.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

See: "Heckuva job, Brownie." It's not surprising that cronyism and corruption go hand in hand. George Bush's "buddies" Mike Brown, Alberto Gonzalez, Karl Rove have all been involved in scandal, and have all been forced to "spend more time with their family." For Christ sakes, Bush tried to nominate his personal attorney (Harriet Miers) to the Supreme Court! I'm surprised he hasn't tried to nominate his family practitioner to the office of surgeon general.

14. Fraudulent elections.

Leave it to conservatives to usher in a new age in American politics where only 28% of Americans are "Very confident" that votes will be counted accurately nationwide. Conservatives have fought to oppose laws requiring paper ballot receipts and upheld antiquated voter ID laws. Conservatives have invented a voter fraud epidemic that does not exist, the purpose of which is to challenge the voting rights of qualified citizens. Yet as we have seen with the caging lists in Florida, inconsistencies with exit poll results in Ohio, and the mass disenfranchisement of minority voters, there is not a voter fraud epidemic, but an election fraud epidemic, one which at nearly every turn has mysteriously helped the Republican candidate.

The Evolution Debate Rages On (for some reason)

What other evidence do you need?

As if it isn't bad enough that American teens can't find Iraq on a map and think drinking bleach prevents the spread of HIV, the fundamentalist wing of the Republican party is still insisting on teaching children incorrect information about the origin of species. And it seems as though there is a very concerted effort by many Americans to personally disprove the theory of evolution. This effort is not spearheaded by any scientific rigor, mind you, but by rejecting evolution, thus remaining intellectually ignorant to the point where we might stop evolving altogether.

Today, the Wall Street Journal published an article detailing a new round of efforts by Christian Conservatives aimed at "encourag[ing] or requir[ing] public-school teachers to cast doubt on a cornerstone of modern science." From the look of things, it would seem that these efforts are unnecessary. Several recent surveys have indicated that about half of all Americans reject the theory of evolution altogether. In addition, the percentage of those who believe evolution is strictly a natural occurrence (i.e. no influence from a "higher power") is somewhere in the area of 15 percent. These data exist despite the fact that evolution is taught in nearly every public school system, and is regarded by scientists as a near scientific certainty. When I first saw the results of these surveys, I had one of those "oh that's right, I live in a blue state" moments. You know, like "Why is that liquor store closed at 5 pm?" or "Wow, I didn't know they still made Buicks."

National Geographic did a cover story on evolution a few years ago. The article is a brilliant and concise look at the theories Darwin proposed in his On the Origin of Species, the mountains of supporting evidence that has surfaced since, and the nature of the Creation-Evolution debate. The most brilliant part of the article in my opinion was the title,"Was Darwin Wrong?" It suggested that perhaps some new evidence had arisen recently that would cast doubt on Darwin's claims. Of course, if you read the article, you learn that, as most evidence suggests, Darwin was right. The title likely lured in many evolution skeptics looking for validation of their skepticism, only to learn how utterly complete and satisfying the theory is after nearly 150 years. A key passage comes from the first paragraph, showing that evolution is not functionally different from other routinely accepted scientific theories:

If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence.

So what makes evolution such a controversial subject? Why do we not see similar views when it comes to other well-established, rigorously tested theories like gravity, electricity, relativity, the round Earth, the heliocentric solar system? Is it because evolution is too slow as to be observable? Perhaps, but so is the aforementioned continental shift, and you don't see "stationary land mass" advocates pressuring school boards or state legislatures. Evolution is extremely complex, and maybe this complexity accounts for people's unwillingness to accept it. Of course, one does not need to understand a scientific theory to embrace it. Theories of chemistry, physics, neurology and medicine are often quite complex, yet these disciplines do not contain a theory as mystifyingly shunned as evolution. Perhaps the theory of evolution, just 150 years old, is still too new to be fully embraced. However, the idea that the dinosaurs were the victims of an asteroid or meteor colliding with the Earth is now the prevailing extinction theory, yet one that has been around for less than 30 years. So maybe it is a combination of these characteristics that explains all the skepticism. Or maybe it's something else....

If the theory of evolution were laid out on the first page of the best-selling book in the world, the number of people espousing this idea would likely approach 100%. Of course, this book instead begins with the story of creation. I call it a "story" because creationism is not a "theory," and it always bothers me to hear it referred to in that manner. A "theory," according to the common definition, is "a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable." Creation is not predictive, testable, nor is it any formalized expression of observations. So to include it alongside evolution as a valid explanation of the origin and diversity of species is absurd. But I digress.

