Long Overdue, Semi-Coherent, Profane-Laden Rant About How Fucked Up Our Politics Are Right Now

Get it off me!

Nowhere is insanity on fuller display than in the debate on whether to extend the Bush tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 and set to expire on December 31. On one side is the Republicans, who come January, will control one out of the three institutions (House, Senate, White House) needed to pass any extensions. They have indicated that they will not vote for any tax cut extensions that do not include cuts for those making over $250,000 a year—a group that accounts for two percent of the fucking population! Excuse me, but where in the holy fuck do the Republicans get off saying they won’t compromise on tax cuts? With what leverage are they making these crazy statements? Memo to John Boehner: you can’t do shit without the Senate and White House, neither of which you control. The tax cuts can expire with our without your regressive-ass governing philosophy. On the other side is the Democrats, and I will get to those fuckers momentarily.

If the GOP is so serious about reining in our massive budget deficits, why the fuck do they want the government to eat $700 billion over the next ten years, which is what extending the tax cuts for the upper 2% would cost? Standard bullshit answer: Because that 2% does the investing and job creating. Well suck my ass. I don’t know if any of these GOP empty suits have noticed, but America is having a bit of a capital flight problem at the moment. I know we don’t want to admit it, but the dollar is getting royally crushed on the Forex and our exports are still getting their asses kicked. The Fed’s second round of quantitative easing is underway and, woops, bond yields are rising. That’s ok though, at least those struggling bankers at Goldman Sachs are front-running on these asset purchases and selling the taxpayers bonds whose prices are unnecessarily jacked up. Way to monetize the debt you fucking FOMC assholes.

But back to these Republican douchebags. They don’t give a flaming fuck about deficits or the national debt. If anything, they want our situation to be even more fucked than it is so they can eliminate every social program there is, and spend all tax dollars on corporate subsidies, military Keynesianism, and expanding the police/surveillance state, which are the cornerstones of what passes for American conservatism these days. So they want to give back $700 billion to a bunch of people making over $250K and therefore by definition, don’t really need the money. And don’t tell me they’re going to invest their tax cuts in America or some such horseshit. Those rich people don’t earn that much money because they’re fucking stupid, and because they’re not fucking stupid that money is going to go overseas and in precious metals and commodities. The dollar is dead. Paper money is fucking dead. Might as well buy some hard assets with your worthless fiat toilet paper. Either that or equities so we can blow another bubble and watch it pop. That would be truly awesome.

While Europe undergoes austerity, we here in the US cling to the belief that no matter how indebted we are, we can never be expected to lower our standard of living or rein in our global empire whose costs are at unspeakably obscene levels. Thank god the Republicans have retaken the House so we can start cutting costs, downsize the military and slash pentagon spending, and implement sensible tax policy.

Wait, what’s that? The Republicans want to do none of these things? What’s that? Their recipe for fiscal responsibility in a nation with a $14 trillion debt and a $14.5 trillion GDP is lots of tax cuts with a sprinkle of fucking earmark reform? Is this for serious? Who voted for these buffoons? Way to go teabaggers, fuck you very much.

As for the Democrats, holy fucking shit do you guys suck buffalo cock. What a clusterfuck your reign has been. Nice fucking health care bill that will necessitate a massive transferal of wealth from taxpayers to the criminialistic, anti-trust exempt, premium-jacking, coverage-denying, cocksucking HMOs for the indefinite future. Nice non-legislation allowing the government to negotiate bulk prices of pharmaceuticals under Medicare. Nice non-legislation allowing the reimportation of said pharmaceuticals. Nice fucking mandate that makes Americans purchase health coverage from private tyrannies.

Also, good job on reconfirming Ben Bernanke Fed Chair. Whereas sane societies would see him, Greenspan, Blankfein, Dimon, Cassano, and thousands of others in jail or motherfucking decapitated, the Democratic President and Congress bring him on board for another four years even though he couldn’t see a giant fucking real estate bubble stuck right in his goddamned beard. Homer Simpson once said that people with facial hair have something to hide, well, what the fuck is Bernanke hiding?

