House of Eratosthenes

For a guy who writes for a Blog That Nobody Reads, I seem to have gotten quite a few folks on the left upset about some of the things I’ve had to say, specifically with regard to eliminationism. Thank goodness for trackbacks, though; one poster in particular, one “Elf M. Sternberg,” has cobbled together an impressive essay about me but hasn’t taken the trouble to point me to it. I find that interesting. Well, it’s only six to nine hours old, maybe sometime tonight I’ll get an e-mail.

Freeberg’s article claims that it is the left which indulges in eliminationism, and not the Right. Freeberg’s one and only piece of evidence? That the Boy Scouts were required to obey the founding law of the land and were forbidden from taken public funds while those funds being are used to advance a religious point of view.

That’s it. Freeberg’s only evidence that “the left” wants to “eliminate the Right” is that Americans want Americans to obey the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Meanwhile, he neither disclaims the quotes Orcinus puts forward, disclaims their speakers, or attempts to show that they are in any way unusual. Freeberg embraces Rush Limbaugh even as Rush says, “I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus — living fossils — so we will never forget what these people stood for.”

Freeberg’s article, however, illustrates something deeper, and it’s something I don’t think Freeberg intended: eliminationism is a popular subject of the Right. It isn’t just that Ann Coulter wants to kill everyone not like her. Thinking about committing vengeful violence is only half the thrill. The other half, and this is the half Freeberg embraces, is being fearful of eliminationism. It’s something they think about a lot; it’s in their air and water, and it’s part of their mindset.

When right-wingers talk about “us vs. them,” when they talk about “slagging Iraq,” killing every last Muslim because not enough of them are “righteous” (whatever that means), they’re talking about a sense of pre-emptive defense. “We have to kill them there to prevent them from killing us here,” as the refrain went. There is no middle ground. There is no negotiating. There’s no humanity. There’s just Kill (thrilling!) or be Killed (thrilling!). The entire mindset of the Right could fit in a Steven Segal film.

And Freeberg is as blind, and as foolish, as any of the people Orcinus quotes. When Orcinus wants to make his point about how vicious the Right is, he quotes someone from the Right. When Freeberg wants to make a rhetorical response, he quotes… someone from the Right. Orcinus’ shows us what’s going on in the echo chamber. Freeberg is merely playing the role of minor echo. As a side note, it’s rather sad to see just how badly Karl Rove has ruined techniques of discourse and how Rovian the Right has become. Freeburg, presented with evidence about the Right’s vicious underbelly, immediately went for the Rovian instinct of attributing that viciousness to others, and portraying himself as the victim, rather than a member of the perpetrating tribe. He didn’t bother disclaiming it. He tried to power right past it, without giving you time to pull him back and say, “But, what about the evidence?”

I’ve arrived! Maybe before Labor Day I’ll be Keith Olbermann’s Worst Person in the World.

The thing about quotes is something I find particularly fascinating, even moreso than the inconsistent spelling of my surname by someone who clearly wants so desperately to be taken seriously. The thing about my empty list is also an item of interest. As anyone who clicks through and reads my original work knows, I did offer a list of examples, with the Boy Scouts being only one item on it. Writers have to assume at some point their readers are following along, and I must say I’m a little surprised to see someone denying that there are leftists who want certain people to go away. But I did offer the list. I chose to expound on the story of the Boy Scouts somewhat because the irony is so delicious. Supreme Court says a abortion is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment…well there ya go, don’t even question it, it’s the law of the land and if your opinion is different, you’re simply not entitled to it. Supreme Court says Boy Scouts have a right to apply membership restrictions — THAT DOESN’T COUNT! Grrrr!

Reasonable people, I think, would say once that refresher course is delivered, leftist eliminationism has been demonstrated to any extent that would be demanded by said reasonable people. It certainly exists — not on old television sitcoms from the 1970’s, like right-wing eliminationism, but in reality. Boy Scouts wouldn’t toe the line, and leftists went to work trying to…what’s the present-tense verb…eliminatiate them. Elf needs more examples? Why? But I did provide them.

