When the history of our time is written this decade will probably be known as the "Second McCarthy Era," after Sen. Joe McCarthy. (Below, the then-Senator and his lawyer, Roy Cohn.)
The assumption and abuse of government power is similar. The intimidation is similar. The incompetence is very similar.
The incompetence is a direct product of the abuse of power, and it’s sad that liberals don’t get this because it’s simple math. When you play Kevin Bacon and make everyone a suspect, you limit the attention you can pay to any one suspect. Unless, that is, you can expand police budgets to give everyone a suspect’s attention, and this the government has been unable to do, in either era.
What we’re left with is the expansion of fear for fear’s sake, which is exhausting. So without something real to renew our fear the game gets obvious and people stop playing. This is true in the Muslim world as well. Dubai looks a lot more attractive to young Muslims today than Al Qaeda’s camps.
But what happens to the McCarthyites? Fear is a drug, intimidation is a drug, you need more and more of it as time goes by, and the loyal Bushies have become addicts. That’s precisely what we are seeing now. Once you find yourself attacking toddlers to feed your need for enemies, or decide calling a TV camera names is a rational act (above) a lot of people are bound to think you need help.
These are the "haties," the political equivalent of the "hippies"
from an earlier time. And our reaction to these "haties" is precisely
the same as our parents’ reaction to the "hippies" of their time. We
think they’re crazy, that they’re high on something, that they’ve lost
their reason.
Which they have.
What we’re seeing in the larger society, then, is a reaction against
tactics, followed by a reaction against those who use those the
tactics, followed by a reaction against those who benefit from the
tactics. Just as in the 1960s and 1970s we saw a reaction against the
hippies, then against those who were behind the hippies, then against
those who sided with them, then against anyone the newly-sane ex-hippies sided with.
The hippie movement, of course, atomized, and metastasized, into the
violence of the Weathermen — some might say the trail leads eventually
to Charles Manson (above). I have no doubt the same thing is going to happen on
the right, to the haties, and to all those who have stood behind them.
Once these people are no longer a legitimate part of the discourse,
they’re not all going to go away, get jobs, and pretend it was all a
bad trip. Some are going to freak out and do terrible things.
Just like the "Afghan Freedom Fighters" we supported in the 1980s
evolved, eventually, into Al Qaeda. The next wave of terrorism will
come from within, and it will come from what we now call the political
right.
Only instead of looking like ol’ Charlie up there, they’ll look more like this guy over here.
It’s not like this hasn’t already been happening for a while. Oklahoma City was barely more than 10 years ago. Ostensibly, McVeigh and Nichols were good family values Republicans . . .
It’s not like this hasn’t already been happening for a while. Oklahoma City was barely more than 10 years ago. Ostensibly, McVeigh and Nichols were good family values Republicans . . .
First you intrigue me with an article about the Telecom duopoly in a ZDnet blog and then you write about the current age being perceived historically as the second McCarthy era. Hmmm. I guess you have another subscriber to your blog. I have been using the McCarthy analogy for some time now. We have become the ugly Americans once again.
First you intrigue me with an article about the Telecom duopoly in a ZDnet blog and then you write about the current age being perceived historically as the second McCarthy era. Hmmm. I guess you have another subscriber to your blog. I have been using the McCarthy analogy for some time now. We have become the ugly Americans once again.
First you intrigue me with an article about the Telecom duopoly in a ZDnet blog and then you write about the current age being perceived historically as the second McCarthy era. Hmmm. I guess you have another subscriber to your blog. I have been using the McCarthy analogy for some time now. We have become the ugly Americans once again.
First you intrigue me with an article about the Telecom duopoly in a ZDnet blog and then you write about the current age being perceived historically as the second McCarthy era. Hmmm. I guess you have another subscriber to your blog. I have been using the McCarthy analogy for some time now. We have become the ugly Americans once again.
…okaaaaay.
On the one hand, of course, you’re quite right about the ‘second McCarthy era’, although I don’t know if I’m as optimistic as you are about how it will all end up. Seems to me the Democrats are conspicuously absent when it comes to actually changing all of the worst excesses of the Bush regime. (Illegal wiretaps, etc.)
On the other hand, you seem to have some serious unresolved issues where it comes to hippies. You’re clearly too young to have any real understanding of the movement from the inside, and that’s fine, but to say that they were the moral equivalent of today’s conservatives would be insulting if it weren’t so doggone silly. After all, on the one hand we have the conservatives, trying to force everyone to be exactly like them, threatening to kill everyone who gets out of line, and invading other countries for their oil. On the other hand, we have, um… some people who did some stuff that other people didn’t like, and preached peace, love, and understanding.
We all have our issues, I guess. However, seems to me what you’re doing is pissing off potential allies with that kind of talk. Or, worse, you don’t want any dirty ‘former’ hippies as allies. At which point it’s hard to avoid the whole ‘log in your own eye’ type of comment.
And the fact that you cite approvingly the idea that your parents hated the hippies, and in fact the idea that society as a whole reacted violently against a group of people who were, really, no threat to anyone but themselves, well, that doesn’t speak so well of you.
-fred
…okaaaaay.
On the one hand, of course, you’re quite right about the ‘second McCarthy era’, although I don’t know if I’m as optimistic as you are about how it will all end up. Seems to me the Democrats are conspicuously absent when it comes to actually changing all of the worst excesses of the Bush regime. (Illegal wiretaps, etc.)
On the other hand, you seem to have some serious unresolved issues where it comes to hippies. You’re clearly too young to have any real understanding of the movement from the inside, and that’s fine, but to say that they were the moral equivalent of today’s conservatives would be insulting if it weren’t so doggone silly. After all, on the one hand we have the conservatives, trying to force everyone to be exactly like them, threatening to kill everyone who gets out of line, and invading other countries for their oil. On the other hand, we have, um… some people who did some stuff that other people didn’t like, and preached peace, love, and understanding.
We all have our issues, I guess. However, seems to me what you’re doing is pissing off potential allies with that kind of talk. Or, worse, you don’t want any dirty ‘former’ hippies as allies. At which point it’s hard to avoid the whole ‘log in your own eye’ type of comment.
And the fact that you cite approvingly the idea that your parents hated the hippies, and in fact the idea that society as a whole reacted violently against a group of people who were, really, no threat to anyone but themselves, well, that doesn’t speak so well of you.
-fred