If someone tried to tell you the sun revolved around the earth or that babies come from storks, they would be immediately fitted for a straight jacket. Yet evolution has some very powerful and vocal opponents who would like to see creationism taught in public schools, as if creation and evolution were somehow two sides of the same coin. President Bush has himself stated that he believes "the jury is still out" on evolution and that Intelligent Design (the euphemism Christians Conservatives have adopted to make creationism sound at least somewhat legitimate) should be taught alongside evolution.

So with the United States being a predominantly Christian nation, and Christian conservative activists and even the president fighting for against evolution, it is not difficult to imagine that so few Americans believe in it. Interestingly, the percentage of people who believe that evolution is a strictly scientific process is very close to the percentage of people who identify themselves as non-religious. The fact is, evolution and creationism are two explanations of the same phenomenon: one is a scientific explanation and the other is a religious one. One could even argue that creationism is not even a religious belief, but simply a belief that the people who wrote the bible held at the time. I think that creationism should be kept out of the public schools, not out of a conflict with the First Amendment, but because it is no longer the prevailing scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. I've never been to medical school, but I'm pretty certain they don't teach the theory of the humours alongside Grey's Anatomy. Therein lies the problem with the form of Christianity that exists throughout much of the United States. It is seen by many as an "all or nothing" religion, meaning if you are to believe in anything contained in the Bible, you have to believe everything. While I am not religious, there are many parts of the Bible that I recognize as useful tools in leading a full, moral existence. The Bible, however should not be seen as a means to explain the unknown. Our society has entrusted the institutions of science to explain worldly phenomena, and that trust has been highly successful in achieving an understanding of our lives.

Where are all the conservative bumper stickers???

Recently I've seen a lot of bumper stickers on cars espousing a variety of political views. Interestingly (at least where I live) these stickers almost exclusively portray "liberal" sentiments or values. From "War is not the answer" to "Impeach Bush," liberals have cornered the market on bumper self-expression.


I started to imagine examples of possible "conservative" bumper stickers, and as I did so, I started to understand why you don't see very many. Almost every conservative slogan or talking point I could conceive was either ridiculous or just downright offensive when I imagined it prominently displayed on one's vehicle. Perhaps "Pro Life" is fairly innocuous, probably only offensive to abortion doctors and victims of a rape-induced pregnancy. And conservatives don't own the American flag, so only bumper stickers that are belligerently patriotic could be considered to be "conservative."


With that in mind, I thought I would utilize some free time at work - along with the Microsoft Paint program pre-installed on my PC - to provide some examples some of the more ridiculous and inconsistent conservative values:

The Freedom-hating Muslim: A Reality Check

I have dedicated many of these pages to the political polling data of Americans. However, in a time when our leaders are telling us that the greatest threat our country has ever faced comes from the Arab world, wouldn't it be interesting to examine what Arabs think?


In fact, this week the 2008 Annual Arab Public Opinion Poll was published, containing some very telling data. The survey (which interviewed subjects in six different Arab countries) found that 83% of the Arab public views the United States unfavorably. That finding alone is not particularly surprising. However, the study also found that Arabs' attitudes of the United States are overwhelmingly influenced by U.S. foreign policy as opposed to "American values."

Only 12% of Arabs indicated that their attitudes towards the U.S. were determined by American values. This is an overwhelmingly low percentage when you consider people often use "religion" and "values" interchangeably, and compared to the predominantly Muslim Arab world, Muslims in the U.S. make up a mere 0.6% of the population. For years we have been told that the 9/11 attacks and "The Great Satan" rhetoric coming from the Arab world was a direct assault on American values. However, as polling data (and, well, common sense) suggest, perhaps the best way to determine the attitudes of people in the Middle East is to actually ask them.

Of course, these data allow us to view the erroneous statements and beliefs of prominent Republicans in a whole new light.

George W. Bush

Perhaps the most famous example of this fallacy was the post-9/11 "analysis" of President Bush: "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world....They hate our freedoms," Bush proposed. "Our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

As ridiculous as the notion of someone hating freedom may sound, most Americans bought into this idea at the time.

Rev. Jerry Falwell

When he wasn't busy outing children's TV characters, the reverend chimed in with his own analysis of the 9/11 attacks:

I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'

While Falwell later apologized for the remarks, placing the blame for the death of 3,000 innocent civilians squarely at the feet of the American Left hardly seems like a slip of the tongue.