By the way Dems, what a bunch of legislative pussies you are. How many times is Obama going to cave? I think Obama—far from being a progressive—is actually a fucking Caucasian Reaganite supply-sider in blackface. How else do you explain an “extended period” ZIRP and multiple rounds of QE? Obama doesn’t fight for anything. He says he wants one thing and then settles for far less, and by the time its over the legislation looks like something that GHW Bush or Ford would’ve signed into law. Why the fuck are you letting Orangeman Bohner and Turtle McConnell lead you around by your balls? This isn’t fucking change I can believe in.

Oh well, Obama. At least you can always bomb Iran to boost your popularity with the warmongering faction of the American populace. Lindsey Graham, David Broder, and others inside the beltway are already calling for it, and as things continue to be shitty at home, the American people will need a distraction because American Idol and Biggest Loser can only keep the rabble amused for only so fucking long. I’ve already got the fucking name ready for the next bullshit American military intervention: Operation Persian Carpet Bombing. That oughta keep those ignorant American serfs busy for a few months. “Oh, you’re unemployed? Well at least the fucking mullahs won’t be slitting your throat as you sleep! We’re over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. Now sit down, shut up, and be scared shitless!”

Yes, it’s quite a fucking operation we’ve got going over here. The sane need not apply because the fucking nutbags are already running the asylum.

- Max

A Midterm Election Autopsy

Ever since election day, grossly overpaid media pundits who contribute little to intelligent discussion have been offering all kinds of reasons for why the Democrats got their asses kicked. The theories range from, “The Obama Democratic agenda is just too far Left” to “The Obama Democratic agenda is just too moderate,” and everything in between. But they all have the same theme: Democrats have done X, but the American people wanted Y. So Democrats were defeated on Tuesday because they spent the last two years doing one thing, while the American people wanted them to do another, and perhaps in a different way.

One great thing about these kinds of analyses, for pundits anyway, is that they lend themselves to endless possibilities in argumentation which amount to little more than quasi-educated spit-balling. The postmortem of the 2010 midterm elections, like all others, is a vague and subjective hazarding of guesses and proffering of pseudo-insight. It relies on this ambiguity in rendering a seemingly plausible but ultimately untestable and therefore useless explanation as to why one party won more seats than the other. Such analyses require amalgamating millions of voters from across the country into a singular entity with a coherent political ideology, or at least giving the American people a mathematically mean ideology which can be placed on somewhere on the Left/Right political spectrum. But this assumes that The American People have a coherent political philosophy, and care enough about it to vote their ideology regardless of whether they think the country is on the right track. This assumption is wrong. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald puts it well:

[W]hat voters care about are not cable-news labels, but results. Democrats didn’t lose because voters think they’re too “liberal.” If that were true, how would one explain massive Democratic wins in 2006 and 2008, including by liberals in conservative districts (such as Alan Grayson); were American voters liberal in 2006 and 2008 only to manically switch to being conservative this year? Was Wisconsin super-liberal for the last 18 years when it thrice elected Russ Feingold to the Senate, and then suddenly turned hostile to liberals this year? Such an explanation is absurd.

The answer is that voters make choices based on their assessment of the outcomes from the political class. They revolted against the Republican Party in the prior two elections because they hated the Iraq War and GOP corruption (not because they thought the GOP was “too conservative”), and they revolted against Democrats this year because they have no jobs, are having their homes foreclosed by the millions, are suffering severe economic anxiety, and see no plan or promise for that to change (not because they think Democrats are “too liberal”).

