by hilzoy
If we keep on repeating the phrase "the angry left, the angry left", maybe we won't notice things like this:
"On his radio show, Savage told listeners that "intelligent people, wealthy people ... are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, 'Oh, there's a billion of them.' " Savage continued: "I said, 'So, kill 100 million of them, then there'd be 900 million of them.' I mean ... would you rather us die than them?" Savage added: "Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you're going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later.""
The point of this is not to pull one nutcase out of some dark corner and proclaim: "Lo! It's conservatism!" Michael Savage is one of the most popular talk radio hosts in the US. His program is syndicated on 350 radio stations, reaching over eight million listeners. He's not, in other words, the right's answer to Ward Churchill: someone no one had ever heard of until liberals started inveighing against him. If 'mainstream conservatism' means 'popular with enough conservatives that you can't call him a member of a 'fringe' with a straight face', then he, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh are mainstream conservatives.
Just remember, though: it's liberals who have problems with anger these days.
Yup, Savage is definitely on the angry right.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | April 19, 2006 at 02:38 PM
"If 'mainstream conservatism' means 'popular with enough conservatives that you can't call him a member of a 'fringe' with a straight face', then he, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh are mainstream conservatives."
Funny, someone else from the kitten just today made that very argument. Who says we're not an echo chanber?
Posted by: Dantheman | April 19, 2006 at 02:49 PM
You know, if these people want people destroyed, they should do the deed themselves, not just incite it done. I say give him a nuke and a B-52 and see what he can do.
Posted by: Jimbo | April 19, 2006 at 02:50 PM
I don't think we should worry about people spreading an "angry left" phrase. I also don't think that those of us in the middle or left should try to deny or minimize the phrase--to do so puts us on the defensive. Instead the response should be, "Yes, we're angry, and if you aren't, you must not be paying attention."
People like Savage aren't angry. I can't quite come up with a one word definition for them. Something about being primitive, respresenting the worst in human intinctive behavior, regression to our territorial pack-hunter ancestry etc.
Posted by: lily | April 19, 2006 at 03:00 PM
I can't quite come up with a one word definition for them.
"Rabid" works for me.
Posted by: Tim | April 19, 2006 at 03:06 PM
"I say give him a nuke and a B-52 and see what he can do."
Well, O.K., now Washington D.C. and the Federal Government are dust with a very long half-life. Then Savage would ask for another nuke to take out his second-place enemy: all Muslims.
Give ME a nuke and a B-52. Show me where Savage is. Maybe he's having dinner with Limbaugh, Norquist, Coulter, Boortz, and Delay.
Have the waiter bring them each a pair of Depends.
Then ... Kaboom.
Posted by: John Thullen | April 19, 2006 at 03:08 PM
The word?:
Demagogue.
Add "rabid" to it if you like.
Posted by: John Thullen | April 19, 2006 at 03:10 PM
And spittle-flecking.
Posted by: spartikus | April 19, 2006 at 03:26 PM
One word?
Wealthy.
Posted by: xanax | April 19, 2006 at 03:35 PM
"Rabble-rouser" ?
Posted by: cleek | April 19, 2006 at 03:47 PM
hilzoy: "it's liberals who have problems with anger these days."
I know you are trying to point out that liberals aren't the only ones with anger problems. But I really don't think liberals have a problem with anger.
Many of them are angry, including myself, but that isn't a problem. It is what we are angry about that is the problem.
As lily points out, there is no reason to be ashamed of being called "the angry left."
Just like when Poppy Bush campaigned talking about the "l" word. I never understood why democrats didn't come out and say that yes they were liberals and darn proud of it, and then explained why.
And yes, I am angry, although I don't go around calling those on the right traitors and advocating killing whole groups of them. That is not anger, that is hatefulness.
Posted by: john miller | April 19, 2006 at 04:00 PM
John: true enough.
Posted by: hilzoy | April 19, 2006 at 04:01 PM
What are they?
Hutu.
What do they do?
Hutu trash talk. Very organized and coordinated. At the behest of a governing power. To galvanize anger into a malleable force. Against an enemy. An internal enemy.
Who would that be?
Liberals, the culture, the U.S. Federal Government outside the walls of the Pentagon, taxes. Did I say taxes? Muslims?