Rudy Giuliani vs. Ron Paul

In a May 2007 Republican debate, Ron Paul asserted that the United States was attacked on 9/11 in part as blowback from of an interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East. Giuliani took exception, calling Paul's hypothesis "absurd." The pro-war Fox News audience erupted in applause, as it appeared Giuliani had easily bested the unpatriotic Paul. Paul didn't back down, however, responding with what rational-thinking Americans know to be the truth:

If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us cause we're rich and we're free. They attack us cause we're over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

As it turns out, Ron Paul was right. While Giuliani got the applause, Paul's campaign has raised more money and won more delegates than Giuliani's, and Paul is still technically in the race, compared to Giuliani, who dropped out three months ago.

John McCain

Certainly it is still very possible for a Republican to run a successful campaign while still making this error. In fact, John McCain's error is no slip of the tongue either - it's in writing on his official campaign website, http://www.johnmccain.com/. McCain states that:

The [9/11] tragedy highlighted a failure of national policy to respond to the development of a global terror network hostile to the American people and our values.

Why have these politicians repeatedly made this specious error in spite of it's utter implausibility? Simple. Because it is easier to comprehend than decades of American meddling in the Middle East, supporting a coup in Iran, defending Israel, bombing Lybia, establishing bases in Saudi Arabia, as well as this latest Iraq debacle. And it's easier on the conscience for Americans to tell themselves, "Oh, terrorists are just crazy" or "They just despise our values" rather than accept that their own country's reckless imperial foreign policy decisions have created dangerous enemies abroad.

Let's just examine exactly how idiotic is the notion of the Freedom-Hating Terrorist. Take, for example, an Arab prisoner at Guantanamo. I would seriously doubt he would prefer captivity to freedom, let alone be willing to kill for his right to remain imprisoned. That is absurd. I'm also fairly certain he would be very pleased to be afforded the right of habeus corpus (which we Americans frequently enjoy). The right to practice religion freely and the opportunity to prosper economically are also likely to appeal to both Americans and Arabs alike.

Even if you could assume that all of these values didn't appeal to the majority of the Arab world, lack of appeal simply isn't enough to justify horrific terrorist acts perpetrated against the West. If people are willing to kill or be killed, it almost always accompanies the promise of reward or heroism. It's hard to see how killing an innocent person because you don't like their values is particularly rewarding or heroic. Yes, I know about the 72 virgins, or whatever the number is. But you can't conflate religious fundamentalism with terrorism. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. The religious aspect and the promise of martyrdom makes committing suicide attacks easier for the attackers to go through with, but it is not the motivating factor behind the attack. If it were, wouldn't radical Islamic terrorism be raining down on all of the non-Muslim world? Instead, nearly every Islamic terrorist attack on record - from Munich, to Pan-Am 103, to the London and Madrid subway bombings and the Iraqi insurgency - was motivated not by religious fanaticism, but by what the attackers saw as retaliation for unjustified acts committed against them.

The motives behind the 9/11 attacks are no different. The 9/11 Commission Report found that even Osama bin Laden, as ideological as any Muslim, claimed the 9/11 attack was not motivated by disdain for American values, but in retaliation for American foreign policy. In a 2004 video, bin Laden traced the genesis of the attacks as far back as the 1982 U.S.-led attack on Lebanon. And rather than being an enemy of freedom, bin Laden asserted that the attacks were meant to "restore freedom to our nation." Certainly the 9/11 attack was a reprehensible act for which no justification exists, but that doesn't mean those responsible were acting out of sheer lunacy. Making up fables like "They hate our freedoms" is not only untrue, but dismissing the real motivations behind the attack only serves to make another attack more likely.

We know that the idea that "they hate our freedoms" is preposterous, so why do people still believe it to be true? To better understand the post-9/11 U.S. foreign policy debacle, we need to examine a little social psychology. The incorrect belief that Arabs hate American values stems from a broader social phenomenon known as the Fundamental Attribution Error. Psychologists define the error as "the tendency to overestimate the internal and underestimate the external factors when explaining the behaviors of others." In other words, people (normal people, for this is not a cognitive disorder) tend to believe the behavior of others is more a function of the type of person they are rather than what situations may have contributed to the behavior. Most of us have been in the situation where someone driving in the car in front of us has made a questionable driving maneuver, after which we thought (or said aloud) "What a dumb asshole!" Chances are the driver is neither dumb nor an asshole, but was rather influenced by children in the car, a phone call, another driver, stress, or some other external factor or factors.