To Greenwald’s assessment, I would add that because we only have two parties that really matter, election results often furnish us with a skewed version of reality. In 2006, Republicans were voted out because their war in Iraq had turned sour. In 2008 Republicans were voted out because the economy was in the tank. In 2010 Democrats were voted out because the economy is still in the tank and they were replaced by the Republicans who were just recently thoroughly repudiated in the previous two elections. Notice that Americans don’t vote parties in; they vote parties out. Republicans took control of the House and made gains in the Senate last week not because Americans think they’ll do a good job, but because they’re still nervous about the economy and they don’t have any legitimate choices left at the ballot box.

- Max

On Marriage and Children

Perhaps the most dearly held dogma about life in America is the idea that one ought to marry, have children, and live happily ever after.

Most versions of the otherwise vacuous “American Dream” feature these ingredients. The American man who goes a lifetime and departs this earth without marrying and without procreating is considered abnormal by his fellow citizens. Often, his acquaintances pity him for not having experienced the marvels of marriage or the pleasures of parenthood. And his death only heightens this sense of tragedy. For the departed single childless female, the lamentations of those who knew her are amplified further because of the universal understanding that all women desire marriage and a brood. Those women who do not—especially those who have the temerity to say so—are considered deviant and perhaps stand accused of lesbianism.

The act of marriage is widely regarded as a sacred union of man and woman (or man and man or woman and woman)—a promulgation of love and devotion by the parties involved. But marriage is also something else. It is an implicit affirmation of complacency. To marry is to say that one can do no better, or that perhaps one can, but it would not be worth it to find out. Hence, every marriage involves “settling” for someone—someone who by the sheer laws of probability is not the most compatible spouse. Marriage would be a more admirable thing if married people could recognize this reality. But instead there is a great deal of denial involved. Everyone has heard a friend or a relative announce that his or her significant other is in fact The One, as if, out of the three billion men or three billion women on this planet, this hopeless romantic has found the one person meant for him or her. That of course, is a false assumption. No one is meant for anyone because everyone’s existence is cosmologically meaningless. Humans create meaning. Thus, to say that so-and-so was meant for so-and-so, is to engage in an ex post facto rationalization.

Regarding children, no child has ever been conceived out of anything other than selfish motives. Children are conceived either by accident or by intention. In the case of the former, the parents’ selfishness is manifest because the desire for sexual gratification on their part outweighed the consequences of not employing an effective method of birth control. When children are planned, the origins are also selfish. When two people decide to conceive a child, it is because of what they want. Even single people—particularly single women—can often be heard saying, “I want a child” for whatever reason. Because this is considered a normal aspiration, those do not share this sentiment are frequently the focus of a suspicious curiosity. Any person who has ever announced in the presence of company that he or she wishes to have no children often receives the same response: “Why don’t you want children?” Of course, there is no reason that having children should be considered the default position. Indeed, I can think of far more good reasons against procreating than I can in favor of it. If anything, the burden of proof ought to lie with those who want kids.

Ladies and gentlemen, what separates us from common animals is the ability to engage in sex without having to worry about the inconvenient prospect of children. And yet, millions of us every year forgo the fruits of contraception science to produce yet another crop of mostly mediocre children. Sigh.

- Max

Fabulous War! David Broder Says Obama should stage Iran showdown

The face of senility

From David Broder’s latest column in the Washington Post:

Can Obama harness the forces that might spur new growth? This is the key question for the next two years.

What are those forces? Essentially, there are two. One is the power of the business cycle, the tidal force that throughout history has dictated when the economy expands and when it contracts.

Economists struggle to analyze this, but they almost inevitably conclude that it cannot be rushed and almost resists political command. As the saying goes, the market will go where it is going to go.

In this regard, Obama has no advantage over any other pol. Even in analyzing the tidal force correctly, he cannot control it.

What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy.

Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran’s ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.

Not that a guy like David Broder paid it much attention, but I find it absolutely hilarious that this column comes less than 48 hours after Jon Stewart’s and Stephen Colbert’s Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. The thing is, Broder is not some rabid Hannity-esque warmonger. Rather, his is the pen of the beltway establishment and therefore conventional political wisdom. And here he is making the case for war with Iran. Keep that fear alive, David. Sanity is overrated anyway.

