When my Dad was in Vietnam in '68, he persuaded-from-a-distance my Mom to vote for Nixon as the “peace candidate.” She never quite forgave him . . .
I think it’s simply that they’ve gotten used to the world catering to them - they’ve always been top dog, and so a movement towards more equality, where their side/view/status doesn’t get a special priviledge and is downgraded to being equal to similar sides/views/statuses seems like persecution to them.
Christianity would be a prime example. They’ve grown up in an environment where Christianity was the unquestioned top dog. Every politician had to follow it and give lip service to it, all of the public holidays were scheduled around it, all sorts of cultural issues revolved around it… as we move to a society that does not give them special priviledge, they view the loss of priviledge as persecution.
It’s ironic that they talk about how the atheists are persecuting and mistreating them and marginalizing them in the same rants where they talk about atheists as being the very worst people in the world.
fear was always there, but not paranoia. From the Civil War until Vietnam, the Republicans had the rich and upper middle classes; the Democrats the poor and lower middle classes. Seeing events in Europe, the rich were always afraid of anarchist assassins or revolts by the desperate poor.
But while the Democrats had more voters on their side, the Republicans had more money. These balanced things out for the most part.
Then Black people were added to the voting roles, against Southern Democratic resistance, but they came in as Democrats anyway, under the auspice of the larger Democrat organization. The Republicans had abandoned them during Reconstruction, and had no place for them in their rich/upper middle class format.
So Goldwater courted the lower class whites who experienced the most friction with emerging Blacks, and Nixon manipulated them like the evil bastard he was, and Reagan enshrined it with a sincerity to match Nixon’s cynicism.
It was as if the Republicans saw all these new Black voters appear, and instead of even considering making a play for them, instead said “hey, that’s not fair! Well, we can play dirty too!”
I see your DtD4AuH²0 and raise you going DtD for Charles W. Sandman Jr.'s bid for the Governorship of N.J.. :eek:
(In my defense, I was only 10 and my parents made me do it . . . and it was pre-Watergate, not that that makes it any less cringe worthy now.)
CMC fnord!
So, joebuck20, I’m gathering that you are not a Christian yourself? Just reading between the lines here.
Perhaps if some well dressed folks were to just drop by your house with some pamphlets…
Have you got a few minutes?
[QUOTE=Acsenray]
It’s not a “persecution complex.” It’s not a mental illness. It’s an intentional propaganda technique, and it has been quite successful over the years.
[/QUOTE]
Quite true. People who are content with things politically and not angry and/or scared are less likely to listen to the many right-wing radio ranters and contribute to the GOP. You have to keep them constantly stirred up about something. For example, back when W was president, it didn’t matter that the Right controlled the White House, held the majority in both the House and the Senate, dominated talk radio, and had a powerful mouthpiece with Fox News. If you listened to Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, or any of other reactionary talking heads, it was Dunkirk with the forces Christian America clinging to a tiny piece of land being besieged by the forces of godless liberalism.
Don’t forget they do this while accusing the Left of fostering a culture of perpetual victimhood.
There’s a related effect that I’ve noticed. When they pass their laws, implement their plans, live their lives The Way They Are Supposed To Be and fail (which is what usually happens) they can’t admit that they failed because their ideology is hopelessly flawed. If their wars turn out badly, their tax cuts don’t bring prosperity, their authoritarianism wrecks their family, their Hard Work And Prayer fails to make them rich it isn’t because their ideas are wrong. It has to be because they are being sabotaged by someone. These are people who both have a massive entitlement complex and often sabotage their own lives. If they have a job as a bouncer instead of being rich, it isn’t because they ran around in the woods in camouflage waiting to fight the New World Order instead of going to college and it certainly isn’t because the system is weighted in favor of the rich against the poor; it’s because the Jews control everything/the Mexicans take the good jobs/all the money went to welfare mothers in Cadillacs/was stolen by socialists.
But they’re not generally the ones complaining that they are persecuted.