So as it relates to the analysis of terrorist acts, United States politicians and pundits have over-emphasized the personality-based explanation (these guys are crazy freedom-haters) and under-emphasized the external factors (U.S. intervention in the Middle East). In fact, as Patrick Rael of the Bowdoin Orient illustrates, Osama bin Laden and others have not only claimed to be acting in retaliation for U.S. military intervention, but have also stressed that they are themselves "freedom fighters." Thus any idea that Muslim terrorists "hate freedom" is preposterous because they feel that is the very goal for which they strive. More than just an exercise in relativism, the inability of both the United States and Muslim extremists to view each other with objectivity has had disastrous consequences.

Profiles in Right-Wing Lunacy: Alphonso Jackson

Last week, Alphonso Jackson, then Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) spent his last day in office. Forced to resign amid numerous scandals of impropriety, the public is now beginning to see the dirty underbelly of Jackson's tenure at HUD, a tenure marred by politicization, corruption and disturbing egomania.




Jackson, a longtime buddy of George W. Bush, was appointed HUD Secretary in 2004. In a break from the Bush crony tradition, Jackson had actually worked in the public housing arena prior to coming to HUD. Jackson, however, soon established himself as a true Bush loyalist, and attempted to run his department with a political bent. As early as 2006, Jackson was accused of awarding housing contracts on the basis of political affiliation and loyalty to the President. (On a side note, the idea of an African-American Republican has always struck me as odd. The fact that a black American would join the party of Richard Nixon, David Duke, Tom Tancredo and Bill O'Reilly truly baffles the mind. But that's a discussion for another time.) He once rescinded a contract offer because the contractor didn't like President Bush. In Jackson's own words, "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president?"


Jackson also was the focus of an FBI investigation into allegations he improperly awarded contracts to his friends and business associates, including awarding a lucrative housing contract to a golfing buddy. Of course, this was all taking place as the United States quickly found itself in the midst of a debilitating mortgage crisis that is fueling a nationwide recession. Amid all the controversy surrounding Jackson, he announced his resignation on March 31, 2008, not surprisingly to focus on "personal and family matters."


Now that he has resigned, we are beginning to learn more about Alphonso Jackson, the man, and it isn't pretty. Most notably, Jackson has shown himself to be an alarming egomaniac, which is all the more amusing in light of his disgraced departure from public service. On April 13, the Washington Post reported that he had submitted an "emergency bid" of $100,000 in taxpayer money to have a portrait of himself commissioned. In addition, the walls of the HUD headquarters' lobby, until very recently, were entirely covered with 20 large color photographs of Secretary Jackson.

To put this is perspective, we had a girl at my office a couple of years ago that had a single 8x10 framed photograph of herself adorning her cubicle. We all thought she was a narcissistic nutcase, and that was just one photo.

If that weren't enough, on April 16, Jackson threw himself a lavish going away party (at tax-payer expense), attended by over 1,000 HUD employees. The disgraced secretary is described as "honorable" on the cover of the event program, modestly graced this time with just four photographs of Jackson.

So, in Alphonso Jackson, we have a Republican who believes that government is a way to help his friends get rich. He believes the government should reward political loyalty and punish political criticism. He headed a government agency that did virtually nothing to regulate the predatory lending practices that have spelled disaster for homeowners and investment banks alike. And he believes that HUD should allocate precious time and resources to paying homage to Alphonso Jackson. Jackson is the poster boy (no pun intended) for why America can't afford another incompetent, crony-laden administration, and why the more seats Democrats win in November, the more abuses like those of Alphonso Jackson will come to light.

Profiles in Right-Wing Lunacy: John Yoo

It seems as though with each passing week, Americans are learning more and more about the disturbed conservative mind of John Yoo. Currently the quintessential fish-out-of-water (he teaches law at UC Berkeley), Yoo worked in the Department of Justice under George W. Bush when the legal underpinnings of unitary executive rule were being established. As it turns out, Yoo - then a fairly low-level DOJ staffer - authored several influential memos supporting the legality of torture, unitary executive power and the suspension of habeas corpus. Because of the far-reaching scope and questionable legality of these memos, Yoo is currently facing charges of war crimes while the National Lawyers Guild is calling for Yoo to be fired and disbarred.