According to Broder and his conventional wisdom, the Great Depression was resolved by the prosecution of World War II. It’s the standard canard about WWII economics that requires more explanation than Broder gives it. The assumption that war yields economic prosperity is a pernicious and often incorrect one. No one would say that the French or British economies were strengthened by World War II. Germany, though it experienced robust growth when waging its wars of choice, paid heavily for them during the last few years of the Reich and beyond. In fact, all of the major players in that war endured great hardships because each had experienced the war first hand within their own borders with the exception of the United States. The US was in the unique position of being a major combatant without having to worry about the immediate safety of its own civilian population.

When hacks like Broder say WWII lifted the American economy out of the doldrums, what they are really saying is that massive amounts of spending and heavy state intervention in the market saved the US economy. Military spending, price controls, wage controls, and rationing were in vogue as the federal government assumed de facto control over the country’s defense, energy, and commodity sectors. World War II was essentially a gargantuan public works project geared toward the maximal production of military hardware. The nation’s manufacturing sector became a well-oiled machine of production previously unseen in world history, banging out not only the tools of war at a rapid rate, but goods for civilian use as well. With an increased need for production came an increase in employment, which resulted in more disposable income, which resulted in more demand, and so on. It was not that WWII cured America’s economic ills, it was the way in which it was conducted on the home front.

Whether his senile mind knows it or not, Broder is advocating military Keynesianism. Even though he assures us that he isn’t suggesting Obama start a war, the president “can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.”

First of all, from a moral standpoint, no person anywhere should ever be “orchestrating a showdown” with anyone—not at home or work, and certainly not in international relations. To purposely take measures that would escalate tensions and hostilities is downright psychopathic.

Second, from a pragmatic standpoint, Broder is stuck in 1940. He seems to be assuming that American preparations for war with Iran would mirror our preparations for war with Germany and Japan when they will not. The reason they won’t is because it’s a pretty safe bet that the US already possesses the necessary military hardware to conduct a full-scale invasion of Iran. There would be little if any additional war matériel to produce, and therefore no effect on the economy on this front. Sure there might be a need for additional war production if the conflict went on long enough, but no one—except for maybe al Qaeda—wants that. Plus, Iran is far more militarily capable than Iraq.

Another fundamental difference between WWII and the wars of today is that the government doesn’t ask American civilians to sacrifice anything. Indeed, the wars themselves are essentially unfunded, with the costs just piled onto the national debt. Aside from the hell we put our volunteer soldiers and their families through, Americans have carried on as usual during wartime. To their credit though, Americans do put “Support the Troops” stickers on their cars, which can look awfully ugly on the back of a Hummer.

Perhaps the most amusing part of Broder’s column is when after he’s laid out his piss-poor economic argument for war, he tosses in the obligatory, “Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century” as a mere afterthought. But the truth is, Iran has more reasons to fear the US than vice versa, and Broder’s column itself is a case in point because it’s advocating a hostile confrontation for god’s sake. More importantly, the US has a long history of meddling in Iran’s internal affairs, including the 1954 American-orchestrated overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government. Not to mention the fact that the US presently has hundreds of thousands of soldiers occupying Iran’s western and eastern neighbors. Ask yourself, who is a greater threat to whom?

Thankfully, the current economic climate in the US makes more war unpalatable for the American people. Of course, that could very well change with another 9/11-style attack or even just a really good propaganda campaign launched by the government with help from its media sidekicks. Who knows, maybe Broder’s gotten the ball rolling and we don’t even know it yet.

- Max

I Really Hate "God Bless America"

Yuck.

One of the bad things about the September 11^th attacks, other than the mass death, destruction, the resulting wars, and the low interest rates that spawned the housing market collapse and subsequent decimation of the banking sector and economy in general, is how the attacks have affected Major League Baseball.