So he wants responses to more of Orcinus’ quotes, is that it? What quotes? All the quotes I saw on Orcinus’ page, were personal anecdotes of his/hers…and resembling strongly, suspiciously in my mind, some pages I remember from To Kill A Mockingbird…or plainly humorous. Are those the quotes I’m supposed to address? Or are there others? Quotes like these?

But while eliminationism’s most startling historical example was provided by the Nazis, it also has a long and appalling history in the annals of American democracy. It was manifest in the genocidal wars against Native Americans, when “the only good Indian was a dead Indian”: in the many anti-immigrant campaigns waged by Nativists of many different stripes; in night-riding Ku Klux Klansmen, Jim Crow segregation, and the lynch mobs who murdered thousands of innocent blacks during the heyday of white supremacism; in the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II; in the continuing march of hate crimes that target various kinds of “undesirable” members of society for terrorization and exclusion; and in the lingering far-right “militias” and related hate groups who scapegoat minorities and immigrants, gays and lesbians, government officials, and liberals generally, making them the targets of both hateful rhetoric and actual violence.

One at a time…

…was provided by the Nazis…

Nazis are National Socialists. Those are liberals.

[Eliminationism] also has a long and appalling history in the annals of American democracy. It was manifest in the genocidal wars against Native Americans…

…started by President Andrew Jackson, democrat.

…anti-immigrant campaigns waged by Nativists of many different stripes…

…democrats.

…night-riding Ku Klux Klansmen, Jim Crow segregation, and the lynch mobs who murdered thousands of innocent blacks during the heyday of white supremacism…

…democrats.

…in the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II…

…by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, democrat. Ronald Reagan, a Republican, eventually issued a formal apology for this.

…in the continuing march of hate crimes that target various kinds of “undesirable” members of society for terrorization and exclusion…

Examples, please?

…and in the lingering far-right “militias” and related hate groups who scapegoat minorities and immigrants, gays and lesbians, government officials, and liberals generally, making them the targets of both hateful rhetoric and actual violence.

Ah. I think we have our answer is to why the left envisions a monopoly on this theme. Liberals say bad things about conservatives, and that’s free speech. Conservatives say something derogatory about liberals, and they’re trying to get rid of ’em. Michelle Malkin never gets death threats. That just doesn’t happen, because it makes the left-wingers feel good to pretend it doesn’t happen.

Another point of interest for me here: Why do leftists link to things, and then tell other leftists (inaccurately) what exists behind the link? Do the other leftists put up with this? If so, why? Does this save carbon emissions somehow?

I can’t help noticing this pattern where when the right provides examples of left-wing eliminationism, the examples of left-wing eliminationism exist in reality, e.g., Boy Scouts, the Fairness Doctrine, letters from Howard Dean; when the left provides examples of right-wing eliminationism, those examples exist in fiction. They’re jokes used by Ann Coulter, or they’re All In The Family re-runs. Quoting Skip Mendler, commenter #8, on the original post over at Cassy’s place:

Reminds me of that Star Trek episode where the Enterprise crew and a bunch of Klingons find themselves stuck on a ship, unable to escape, and armed with nothing but swords – and the ability to resuscitate after being killed. Turned out that their fighting was being staged by an alien race that fed off of their hatred.

But having said that, I do think that a semantic analysis of, say, Hannity/Savage/Coulter/Limbaugh vs. – oh, let’s see, what would be a fair comparison to those folks? Al Franken? Ted Rall? Mark Morford? Whoever – short of some hardcore Stalinist talking about lining up the bosses against the wall, I don’t think you’d find as much violent imagery/fantasy in liberal writings and commentary. Remember, we’re the namby-pamby Kumbaya folks who want to get along with everybody, right? (And who get ridiculed for that kind of attitude, I might add.)

Ridicule is not eliminationism. And Star Trek is a science fiction television show.

I’d really like to know what conservatives want to eliminatialize liberals. Among the conservatives I know, the closest thing I know of is some kind of test to be placed on voting. Like, if you think an equitable distribution of wealth is an obligation of the government created by the Constitution, you shouldn’t be voting. And of course if you’re an illegal alien you shouldn’t be voting…the law says that anyway. Is that eliminationism? Perhaps that’s how the folks on the left see it; hey, if we can’t draft illegal aliens and dead people to vote for our side, our guys are gonna lose, and that’s eliminationism.

I’ve heard of some serious proposals to curtail free speech at various levels of government. None of these have been aimed at liberals. Yes, conservatives make lots of jokes about liberals. Liberals make lots of jokes about conservatives. When they do, conservatives understand the difference between joke and reality. Liberals, on the other hand, are so intent on finding the next hunk of inspiration for their next token outrage, that reality is whatever they choose to make it. Meanwhile, the dividing line between dark humor and serious intent, similarly, suffers. Why does Howard Dean want to recruit me to this drive to win elections? Why won’t he talk about what comes after the “win”? Was President Clinton just kidding when he linked the Oklahoma City bombing to right-wing talk radio? Is the Fairness Doctrine just a big joke?

But in the end, I’m pretty well convinced I’m not going to see eliminationism on the right, the way we see it on the left. The left, in this day and age, is all about believing your worthiness as a human being or lack thereof is derived from what you are: white, black, male, female, rich, poor. The right, on the other hand, takes worthiness as a derivative of what you do. You can be born poor, start a business, and end up with a zillion bucks. But when you kill that little old lady for $45 in her purse, don’t claim it was a wrinkle in your brain that made you do it, because it was all free will, pal.

So why would the right want to eliminatinize anybody, save for those who were found guilty of eliminating others? With that mindset in place, and I happen to agree with it, what would be the point? This is a classic case of psychological projection.

But the left has demonstrated their open-mindedness once again. If indeed there is some “Rashomon” syndrome going on with eliminationism, in which each side has a different perspective on what’s going on, the left refuses to see it. It’s like real estate. They discovered it, they bought it, they own it, and they won’t even consider the idea that someone else might have a different take on it. Meanwhile, all their examples exist in fiction, and all the ones I provided exist in reality. Those two are different.

Maybe I should take down the link to this post, and send a courtesy e-mail to Elf.

Ah, no, screw him. He didn’t do the same for me.

Oh goodness, I’m afraid I’m guilty of eliminationism. Perhaps a good liberal will happen by and offer his opinion on this, since I know nobody else’s opinion counts!

Update 8/3/08: Just noticed something about the “chilling catalog of quotes“, as in, from right-wingers wishing aloud wistfully that the left-wingers would be killed, slaughtered wholesale, or carted away:

A remarkable proportion of them, perhaps a majority, have to do with passivity. Not so much sniping the liberals or whacking away at them, but failing to protect them as a third party does its damage.

Bill O’Reilly: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I’m not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I’m the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, “Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you’re not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

Now, this deserves a comment, since there are so many other “chilling quotes” just like this one. Failure to protect is “eliminationism.”

What a bumbling moron Bill O’Reilly is when it comes to practicing eliminationism. His argument boils down to this: Berkeley’s policy is unacceptable, because carried to its logical conclusion it leaves Berkeley unprotected. But Orcinus defined eliminationism as a tactic in discourse that involves the elimination of an ideological opponent, or a desire for that elimination. Bill O’Reilly, here, is opining that an idea becomes unacceptable if it leaves Berkeley, with which O’Reilly disagrees, without a defense. For it to work, then, you have to presume (as O’Reilly evidently does) that Berkeley must be defended. He messed up! Someone needs to talk to O’Reilly about proper eliminationist rhetoric.

Starting to see what’s going on here? A big bad boogeyman comes after your wife and kids, you pull a gun on the boogeyman…the liberal says oh no, don’t do that. Guns are bad. Call 911, and if the cops don’t show up in time well that’s just too damn bad. Same boogeyman comes after the liberal — and that’s different, you have to defend the liberal with that bad bad gun or else you’re eliminationalizing the liberal. And if you say a few words about why you don’t want to defend the liberal you’re going into the spooky quote file.

I imagine the next liberal who wants to passionately insert himself into this issue is going to call on me to build my own quote file of liberals indulging in eliminationism. I have to say, at this point I’m not entirely clear on the standards for what is to be included and what is not. Each and every time a liberal says we need to be more concerned about global warming than about terrorism — is that eliminationism? Because if it isn’t, this must be yet another example of two different sets of rules for liberals and non-liberals — it’s obvious at this point that the “Orcinus standard” sees eliminationism anytime there’s a failure to protect, or the expression of mere reluctance to protect.

Twenty-first century American liberalism in a nutshell: That which builds or preserves must, at all costs, be destroyed; that which destroys must, at all costs, be preserved.

Update: You know who said this so much better than me, was snippy, a commenter at an Oregon lefty-hippy’s blog, said lefty-hippy having the same take on things as this Elf dude.

To Jay: While I’m sure my conservative friends can point out counterexamples, the left generally doesn’t talk or think this way, dude, that’s confirmation bias right there. You’re soaking in it. You’ve just announced that there’s no amount of data that will change your mind…

I think that’s what the issue is all about. Elf and Jay say I’ve left an obligation unmet because I haven’t blossomed forward with a big long list of stories like this one, about the anti-war lawyer vandalizing the U.S. Marine’s car right before his deployment. With confirmation bias wafting in the air so strongly, what is the point of such a list? How long should it be? Fifty cases? Five hundred? Why?

The issue is goals. It is principles. Leftists are utopianists, and utopianists want to get rid of things that don’t fit in the perfect society. Conservatives not being utopianists, everything these leftists have managed to find on their right-wing eliminationist lists, falls into the following:

1. Humor;
2. Nostalgia for the days when sedition was treated like sedition.

Speaking for those who long for the bygone days when there was a punishment for sedition, I think I can summarize it here for whoever might need me to do so…in which case, it’s probably pointless, but anyway.

The argument is one of cause and effect, not utopianism. We do have, of course, the option of continuing to allow sedition to go unpunished. But if we do, then there is the possibility that the republic cannot survive.

I suppose some leftists consider that an entire discussion not worth having, since we don’t want any eliminationism going on. But I hope they don’t proceed from there, to telling me how open-minded they are.

I would think the reason for the “sum up” the left uses should be clear. For those at War, the Hun is ever at the door. The Left is filled with caring, loving people. Just as them. But no quarter will be given to those who are not human. Fetuses, uncle toms, republicans, The Others. Look up some of the propaganda used against the Germans in WWI. Similarly crude, and much more vicious then anything said against them in WWII. You don’t have to tell lies when you are fighting real monsters….
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 08/03/2008 @ 02:05
They seem to want everything done their way. This lack of willingness to prioritize, I dunno. I find it really disturbing.

Like if you walked up to a liberal and said “CHOICE! Pres. Bush stops acting like a cowboy but he invades Iraq, and according to you folks gets 4,000 troops killed. Or, we go back in time, spare the lives of those 4,000 troops, but Bush continues to smirk and swagger.” I get the feeling a lot of them wouldn’t be able to choose. Big issues, little issues, all that counts is that things are done their way.

And nothing is less important than that fifty-second percentage point of support. As I wrote previously: Fifty-one percent victory, ninety-something victory, they couldn’t care less which it is. They just want to win. That seems like virtual eliminationism, to me.
- mkfreeberg | 08/03/2008 @ 02:35
Conservatives think progressives are misguided.

Progressives think conservatives are evil.

It’s that simple.
- philmon | 08/03/2008 @ 21:45

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Elimination Re-Explored: They Own ItSunday, August 3rd, 2008

Elimination Re-Explored: They Own It
Sunday, August 3rd, 2008