Not here.
I think assuming that that’s all they are is foolish.
Point 1- Most of the skinheads are in Idaho.
Point 2- As someone who spent time with that particular subculture (not a member, but friends of friends type situation) I can tell you that the black jeans and suspender wearing idiot isn’t really the problem. The problem is with the guy in khaki’s and a polo with a smile and a sensible sounding arguement that sounds very convincing to someone in a bad situation. THAT guy is the threat posed by Neo-Nazi’s.
Point 3- And sadly, that same smiling madman is likely to be embraced by a certain faction of the political Right in this country. THAT is scary.
Trying to reduce the definition of the far right to only overt racists is a bit of a red herring. There are also the theocrats, the seccessionists, the “militias.” There’s an entire, anti-social, separationist trend in general, where people are isolating themselves from from factions of society, and sources of information they don’t like, homeschooling their kids, etc. this whole angry, religionist, tribalistic, xenophobic violently ideated, teabagger subculture is something to be concerned about, especially if they can latch onto egotistical, psychopathic leader like Sarah Palin.
It is helpful to have bogeymen when you want to whip up your side, believing that you’re the beleagured underdog.
Well that explains Bush taking out Saddam. What’s next, and is there some reason those who aren’t wingers should not be concerned about whatever it is?
Well let’s look at it this way - who has what incentives in this debate? And thus, what kind of bias will we see?
The left will talk up the FR, for bogeyman purposes as I said above, as long as it is weak. This will change when the FR nears critical mass for being a real political power, at which point the left will try to talk it down to prevent it from becoming powerful.
The right, conversely, will try to talk down the FR as long as it is too weak to be worth anything. Only if it becomes powerful will the added political influence be worth the PR hit.
tl;dr: if it’s weak, the left will be biased towards making it a bogeyman while the right will talk it down. If it’s strong, the reverse. Now which pattern fits this thread best?
Oh, the irony, it burns.
I suppose you’re one of those who really does think Obama is (pick one or more): a Marxist, a Terrorist, a Muslim, a Communist, a Reverse Racist, a Citizen of Kenya. Or do you just respect and admire people who do?
But oh, so typical from certain sectors.
You mean, like the “well-connected left-wing college professors”?
I can reply from personal experience that the answer is A, by a large margin. The last time the National Alliance (one of the larger neo-Nazi groups) tried to establish a presence here, there were about 6000 people rallying against them, and about six members of the National Alliance in the counter-rally. And lefty college professors are a dime a dozen here, though that’s a bit of an unfair comparison, this being a college town and all. I imagine that the professors would still outnumber the skinheads even in Helena or Billings, though. I’m not entirely sure why (though I’m grateful for it), but racism doesn’t really seem to have much traction around here.
It might be helpful if you were more specific about who “they” are.
The irony practically steams off the page in this post. The political right has specialized for decades in the demonization of the weak and powerless, while the left has impotently assailed massively powerful corporate interests and cronyism.
The left pretty much always ignores the populist far right as harmless cranks, or worse, tries to appease them.
Speaking of “boogeymen,” you might want to take a look at who the teabaggers are painting the Hitler moustaches and the Joker smiles on.
How much political clout to the far righties really have? We’re talking far right like skinheads, militia members, tea baggers (the non Log Cabin variety), etc. Because it doesn’t seem to me like most of these people are going to be voting Republican.
Odesio
Yeah, wave the club at the monkeys across the river. And yet, I note no debunking of my core argument. The positions espoused in this thread, with the lefties talking up the threat and the righties dismissive, indicate that the far right is weak.
Yes, but what the far right preaches is seductive, so we have to take steps to keep them weak. Just ignoring them as insignificant is dangerous.
The far right is anything but weak. It controls the Republican Party right now, as well as much of the media.
Truly far-righties are more than a little deranged, posturing in support of unattainable, unworkable, unsensible solutions to non-existent problems, or problems that have been resolved to more or less universal satisfaction generations ago. Some of this posturing appeals to the weak-minded, to the “victims” of serious discourse who seek simplistic slogans instead of thoughtful, complex policies, to the lunatic fringe, in short. So they’re serious in that they’re a serious problem–any time you get the lunatic fringe (on the right or left) demagogued into expanding from its <10% to 20%>, as Palin seems to be doing, it’s a little bit scary. But they’re not serious people, they’re incapable of actually providing leadership should it somehow come down to that, and they offer no serious alternatives to the status quo. So they’re not serious in that sense of the word. They lack a philosophy.
I don’t agree. Radical right wingers are motivated by reactions to threats. Either social threats (dramatic changes in social behaviors or politics away from their agenda), economic threats, physical threats, military threats, etc.
So any time a nation is under threat, there is going to be an empowerment of right wingers. Sometimes when too many threats occur at once (like what happened after WW1 and the great depression) then the radical right will be empowered to take over (there was a rise in right wing authoritarianism in the US and Europe in the 20s and 30s). The events of 9/11 made the US more fascist and authoritarian for a while.
The radical right (not the US radical right, but the radical right in humanity in general) has also engaged in military coups against socialist leaders all over the world during the cold war.
In the US, despite all the problems, we still have it pretty good. We are not Italy in 1920, and we are not Chile or Paraguay in the 60s and 70s. Our radical right is empowered, but not enough IMO to do any real damage to the nation.
When Germany went fascist they had to deal with a lower standard of living, a far worse economic collapse, the shame of losing WW1, the trauma of WW1 in general and the empowerment of communism. In the US our threats do not approach that level.
But a severe threat (a WMD explosion in a US city, a US president who actually was a marxist instead of just being called one, an even bigger economic collapse) and the reactionary right would be even stronger than they are now.
No, there’s no logical connection between what people are ‘talking up’ and who is strong or weak. People could be talking shit up because of the phase of the moon, and athelas would still point to it as proof that the right is weak.
Well, it wasn’t clear due to laziness on my part, but my “yes” was meant to be “yes, yes, very good, whatever, but…”, i.e. more dismissal than agreement.
In any case, if one were to compile a basic list of far-right talking points, they are attractive in a way, in the sense that all of one’s problems can be blamed on the modern decadence created and maintained by other people (liberals, gays Hollywood, whatever), without which one could still be living in the idyllic style of the “old days” that really only exists in fantasy.