I’m a baseball guy, and even though my Red Sox have been conspicuously absent from this year’s playoffs, I’ve watched most of the postseason games. There are a lot things that piss me off about the playoffs this year: the insufferable broadcasting duo of Joe Buck and Tim McCarver; the insufferable broadcasting trio of Ernie Johnson, Ron Darling, and John Smoltz; and of course, the marathon length of these games. With the season on the line, managers understandably pull out all the stops and play the percentages. It isn’t uncommon in the postseason to have three or four different pitchers see action in a single inning. And all those pitching changes add up. And I swear the breaks in between innings are longer in the playoffs than in the regular season.

So what’s MLB’s solution to these long-ass games, all of which start at 8pm or later on the east coast and don’t end until midnight or later? They play God Bless America during the seventh inning of every fucking postseason game. Awesome. Way to add game time by injecting a completely irrelevant relgio-nationalistic anthem into the middle of the fucking ballgame.

During the regular season, MLB teams typically play God Bless America only on Sundays. And that’s strange, since people are asking god to bless America on his day off, which seems rather presumptuous. At Yankee Stadium, the hymn is performed during every game. During some of these renditions, fans have been literally prevented from moving around freely by stadium security, which is some seriously fascistic shit. But this postseason, some person or persons, somewhere, decided it would be best if this terrible song were sung during the seventh inning of every playoff game. And don’t forget, the national anthem is already sung before the game. Isn’t that enough for all you armchair patriots, you jingoistic fucks?

The last time I was at Fenway Park on a Sunday and they asked the crowd to rise for God Bless America, I remained seated for the whole song. Fuck ‘em. But I had no problem standing up immediately afterwards for the seventh inning stretch and “Take me out to the ballgame,” which is a song that predates God Bless America by the way. I imagine that many people around me thought I was being an asshole by not standing. No one said anything of course, because they were undoubtedly too chickenshit. This country is full people who think that being a great American means pledging allegiance to the flag, wearing an Old Glory pin on your lapel, supporting the latest war in a vast sandbox that just happens to sit atop a giant pool of oil, and generally thinking that your country is better than every other. And when you’re attending some apolitical event, like a baseball game, which is supposed to be a brief escape from the harsh realities of politics and life in general, and you’re told to stand and ask god to bless America, well you do that too. Why? Out of respect. Whatever the fuck that means. It’s like during the Iraq war when people slapped a yellow ribbon magnet on the back of their SUVs that read “Support the Troops.” (Apparently the irony was lost on most people.) And that was good enough. Sure maybe you voted for politicians whose idea it was to start the war in the first place, and sure maybe you voted for politicians who wanted to slash the benefits of the soldiers who made it out alive, but I mean, Jesus, you had the fucking sticker on the back of your car! What more could you have done?

I think I’m in the minority on this one. Most Americans believe in god, and sports fans are typically conservative, which is no surprise when you consider all the macho posturing that goes on in sports. I wrote an email to the Red Sox a couple of months ago asking if they planned on doing away with God Bless America at some point, and I haven’t received a response. The answer, sadly, is probably never, because the ownership of the Red Sox, just like every other in MLB, doesn’t have the balls to acknowledge the sheer pointlessness of the song and pull the fucking plug on it.

- Max

The Federal Reserve's War On Savers

Got any American dollars? Well you better spend them fast before they ain’t worth a Continental.

With a policy that has spanned the last two presidential administrations, the Federal Reserve has waged an all-out assault on the U.S. Dollar, and by proxy, the American people. It was about two years ago when the Federal Open Market Committee implemented its policy of keeping interest rates at or near zero percent for an “extended period,” in what has become a kind of running joke.