Some of Yoo's greatest hits:

Torture

In 2002, Yoo helped author the now infamous "Torture Memo," which was essentially a liberal interpretation of the interrogation techniques allowed by international law. The memo defined the illegal practice of torture as "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." It also stated that the infliction of such pain must be intentional. Such narrow definition of torture opened many loopholes with which the U.S. could conduct a host of "enhanced interrogation techniques." So when the President says the United States "does not torture people," he is technically right, because his administration has exempted itself from international treaties and the Justice Department has worked to redefine torture to legalize what interrogators were already doing.

Habeas Corpus

Keeping with the unprecedented idea that combating terrorism was primarily a military operation, Yoo has argued that the 4th Amendment need not apply to counter-terrorism efforts. This memo concluded that, "the Fourth Amendment [has] no application to domestic military operations," essentially stating that even U.S. citizens under the protection of the constitution are not immune to illegal search and seizures, as long as the country is engaged in any kind of "War on Terror." Of course this is a frightening conclusion. Simply put, the president can determine what is considered terror, who can be considered an enemy combatant, and when and how the military should be used. This leads to a remarkably brash definition of presidential powers, which will be described next.

Unitary Executive Power

Yoo is a proponent of consolidated executive power during wartime. Yoo stated in a 2001 memo:

In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution, Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents. Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.

Yoo also stated in a 2005 debate that no treaty could prevent the President from authorizing enhanced interrogation techniques, including crushing the testicles of a detainee's child. According to Yoo, the authority to torture "depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that." So, in essence, the President is above the law. Yoo believes there is no law that can limit Presidential powers during wartime, and that the legality or illegality of an interrogation technique is determined solely by what the President thinks.

We can now start to see the neoconservative mindset come into focus. If presidential powers increase when the nation is at war, it's no wonder that the United States has been at war for all but one year of the Bush presidency. And the "Global War on Terror" isn't so much a single operation, but an infinite campaign to somehow eradicate something that can never fully be eradicated. It would be akin to the President declaring that as long as there is crime to fight in the U.S., the president alone can determine how to define crime, how to deal with criminals and which parts of the constitution he needs to adhere to. Like crime, there always has been, and always will be throughout history, acts that could be defined as terrorism.

It would be interesting to hear how Yoo, who has also been a visiting scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, feels about unitary executive power when a Democrat is in the White House. Luckily for us, Yoo has in fact contradicted himself numerous times to fit his political agenda du jour, as Salon's Glenn Greenwald documented last July. Yoo has flip-flopped on presidential use of the military, use of executive privilege and FISA laws. If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, expect Yoo to moderate his views on executive power to fit his own political agenda.

---

If John Yoo's sick totalitarian view of constitutional government weren't enough to cement his place among the insane, he recently delved into the world of election politics, the results of which are equally troubling.

In a March 24, 2008 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, Yoo blasted the Democratic Party's use of superdelegates in the nomination process:

That the 2008 Democratic nominee for president will be chosen by individuals no one voted for in the primaries flew for too long under the commentariat's radar. This from the party that litigated to "make every vote count" in the 2000 Florida recount, reviled the institution of the Electoral College for letting the loser of the national popular election win the presidency, and has called the Bush administration illegitimate ever since.

ThinkProgress highlighted Yoo's hypocrisy, as one who would criticize a party's "undemocratic" nomination process while at the same time espousing totalitarian views of the executive office.

More troubling than Yoo's hypocrisy, however, is his startlingly vapid argument. As simple as it may seem to most, Yoo fails to grasp the fact that primary elections do not elect a president. In fact they are not really "elections" at all, but a nomination process, a process that is much more democratic than most other democracies around the world and more certainly democratic than at earlier times in our nation's history. Primary elections were not seen in the United States until the 20th century, and before that relied completely on congressmen and political bosses to nominate a presidential candidate.

Yoo makes the fundamental error of conflating a primary election (a method by which a political party has determined it will nominate it's candidate) with a national election. Yoo claims that the "delegate dissonance wasn't anything the Framers of the U.S. Constitution dreamed up. They believed that letting Congress choose the president was a dreadful idea." The problem with Yoo's analysis is the notion that the founding fathers had some concept of political primaries. They barely had knowledge of political parties, and certainly didn't lay down any foundation as to how parties nominate their candidates.