The same can be said for the cries of “reverse racism” by some white men.
I think the cause of that is that all the scandinavian countries are extremely secular and people in general are quite suspicious of and frankly a bit frightened by strongly political Christianity. When Breiviks manifesto turned up with a big cross on the front page etc, scandinavian papers went with the Christian Fundamentalist angle because that’s whats newsworthy over there (while it would have been more correct to go with a Culture Conservative / Counter Jihad angle). And the american press reported that back to the US.
I don’t see bias (in the US press - in Norway, sure) or premeditation - just cultural differences, and the way reporting on global events work.
Another thing that was pretty widely reported was that Breivik plagiarized his manifesto from the UNA bomber.
That information came from the owner of the site Document.no, where Breivik published the Manifesto. But Document.no is itself a Counter-Jihad/Xenophobic website.
And still it got reported all around the world in those first days, without any reflection on the source of the information. I even read in several places that pretty much the whole manifesto was ripped off. While i’ve seen elsewhere that the original source only claimed one paragraph or two…
IMHO FoxNews, Talk Radio and others have successfully established an assumption of bad faith that is pretty much universally applied to every occasion when media gets something wrong in a way that can be perceived as detrimental to conservative objectives.
(As an aside: In the last few days I’ve seen several front page storys in the US pushing the - arguably conservative - angles that Norwegian gun policies and dovish security policies to some extent facilitated the massacre. I havent seen the Counter-Jihad or Cultural Marxism angle front page once).
Reminds me of the time I saw Ann Coulter on the Today show talking about how the media was trying to silence her.
My Manifesto;
“Ok people, dial back the stupid!”
“Turn it left. Counterclockwise. No, not that way! The other…oh, fuck!”
That fear is more than their motivation. It’s their ally. It’s their moral compass. Hell, if you’re the cynic I am, you might even say it’s their experience of God the now bestowing, now punishing Father - always demanding we tremble before Him.
In turn, those who do not fear change and difference as they fear God are worse than fools. They are people without morals, without faith. They would have us elevate worldly tolerance and acceptance over godly fear, because when we let go of fear, we let go of God and put humans in His place.
'Zackly. It’s part of the Ailes/Rove, Fox/RNC strategy of addressing their own vulnerabilities by accusing the “other guys” of doing or being it first. They succeed well enough in making the Democrats, or non-whites, or non-fundamentalists, etc. deny it that they prevent the charge from even being made against themselves. To the less critical minds that form the majority, the reaction is “Hey, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Probably true. And that means I don’t have to do any uncomfortable thinking about what We Patriotic Merkins do or think; Fox News and the Wall Street Journal have already done it for me.”
Corollary question to the OP: are conservatives persecuted on the SDMB?
I’ve seen the complaint several times: “we try to conduct an intelligent debate, and we only get shouted down.”
“Shouted down,” to me, means not being able to complete your point (during a typed post?) or, OK, figuratively, your points are ignored and met with insults, ad hominen attack, and being clobbered with the whole bag of other logical fallacies. At which point any sane person would move on.
Does that happen here, or does conservatism just not have an A game to bring? If William F Buckley himself were a doper, would he eventually threaten to beat someone up? What would George Will or Niall Fergeson do when someone yells “cite?” at their seemingly erudite yet patently ludicrous conclusions?
The latter. Conservatism has gone well beyond the point where it has positions that can be rationally defended.
I was recently brushing up on my Yugoslavia history and this conservative persecution complex was the first thing I thought of when the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and the Arts was mentioned.
It makes me thank my lucky stars that we live in such a stable country where this type of speech is relatively safe.
Aye, relatively safe… as long as you don’t live in, say, Quartzsite, AZ or Gould, AR…
Fuckin’ A, man. Fuckin’ A. Still have my “Au H2O in 64” button someplace.
And being a Republican in what is now Dennis Kucinich’s district was no more of a picnic back then than it would be now.
But I was in fifth grade. What was your excuse?