But the American people aren’t laughing, mainly because the joke is on them. They refused to go along with Bernanke’s monetary masochism, which he hoped would spur consumer spending and create demand for credit. Those visions have proven to be pure fantasies. Consumer spending for August was the lowest since March, and is still below August 2009 levels, which were below fall 2008 levels when Wall Street was falling apart. Furthermore, banks are reluctant to lend in these uncertain economic times, especially in a country where subprime lending served as a catalyst for the destruction of the banking sector so recently. Not surprisingly, the official unemployment remains high, hovering around 10%.

So the Fed has done everything in its power to discourage Americans from saving their money: rock bottom interest rates, quantitative easing, the attempted competitive devaluation of the dollar on the foreign exchange market, e.g. by trying to pressure China into allowing the yuan to appreciate. (The recent accusations from some American officials that China is manipulating its currency are hilariously hypocritical.) However, only until recently has the global economy cooperated with the Bernanke’s ambitions. Previously, sovereign debt crises in Europe, China’s rigid yuan policy, and the ongoing sputtering of the Japanese economy, helped foil the Fed’s best laid plans to depreciate the dollar vis-à-vis the world’s major economies and inflate the home economy upward by boosting exports and domestic consumption.

Now, after two long years of inflicting serious pain on American savers, the Fed is finally beginning to see some of the rotten fruits of its mischievous labor. The vigilantes are out in full force—gold vigilantes, bond vigilantes, and even Euro vigilantes. (Remember all that talk about EUR/USD parity a few months ago?) The Fed’s warning to the world is clear: You do not want to be holding our paper.

Indeed, the looming second round of quantitative easing measures (QE2, i.e., asset purchases, i.e., more money printing) has already prompted many economists to downgrade their growth outlooks for the U.S. economy in 2011. I suspect that the forthcoming QE2 is the primary reason for the stock market’s torrid run of late. Low bond yields and low rates on savings, combined with an inevitable inflationary trend courtesy of the Fed is having the surely anticipated effect of artificially greasing equity markets as investors seek higher returns. Expectedly, gold has risen to record levels, $1,381 an ounce as of this writing. And although a short-term correction is surely in the cards soon, the long-term trend for bullion remains up, up, up. Ditto for silver; perhaps more so.

Will Americans get the Fed’s “message” finally and begin to part with the money they have? Given that America’s total household debt is an astounding 123% percent of annual after-tax income, it seems unlikely that many Americans will take on additional debt burdens. Then again, never underestimate the American’s capacity to spend beyond his means. Whatever happens, this debt-ridden mess we call the U.S. economy is a completely unsustainable model for economic development. It is not going to end well.

- Max

Minnesota Vikings Change Uniform Pants To Wranglers

Brett Favre will now lead the Vikings by the seat of his Wrangler jeans.

Filed by Max Canning

EDEN PRAIRIE, MN—In a move that Minnesota Vikings principal owner Zygi Wilf said is necessary to ensure the comfort and efficiency of quarterback Brett Favre, the team will wear Wrangler loose-fitting jeans as part of their game day uniform for the remainder of the 2010 season.

“I’m comfortable in jeans that are tough,” Favre said at a press conference Wednesday after the team practiced with the jeans for the first time. “I’m comfortable in jeans that last. I’m comfortable in Wrangler. They are real. Comfortable. Jeans. And I like to be comfortable when I’m on the football field.”

When asked about the unusual midseason uniform change, head coach Brad Childress explained, “It’s no secret that Brett’s been struggling a bit. Seven interceptions in four games isn’t like him at all. So we just need Brett to go out and do what he does best—chuck it up there and have some fun. We think moving to Wranglers is the best way to accomplish that.”

Asked why all Vikings players would have to wear Wranglers in addition to Favre, Childress responded, “We wouldn’t want Brett to feel self-conscious. Besides, what manly football player wouldn’t want to wear 14-ounce heavyweight denim jeans, built comfortable with a stonewashed finish and relaxed fit? I can’t guarantee you we’ll win the Super Bowl, but I can tell you that we’re going to be the most rugged-looking all-American football team you’ve ever seen.”

