Ugliness as the new “right.”

The Iowa “TEA Party” put up a billboard that equated Obama with Hitler and Lenin. Dana Milbank in her published [in the Washington Post] editorial (republished in the Spokesman-Review/Opinion—Letters) took note of the history behind this billboard:  Thomas Sowell, Glenn Beck and Republican members of Congress who spouted much the same line of thinking.  The telling statement in this billboard is as quoted, “Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive.” Huckleberries Online also put this same billboard on the blog for its comments thread.  Like Dana Milbank, many of those commenting were absolutely disgusted with what the “TEA Party” had done.  And the “TEA Party” claims it is not “racist?”  Or that it is “conservative” and not extremist?  You have got to be kidding me!  So, what ultimately should be the final tipping point to recognize that those who go off the deep end as the Iowa “TEA Party” has done aren’t in fact conservative at all?  I should think that this billboard has accomplished the mission.

When such a movement expresses this sort of violent hatred toward a duly elected president, then it goes well beyond being a major embarrassment, it should now become recognized as a national threat regardless of whom it seeks and what words are used as justification.

Hitler:  Hitler’s rise to power is well-documented.  For anyone who wishes to research the history; Hitler tried to use force to end the government called a putsch.  He was defeated and also imprisoned.  He then sought democratic means to gain office.  He succeeded and ultimately, ended democracy in the country of Germany.  But, he did not restore the rule of the Kaiser as pro-Kaiser elements in Germany desired.  He made himself dictator and betrayed these conservatives who hoped through Hitler to restore the nation to pre-World War I glory.  Democracy, in Germany only existed for a few decades between the rule of the Kaiser and the rule of Hitler.  So it can be said for a fact that democracy was a new thing in that country.  However, for Hitler to gain a foothold and to ultimately achieve totalitarian rule, there had to be heavy economic shocks.  And that was indeed one of the factors for Germany to ultimately abandon democracy for National Socialism, and the violence that it would bring to the nation and the world as a whole.  And yet, the “TEA Party” ignorance about Hitler was that Hitler couldn’t have begun to achieve all he did without a scapegoat.  And the scapegoats of choice were the Jews.  They were the ones who were perceived as controlling the levers of economic power.  Remove them, and all “true” Germans would be wealthy.

Thomas Sowell, Congressional GOP, the “TEA Party” and Glenn Beck are busy looking for scapegoats, it would seem.  Rather than blame the economic shocks this country has faced  on the source of the problem, business interests and the influence they bought in Washington, D.C.  Blame Obama, that’s the trick.  What has not factually dawned on any of the above named however,  is that it did take these economic shocks to bring into stark relief the corrupting influence of private money into public legislation and how it effected business as usual in government.  But the answer?  Is not to equate this situation with “Hitler” or National Socialism.  Instead, this is a matter that invites the most difficult of solutions, reduce the influence of corruption and restore the government to the people.  While the “TEA Party” may have some solid foundations to support that argument, no politician whom they approach is actually called upon to recognize that the limits of government must also include government recognizing its own limits when it comes to the influence of private factions on government and what they demand that government do for them.  In short, this movement doesn’t desire conservatism to actually be practiced as preached.

Lenin:  Lenin as the founder of the Bolsheviks based his ideology on Karl Marx’s, “Communist Manifesto” and “Das Kapital.”  When Lenin rose to power in post-Tsarist Russia and set about to create the Soviet Union; he was not creating a totalitarian state from a democratic country; he had simply replaced one totalitarian system (church and state being one and the same also the Tsar himself being an autocratic ruler) with another.  In other words, until the 1990s [and the downfall of the Communist party], Russia never was a democracy.  Nor can it truly be called one today.  Well, never let the facts get in the way of a desire to exploit what will be assumed are ignorant people.

Now to go on to where these people claim a “Democrat socialism” exists in the Obama administration.  Actually, how it does not equate with the totalitarian dictators of history.  The first amendment also has this clause:  that the people can bring their particular grievances to government.  Banks and other financial institutions when facing the prospect of collapsing under the weight of their own greed and mismanagement, brought their woes to government.  Apparently, the big government answer to saving these banks was quite acceptable while a Republican was in office and to make the American flag a distress signal (see same link above) when a Democrat assumed office.  When the bank bailout began under the GW administration, the big 3 automakers also sought their own bailouts.  The GOP were less sanguine over bailing them out because of the first emphasis being about labor and how spendy the American workforce can be, than they were over the banks.  Only under Obama, was it then possible for the auto industry to receive a bailout.  And this was attacked as “command and control,” the government take over of industry.  How about that “command and control” of the banks that began under GW?  Because of the first amendment, these interest groups could approach government with hat in hand and demand that our elected officials do something for them.

You can not get an over-arching government if interest groups ask nothing of it.  Nor can government assume control of anything, if it isn’t asked to in the first place.  In a democracy that is, that Obama is president of.

However, if the Iowa “TEA Party” had done any kind of thinking, prior to Gorbechev’s perestroika, a new openness in foreign and domestic policy in the Soviet Union, such a billboard as they displayed would not only have been torn down but also, the perpetrators would have faced the prospect of getting shot on sight, hunted down and arrested, tortured and executed.  The very fact that they could indeed display it for any length of time before public disgust over it forced its removal, says what they don’t have to fear about this nation.  Or their place in it.

Democracy wasn’t threatened when Obama took office.  But the fringe radicals have so lost sight of reality, that they can’t seem to recognize the triumph of democracy when Obama became president.  Obama is indeed a Democrat, but the “socialism” comes from private factions and interest groups who insist that government “be there” for them.

As Milbank was to conclude, the sign was more truly a projection of the “TEA Party.”  Their leadership that preys on the fearful and naive.


2 Responses to “Ugliness as the new “right.””

  1. Draw Your Home, Design Your FurnitureEnvironmentally Friendly Homes | Environmentally Friendly Homes Says:

    […] Ugliness &#1072&#1109 t&#1211&#1077 &#1495&#1077w “r&#1110&#609&#1211t.” « Jeh15?s Weblog […]

  2. Gallic bred: The mad life of Serge Gainsbourg | mens business suit, women, boy Says:

    […] Ugliness as the new “right.” « Jeh15′s Weblog […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: