And So the Police State Starts - WI Republicans Show Their Fear of Smart People

Just a few hours ago, a good friend of mine posted this quote on Facebook:

"Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation’s troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen."
~Ayn Rand

Thanks, HM.

I responded that maybe in the case of the state of Wisconsin it was the public sector workers who were the scapegoat to the Tea Party and the far right of Republican party.

Dr. William Cronon

Then I found the following articles:

Did Wisconsin GOP target Scott Walker critic with “McCarthyite” tactics? By Greg Sargent (A Washington Post article from today)

Wisconsin’s Radical Break By William Cronon (The original New York Times Article)

I won't bore you by making you re-read these articles. Let me sum up. William Cronon is a professor at the University of Wisconsin - Madison. He wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times, Wisconsin's Radical Break. Later the same week, the Republican Party of Wisconsin, under the open records laws of Wisconsin sent an email requesting that Dr. Cronon's employer go thorough his emails looking for certain names and information.

This is the list of words they want information on:

"Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, AFSCME, WEAC, rally, union, Alberta Darling, Randy Hopper, Dan Kapanke, Rob Cowles, Scott Fitzgerald, Sheila Harsdorf, Luther Olsen, Glenn Grothman, Mary Lazich, Jeff Fitzgerald, Marty Beil, or Mary Bell." (1)

Dr. Cronon wrote in detail about and very openly about these events in

A Tactic I Hope Republicans Will Rethink:Using the Open Records Law to Intimidate Critics 

This is Dr.Cronon's first ever blog posting.

What happens now?

The first thing that will happen is that the Governor's office and the Republicans in the Legislature will deny any knowledge of this tactic. Not true. Not any more true than if the National Democratic Party did something similar to an enemy of Barack Obama and he said that he knew nothing.

 The next thing will be for the Republicans to defend their actions. Those actions are indefensible. There should be emails that contain all of this information: Dr. Cronon is a Professor of History and these are historical times.

What should happen? The Governor and the Legislature should renounce this act. Using these laws to violate the privacy of  a private citizen and an intellectual is disgusting. This law was designed to create transparency in the Government, not attack an individual citizen for his personal views.

Above I stated that I believe that the Republican Party is scapegoating public employees. They are also anti-intelligentsia. Conservative movements in the past and now tend to attack intellectuals first. De-fund schools, de-fund universities, and vilify educators in an effort to staunch knowledge based debate. 

For the record, not all Republicans or Conservatives or Tea Party members are not interested in intellectual debate.  However, when mob rules take over, all groups go to the lowest common denominator.

Confessions of a Tea Party Casualty

In an article in the January/February issue of Mother Jones, David Corn interviewed Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) about his interaction with the Tea Party base of the Republican Party. The article, Confessions of a Tea Party Casualty, appeared on Mother Jones blog in August of 2010.

Former Rep. Bob Inglis (R - SC)

Rep. Inglis is quoted as saying,

"They say, 'Bob, what don't you get? Barack Obama is a socialist, communist Marxist who wants to destroy the American economy so he can take over as dictator. Health care is part of that. And he wants to open up the Mexican border and turn [the US] into a Muslim nation.'"

Much of what they said to Rep. Inglis came from the rantings of Glen Beck whose spoutings have far less to do with reality than with some paranoid fantasy land of late night conspiracy theories and apocalyptic religious prophecies.

Rep. Inglis goes on to say that he believes that tea party "demagoguery" will ultimately undermine the credibility of the Republican Party. I think he is correct. Whenever a fringe group gets a hold of one of the parties in the US, the core of that party draws it back toward the center. I believe that most Americans are much closer to the center of the political spectrum than the edges.

Everyone can read the blog posting or better yet pick up a copy of Mother Jones magazine.

Here is my prediction for the short term future of the Republican party:

I wonder what animal the Tea Party will have.

• The Tea Party will continue to be a vocal subgroup in the party.
• The leaders of the party will get increasingly nervous about the extreme views of Tea Party members, particularly the conspiracy theory fringe. (More on that in a future posting.)
• The candidates that are put forth by the party in the next Presidential election will pander either right or centrist, attempting to capture which ever side seems more viable at the time.
• The Tea Party rightists will continue to smack talk the moderates in their own party.
• The party will split along political lines, with the leadership of the party trying to keep it all together to win the election.
• Barack Obama wins the election. (Witness the movement in 1992 then 1994 then 1996.  The right doesn't seem to remember that Americans don't like extremes.) So congratulations, Mr President, on the next four years. {Psst: And, Mr. President, don't forget what Napoleon Bonaparte [the last Frenchman to win a battle] said: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.}

The Far-flung Apple: Franklin Graham Pandering for Tea

Teaparty.org repeats an article from Newsmax.com that claims that the Obama administration is taking advice from the Muslim brotherhood.

"The Muslim Brotherhood, with the complicity of the Obama administration, has infiltrated the U.S. government at the highest levels and is influencing American policy that leaves the world’s Christians in grave danger, warns internationally known evangelist Franklin Graham"

Here's the problem. Rev. Graham does not supply a single fact. No names. No dates. Nothing but hot air and fear.

Unlike his father, who understood that Christ's real message was one of non-judgment and love, Graham the Younger spreads fear and hate for Muslim's. Then, without a single shred of evidence presented, he pretends to know what the Obama Administration is doing.

The articles goes on to quote a Vatican report that Christians are being persecuted in unprecedented number around the world. Would that have anything to do with the fact that every war the United States has gotten involved in the last 30 years has been portrayed as a crusade for a righteous "Christian" nation?

Interestingly, our founding father made it explicit that this is not a Christian country.