When it is convenient.
To what end?
We don't know the punch line yet. Well, I don't.
McManus might.
Posted by: John Thullen | April 19, 2006 at 04:01 PM
Actually, I was listening to Savage the other day (lots of conservative talk radio to listen to here in OK) and musing about how he has been attacking Bush based on the same hysteria that Bush has cultivated when it occured to me: This is the "Hysterical Right".
The problem with hysterical people is that they can't really be reasoned with. They see all issues through an intensely focused and very distorted lens. So when your actions seem funny when translated through their lens, they turn on you in a heartbeat. This is why one ought not cultivate hysteria. It is good leverage for a while, but ultimately it undermines any type of non-hysterical policy on anything and everything.
Posted by: socratic_me | April 19, 2006 at 04:08 PM
"Give ME a nuke and a B-52. Show me where Savage is. Maybe he's having dinner with Limbaugh, Norquist, Coulter, Boortz, and Delay."
The funny thing is that that is funny....
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | April 19, 2006 at 04:20 PM
But when Mark Steyn proposes about the same thing as does Savage, we're supposed to take him seriously (or else so-called libertarian law profs get all snivelly at you).
Posted by: Anderson | April 19, 2006 at 04:26 PM
Anderson,
Given the same law professor vociferously argued there was no such thing as a Constitution-in-exile movement while simultaneously promoting his book entitled Restoring the Lost Constitution, I take his pronouncements as being of very little value.
Posted by: Dantheman | April 19, 2006 at 05:02 PM
It's amusing how many conservatives will maintain that Rush is just an entertainer and no one takes him seriously, etc., when the Vice-President of the United States makes regular appearances on his program. Just the other day he had Rumsfeld on.
Posted by: Steve | April 19, 2006 at 05:04 PM
It's amusing how many conservatives will maintain that Rush is just an entertainer and no one takes him seriously, etc...
Ha! I just totally misread that as "Bush"...
Posted by: Anarch | April 19, 2006 at 05:14 PM
It's amusing how many conservatives will maintain that Rush is just an entertainer and no one takes him seriously, etc..
if you've been marinated in Republicanism your whole life, Rush probably would seem like mere entertainment. he probably sounds like he's just stating the obvious when he says 'librilz hate A-Merica!", if you already believe that.
Posted by: cleek | April 19, 2006 at 05:15 PM
Given the same law professor vociferously argued there was no such thing as a Constitution-in-exile movement while simultaneously promoting his book entitled Restoring the Lost Constitution, I take his pronouncements as being of very little value.
But he didn't use those exact words. It only counts if you use the magic words!
Posted by: Anderson | April 19, 2006 at 05:46 PM
Y'all realize that the angst about anger is really a dead giveaway for being a liberal. 'I'm not angry, I'm being objective, damnit!!' When I see demagogues on the Right get angry, they never really seem to be concerned about objectivity.
Posted by: liberaljaponicus | April 19, 2006 at 06:47 PM
In an unfortunate way, it might be useful to have "Angry Lefties" or, if you are from Euston, the "indecent left". The volubality of the lunatic fringe may have served to make what would previously seemed to be marginal ideas less extreme. Torture? Well hey, we aren't killing em all and letting god sort em out...etc.
Or it might just lead us to Goldstein's second civil war...
Posted by: Pooh | April 19, 2006 at 07:11 PM
John, the Hutu v. Tutsi hatred ran considerably deeper, longer, than any of the hatreds the American Right is inflaming.
The American Right's hatreds more closely resemble a drug jones: a habituation-tolerance cycle requiring higher doses to reach the desired state of euphoric rage. The higher doses take the form of escalating threats against a wider range of targets.
I don't know how likely a Kristalnacht actually is. The thugs who chased election officials through the streets in Florida, who gathered outside the Vice President's mansion in to howl at Al Gore, and who tried to precipitate a riot outside Terri Schiavo's nursing home, certainly show a real potential for targeted mob violence.
However, in all but one case, SFAIK, no law enforcement presence dissuaded the rioters/attackers. The one case in which law enforcement did take a stand (outside the Schiavo nursing home) resulted in the would-be rioters backing down - granted, because Jeb Bush did; I don't know what would have happened if he'd urged the mob onward.