In addition, one could easily argue that the Democrat's is a more democratic nominating process than that of the Republican Party. The RNC employs a "winner-take-all" system similar to the electoral college in the general election. By allocating delegates based on a percentage of popular votes won, the Democratic nominating process is more representative of the general public than the Republican system. For example, let's say a state has 10 delegates at stake in the primary. In the Democratic Party primary, if Candidate A wins 60% and Candidate B wins 40%, then Candidate A wins six delegates to Candidate B's four. In a Republican primary, Candidate A wins all ten delegates. The Republican system is one that says, essentially, "Get on board with the leading candidate, or your vote won't count." Doesn't sound very "Democratic" to me.

Yoo is correct that the superdelegate system does have the ability to stymie the hopes of a more populist candidate. In close primary elections, as we have this year, the idea is that the superdelagates are there to help cast a deciding vote for the more "mainstream" candidate. This year, we would have to assume that candidate is Hillary Clinton, and the populist is Barack Obama. If the superdelegates are here to overrule the will of the common Democrat in favor of someone whom they feel is more of a Washington "insider" (Clinton), then, I would not care for that kind of system.

It's not that Yoo is incorrect in noting that certain flaws exist in the superdelagate system. It is the fact that he somehow believes primary elections should be governed by the the same standards as general elections that completely invalidates Yoo's position. Yoo's column, while not unusual by WSJ's standards, is special in its purely partisan scope and utterly untenable premise. From what we have seen from Yoo thus far, it is safe to assume that the Op-Ed was less an educated critique of the Democratic nominating process than a petty partisan jab at what is perceived as a divided party.

Score One For McCain!

"Like, McCain totally has foreign policy skills"

As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to battle for the Democratic nomination, John McCain is busy locking up key endorsements. This week, McCain secured the much-sought-after endorsement of quasi-celebrity Heidi Montag. Montag, a "star" of MTV's scripted reality series The Hills, was quoted in Us Weekly magazine, espousing her preference for the aging politician. "I'm a Republican and McCain has a lot of experience," she stated.

You may be asking yourself, "Who the %@*$ is Heidi Montag?" True, scripted reality television may be a harbinger of the Apocalypse. Sure, a spoiled, Paris Hilton wannabe may not possess any real political clout. But let's not diminish the importance of this endorsement.

First, the Montag endorsement has shown a real breadth of support for McCain's candidacy. Now, he's got the senior vote and the youth vote. He's got the support of those that decry the political influence of the "Hollywood Elite," and, well, a Hollywood elitist. And while some viewers will naively dismiss scripted reality shows like The Hills and it's predecessor Laguna Beach as contrived, disingenuous garbage, centered around spoiled rich assholes you couldn't care less about, that couldn't be further from the truth. Montag is really a crossover sensation, and The Hills can potentially appeal to both reality TV and dramatic TV viewers. That's a very large demographic group, and with Montag is his corner, McCain has it all but locked up.

But in all seriousness, are we really that surprised that this flavor of the week, soon-to-be coke fiend is a Republican? Now if a young Hollywood star like Ellen Page were a Republican, that would be absolutely shocking. But Heidi Montag, not so much. She's rich, she's from Orange County, and she dates this douchebag:

Enough Said.

Now I'll admit that I don't really see Montag's announcement as a valuable "endorsement," but I'm going to have some fun with this anyway. Montag, 21, strikes me as someone who is a Republican because her parents are Republicans. A telltale sign that one is not particularly politically aware is when they are under 30 and vote for a Republican. When I was 18, I voted for Bob Dole, for Christ's sake. Why? Because my parents were Republicans and I didn't know any better. The fact that her basis for the endorsement was because "I'm a Republican," indicates the shallow depth of analysis Heidi Montag has to offer this election cycle.

While McCain will certainly take any vote he can get from anyone under the age of 60, I'm not so sure the Montag endorsement is all that great for McCain. First, it is an endorsement from someone who doesn't have the slightest credentials with which to make an endorsement. Something tells me Montag's not super excited about staying in Iraq for the next 100 years or privatizing social security. Secondly, if there's one thing typical Americans can do without, it is rich, spoiled, overexposed, talentless trust fund socialites. If I was an undecided voter and Heidi Montag (or Nicole Richie, Kim Kardashian or whomever), preferred one candidate, I'd vote for the other guy. Finally, it's not like this is an endorsement that will resonate with any key voting bloc. Ironically, most people interested in who Heidi Montag would vote for are too busy paying attention to people like Heidi Montag to even vote in the first place.