Robert Gilroy, a Vice President at Wrangler International, said his company is excited about the move. “We are absolutely thrilled to have the opportunity to provide Brett Favre and all the Minnesota Vikings players with quality, durable jeans that are ready for the rigors of four quarters of professional football,” Gilroy said in a company press release. “We also look forward to getting our Wranglers officially licensed by the NFL as soon as possible so they can be available to fans at pro shops everywhere.”

The uniform modification was approved by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell late Wednesday afternoon. Reached by telephone, Goodell stated, “Whatever is good for Brett Favre is good for the NFL.” When asked about the progress of the NFL’s investigation of lewd text messages Favre allegedly sent to former New York Jets employee Jenn Sterger when he quarterbacked the Jets in 2008, Goodell replied, “Jenn who?”

Although most of Favre’s teammates support the switch, not all players are welcoming the change. Newly reacquired wide receiver Randy Moss was visibly agitated as he walked off the field after Wednesday’s practice, and at one point removed and tossed his newly issued Wranglers into a nearby trash can. “How am I supposed to run streaks and beat my coverage with these pants flappin’ all over the place? I’m wearing the old pants on Sunday. They can fine me the ten grand for all I care. Ain’t nothin’ but ten grand. What’s ten grand to me?”

As of press time, Favre and Moss were reportedly engaged in a heated locker room exchange.

What Newt Gingrich Really Meant By "Kenyan, Anti-Colonial Behavior"

Don’t be fooled. Gingrich is a master rhetorican.

For the past week or so, the American media has been discussing some seemingly strange remarks Newt Gingrich recently made about President Obama to the conservative National Review:

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

A thorough parsing of these words is in order, not because they ring true, but rather because of the insight we can gain into how conservative rhetoric and message framing often work.

Before proceeding, recall that in 1996 Gingrich wrote what is now an infamous memorandum for GOPAC titled, “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.” In that memo, the then Speaker of the House listed one set of emotionally charged words that Republicans could associate with themselves (“Optimistic Positive Governing Words”) and another set they could associate with their opponents (“Contrasting Words”). Here Gingrich acknowledged an unfortunate fact about the American people: they are far too responsive to rhetoric and are less concerned with substantive policy matters. Ironically, Gingrich features “cynicism” in his list of words to heap upon one’s opponents. After all, few things are more cynical than preparing a list of buzzwords to which you think your compatriots would respond in knee-jerk fashion. As far as Newt is concerned, Americans are not people; they are Pavlovian dogs to be conditioned.

Turning again to the present, let us examine Gingrich’s remarks about President Obama to see what’s behind these prima facie idiotic comments.

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension…”

Quick. Think of some things that are or are said to be “outside our comprehension.” Here’s what I came up with:

God

Satan

Demons

Ghosts

Aliens/UFOs

The common theme here is the unknown. And how do humans feel about that which is unknown to them? They fear it, whatever it happens to be. So really this first part of Gingrich’s question is constructed so as to suggest that Obama is unknowable, and therefore people ought to be frightened of him. While the saying, “People fear what they do not understand” is certainly cliché, it is very often true. Obama is particularly susceptible to this line of attack because he’s African-American, has a unique (and foreign) name, spent much time abroad as a child, and had a father born in Kenya, which is not a country typically associated with the melting pot of America. Hence the frequent suggestions by some conservatives that Obama is secretly a Muslim or at the very least sympathizes with Sharia Law, that Obama is an adherent of Black Liberation theology, or that he was born in Kenya and therefore should be disqualified from the Presidency. Newt’s message here is clear: Obama is unknowable and untrustworthy. Therefore he should be feared.

Continuing on,

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior…”

This phrase about “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior” seems to be everyone’s (Left and Right) favorite part. Here Gingrich is reinforcing the image of Obama as a foreign and unknowable entity, unless of course “you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.” And what American understands that? In fact, what do these words even mean?