For a Kristallnacht to be our future would require a completely co-opted police force and military - or such overwhelming numbers of thugs that law enforcement doesn't go near the scene at all. I don't, currently, see that as a possibility.
That's "currently," mind you. We have three more years of Bush's incompetence, corruption, and criminal negligence still to endure.
A war with Iran that goes badly, an economic wobble caused by $100+/barrel oil, another few hurricane-devastated cities left to drown and rot, a flu epidemic that's anything like the one in 1918 and, above all, another terrorist attack on US soil... any combination of those events, and the use that Bush and the Right will make of them, changes the scenario considerably.
Posted by: CaseyL | April 19, 2006 at 07:56 PM
All these rabid right talkers have figured out how to make a lot of bread by appealing to the worst instincts of fearful listeners. They don't believe it themselves. They would switch over to the liberal arguments if that made more money. Their present audience is easier to jive.
Posted by: Gray Lensman | April 19, 2006 at 08:00 PM
Is the "angry left" meme even alive anymore? Seriously?
Posted by: Alexander Wolfe | April 19, 2006 at 08:21 PM
Is the "angry left" meme even alive anymore? Seriously?
In the same way that any other meme useful to the administration seems to rise from the grave to wander through a shopping mall in Ohio...
Posted by: Pooh | April 19, 2006 at 08:35 PM
Hey, what is it about Ohio?
According to the news, of the last five PowerBall Lotto winners, four were in Ohio. Even if Ohioans are buying tickets at some insanely higher ratio than any other state's residents, that shouldn't make any difference in the odds of winning, should it?
Maybe Diebold runs the PowerBall drawings :)
Posted by: CaseyL | April 19, 2006 at 09:33 PM
Even if Ohioans are buying tickets at some insanely higher ratio than any other state's residents, that shouldn't make any difference in the odds of winning, should it?
every ticket bought by any group raises the odds for that group winning (assuming they pick different numbers, randomly) by a very small amount.
maybe i'm worng - i've always hated probability.
Posted by: cleek | April 19, 2006 at 09:46 PM
The left has many problems these days, if you want to add angry to that list... well OK.
/snark
If you want to tar conservatives with the slime of one wacko, you might want to chose someone that conservatives actually embrace. Nebulas statistics such as 8 million listeners doesnt cut it outside the echo chambers. After all, just because I listen to Air America doesnt mean I embrace their POV.
Posted by: bains | April 19, 2006 at 10:12 PM
bains, what criteria do you suggest we use to determine popularity besides, uh, popularity?
Posted by: heet | April 19, 2006 at 10:32 PM
Ok, I'll bite...you're kidding, right bains?
Posted by: Pooh | April 19, 2006 at 10:34 PM
f you want to tar conservatives with the slime of one wacko, you might want to chose someone that conservatives actually embrace.
But there are so many... it's hard to choose a favorite.
Posted by: Catsy | April 19, 2006 at 10:35 PM
four were in Ohio.
For a lot of Ohioans, the Lotto is the only viable retirement plan left.
Posted by: cw | April 19, 2006 at 10:39 PM
popularity, more accurately listenership, is one thing, but that's not what Hilzoy was impling.
e.g. Conservatives are angry because Michael Savage is angry (I'd argue that he's beyond angry), and he must be representitive of conservatives because he has 8 million listeners.
If you accept painting by such broad brushes, then you've no standing to complain when you are similarly painted into a corner - say painted as the angry left.
Posted by: bains | April 19, 2006 at 10:49 PM
I guess the logical question is "Why do 8 million people listen to Savage if they don't agree with what he says?"
Posted by: CaseyL | April 19, 2006 at 11:02 PM
bains: actually, I don't think he's representative of conservatives. I do think that if you're looking for someone who is representative of the right or the left, Michael Savage is more representative of the right than Mary Scott O'Connor is of the left. But that's just comparative: I would never say that Savage somehow represented, say, Sebastian.
Posted by: hilzoy | April 19, 2006 at 11:07 PM
You are totally blind, hilzoy. Michael Moore sat next to Pres Jimmy Carter at the 2004 Democratic Convention, for crimenintly.