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, signed under President Washington, states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."(1)

It is time we remember what this nation was founded upon: absolute religious tolerance. The very 18th Century idea that all men are created equal. 

And a bit of simple truth: If you speak of a man as your enemy, your enemy he will become. And just because someone made a man a "Reverend" neither makes him wise nor moral.

Tea Party Patriots - Net Neutrality: Truth and Tea Bagging

In this article, Net Neutrality is Anything But Neutral, the Tea Party Patriots on their website, states that new FCC rules will "socialize" the Internet and be "the antithesis of capitalism."

"Equal Access: Equal access says that everyone should always have equal priorities to the flow of information on the internet.  Net neutrality would prevent them from doing so, and would essentially "socialize" the internet."

The article goes on:

"Equal Rates / Equal Service:  According to proponents, under net neutrality, everyone has to be charged the same, and provided the same services. This is the antithesis of capitalism..."

None of this is true. The actual rules would force broadband providers to provide transparency, no blocking of lawful content, and no discrimination of lawful traffic. 

Anyone who has purchased broadband knows that understanding what they are charging you for is impossible to understand. This is made more complicated by the fact that many of the companies use off shore customer service people who are hard to understand period.

Some websites, lawful websites, are already blocked. Christian Science Monitor points out that some providers are blocking Skype video phone. These rules would prevent your provider from doing that to you.

Not discriminating against lawful content is about the idea that providers might download their own content faster than other content. Image the idea that AT&T might download their video content more readily than Youtube.

There is nothing heinous in these rules. They restrict what companies do so that they can't restrict what you do. For Tea Party folks, consider the idea that most media outlets are owned by so-called "liberals." What will happen if they decide to block Tea Party content in deference to... I don't know... the Democratic party website? That's exactly what these rules prevent.

Joe the Plumber? Seriously? - Conservatives Need the Past to Survive the Future

I think that Conservatives have some valid points. There is something to be said for some ideas, like controlling the size and scope of government, protecting our borders and maintaining financial solvency. The ideas aren't bad; I part with them on execution.

Here's the problem that I see with the Neo-Con/Tea Party/Republican movement as it exists now: it has become an American Idol pageant of misfits and 15-minute media hounds.

So, who is the Tea Party getting its information from:

1. Glenn Beck - A recovering alcoholic, coke addict DJ who was pro-life until he found a new life at Fox. After converting to Mormonism, apparently Beck found out that God is running the show and he needs to be a decent person. No Osmond, he has not let that stop him from using profanity and mercilessly attacking people, including children. (Click here) He also peppers his shows with an apocalyptic prophecy ascribed to Joseph Smith. (reference)  The next time he says that the US Constitution is "hanging by a thread," look up the prophecy.
2. Sara Palin... former beauty queen, mayor of a large town in Alaska, former Governor of Alaska, reality TV star. OK, she's pretty. She was the mayor of Wasila, Alaska, the town with the Bridge to Nowhere. She declined the bridge, but not the money. As Governor of Alaska, she resigned. For all the accusations of nepotism, cronyism and other shenanigans, she resigned, despite having already being on the campaign trail with John McCain for a year or more. Her biography, Going Rogue , is named for a joke from SNL!
3. Joe the Plumber - Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher shot to fame after questioning then-candidate Obama about a small business tax for businesses making over $250,000 per year. Interestingly, he wasn't making $250,000! When asked by Diane Sawyer, he responded, "No, not even close." At the time, he was a plumber's assistant, not a business owner. Then he became a campaign issue. His political view suddenly becomes a touchstone for the New Right.
4. Mark Williams - Radio host and de facto Tea Party spokesman - Let him speak for himself. "Williams denounced those carrying blatantly racist signs against President Obama during the tea parties as "no more part of the mainstream of America than the hippies who wear nipple clips and feather boas in San Francisco streets during so-called peace demonstrations."* Really? What? Huh? 'Nuf said?
5. Rush Limbaugh- This one is harder. He is an entertainer, therefore not necessarily constrained by truth. That said, he has maintained his point of view for a very long time and his following is undeniable. A little more self-education of his listeners might help things, but at least he's not Mark Williams.

Conservatives who are needed to lend this new movement legitimacy:

1. Margaret Thatcher  - Although the PM of Britain, her philosophies had a huge influence here in the U.S.. Well thought out, articulate and applied with compromise and discretion, Maggie was a woman that no one messed with. She was respected around the world and left a lasting impression on those who grew up listening to her political views.
2. William F. Buckley, Jr. - Soft-spoken, polite and generally demure, his intellect was astounding. He was able to article Conservative philosophy while still sounding like a man off the set of Kathryn Hepburn film.
3. Ayn Rand - Not strictly a Conservative, she was a Capitalist who understood how wealthy and power could make the world a better place. Unfortunately, her ideas fall apart when humans touch them. Her novels in particular have influenced Conservatives since their publication.
4. Ronald Reagan - Father of the modern Conservative movement, the Tea Party doesn't actually listen to what he said and did. Instead, they listen to a myth of the man. Not without his foibles, he was a man of great compassion and vision. He was smart enough to hire the right people into the right places and leave them alone.
5. Barry Goldwater- Goldwater was a Constitutionalist. He wanted to the government to return to the original vision that had been laid out by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. Again, the ideals never really met up with the ideal. Kennedy's assassination destroyed any possibility of Goldwater being elected.

There are many on both lists that could be added, but if the Conservative movement expects to survive, it needs to look back to its roots. The danger of the cult of personality, on both ends of the political spectrum is that all of these people can talk, few can lead and fewer still can understand what they are doing and why.