For Gingrich, associating the word “Kenyan” with Obama while criticizing him is just another way of calling him an unknown, or a foreigner, or the Other, if you will. But insertion of the term “anti-colonial” really left me scratching my head. The extent of my knowledge about “Kenyan, anti-colonial” behavior is the Mau Mau Rebellion in 1950s, when native Kenyans fought an ongoing insurrection against British colonial soldiers who were occupying their land. If this story sounds familiar, that’s because it has played out many times literally the world over, including here in the 1770s when Americans took up arms against their British colonial oppressors, who were far nicer to the Americans than they were to the Kenyans. Furthermore, as an ideology, “colonialism” has a notoriously bad reputation and rightfully so. Conquering foreign peoples, pillaging their resources, and taking their land forcibly for one’s own use is frowned upon by virtually everyone across the political spectrum. It is one thing to advocate an interventionist foreign policy (à la George W. Bush), but it’s quite another to imply that being “anti-colonial” is somehow wrongheaded (à la King George III).

Of course, I haven’t heard anyone in the media besides AlterNet point this out—that not only should Barack Obama have an “anti-colonial” worldview, but so should everyone on the planet.

Continuing on,

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?”

Quick. What are things people “piece together”?

Puzzles

Crime scenes

IKEA furniture

Ouija board sessions

The common theme here is frustration. When one “pieces together” something such as one of the above, it can be a very rewarding experience. But like cracking a code the process of getting there can be a very painstaking experience fraught with aggravation and angst. Here Gingrich wishes to convey the message that Obama is a puzzle to be solved, but only by those few who understand “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.” Unfortunately, the vast majority of people never will, and thus Obama will remain “outside our comprehension.”

While it is true that Gingrich is not making an outright claim but rather asking a question about Obama, the mere musing is suggestive enough to accomplish the rhetorical goal of painting the President as an outsider who is hopelessly inaccessible to most Americans. Furthermore, in the very next sentence Gingrich immediately transforms his “question” into a “fact” by stating,

“That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

Thus we see that Newt’s question was a rhetorical one, a statement of “fact” designed to strike upon the key themes of foreignness, mysteriousness, and uncertainty.

The phrase, “predictive model for his behavior” is not one that is heard in everyday conversation. If it is heard at all such a statement is most likely to be uttered by a naturalist studying an elusive species of animal, or perhaps by a psychologist attempting to understand the behavior of a manic depressive or a schizophrenic. Either way, the phrase “predictive model for his behavior” is crafted so as to dehumanize Obama, to make him into an object of study rather than a fellow human being or a fellow American. “Predictive modeling” is not something in which most people engage, and certainly not in regards to their fellow humans. Thus, Gingrich is again reinforcing the idea that Obama is unknowable, and also that attempts to understand him or indeed, connect with him as a human being, is sure to be a futile endeavor.

The above analysis of a mere two sentences is admittedly lengthy. However, these statements typify modern conservative rhetoric. It is a rhetoric that requires enemies to tear down. American conservatism today is bereft of any real ideas or actual solutions, and so it must constantly be attacking something in order to be effective. Conservatives have seemingly cornered the market on patriotism, not because they are truly great patriots, but because they are constantly railing against both real and imagined boogeymen who seek to do America harm. Hence the frequent use of the phrase “anti-American” by conservative pundits and politicians to describe everything from war protesters to secularism to a health care bill. Conservatives understand that the best defense is a good offense. If conservatives weren’t constantly on the offensive, they would have to spend more time articulating and defending their policy prescriptions, which are often quite unpalatable.

Key to political rhetoric—especially conservative political rhetoric—in contemporary America is the ability to convey deep emotional messages using a few hollow words. What came out of Newt Gingrich’s mouth recently was not an accident, and it would be a grave mistake for liberals to assume that his comments were merely off-the-cuff and said in an unthinking manner. Gingrich knows precisely what he is doing. He’s not alone.

- Max Canning