And where were Savage and Coulter at the Republican Convention?
Sheesh.
Posted by: DaveC | April 20, 2006 at 01:54 AM
I'm trying to remember which public figures Michael Moore advocated killing again. DaveC, could you help me out here?
Posted by: spartikus | April 20, 2006 at 02:07 AM
And when did Michael Moore call for the killing of 100 million people? Or suggest the only way to reason with conservatives is with a baseball bat? Or wonder why the Washington Times wasn't blown up along with the Pentagon on 9/11?
Sure, there are "angry" partisans on both sides. There may even be an "even number" of "angry partisans". But it's a false equivalency to say that the rhetoric from the partisan media figures is equally violent. Read Dave Neiwart's Orcinus. Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, and Malkin's eliminationist rhetoric is absolutely worse in tone, effect and frequency than anything coming from Michael Moore, Al Franken or Randi Rhodes.
Posted by: jcricket | April 20, 2006 at 02:08 AM
I think you are in the category of folks who wonder "how could a conservative / Republican get elected, nobody I know voted for them"
My wife and kids and in-laws all theoretically hate conservatives and Republicans even though I support Pres Bush.
But here I am.
I vote at least 35% Democrat, because I live in Illinois. But I have kids, am married, care about national security, is it so awful that I would choose to vote for the candidate that best addresses my concerns?
Gary often complains that I make these blanket statements, but that's a pretty broad brush you've got going there.
Posted by: DaveC | April 20, 2006 at 02:12 AM
Oh, and the audience for the "angry right" is far larger than the audience for the angry left. Not to suggest this means all conservatives are represented by Limbaugh/Coulter listeners. But the popularity (10s of millions voluntarily listening, also pushed on VOA radio), coupled with their obvious access to influential Republican figures (like Rumsfeld and Cheneye) shows that right-wing talk-radio is an influential force in the Republican party.
The best the right can come up with is commentators on Kos, or some obscure professor. On the left all we have to do is turn on Fox news or the radio. Hell, even people like Michael Medved come close to regularly calling for the death of liberals (or saying it wouldn't be bad if they did die because they're immoral).
There's a difference.
Posted by: jcricket | April 20, 2006 at 02:14 AM
Here is the MM Michael Moore link
Excerpt:
They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.
So that's what liberals and Democrats stand for? They invited this guy to be a honored guest of an ex-President?
Is it because he's an Academy Award winner? Do you think Oliver Stone correct about evrything too?
Posted by: DaveC | April 20, 2006 at 02:37 AM
Hell, even people like Michael Medved come close to regularly calling for the death of liberals (or saying it wouldn't be bad if they did die because they're immoral).
I gave you the quote and the link from Michael Moore , be so kind to do the same for me from Michael Medved.
You are blind. When I get back from my Mamaw's funeral, I will post a list of 2004 Sixty Minutes shows with links that were anti-Bush, and talk about that. Zinni is not a 2006 phenom. He was on the 60 minutes line-up with Moore, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, yes Zinni, and on and on, probably half the weeks of that year had anti-Bush shows.
But you guys think that your views are "suppressed"? Give me a break - Note: Zinni, election year, big headlines, etc.
Draw your own conclusions
Posted by: DaveC | April 20, 2006 at 03:02 AM
"They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."
This is a predictive statement. In context, it was meant as a condemnation of certain aspects of the prosecution of the war effort. He was telling President George that he had misjudged his war task in many of the same ways King George had misjudged his war task.
On the other hand, "Savage added: 'Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you're going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later.'"
While in some ways this has a foot in the realm of descriptive logic Moore uses, the emphasis on the choice between self- and other-destruction means a stance closer to the pulling of triggers.
Moore says "they"; Savage says "you" & "they".
To me, there's a difference.
Posted by: Lollius | April 20, 2006 at 03:24 AM
But I have kids, am married, care about national security, is it so awful that I would choose to vote for the candidate that best addresses my concerns?
If you voted for Bush, you didn't.
Posted by: Anarch | April 20, 2006 at 03:41 AM
Gary challenged me to link to Michael Yon, Micheal Totton and ITM. (Yon and ITM are worried.) I don't have a heckuva lot of time for analysis, but these seem like pretty important posts:
">http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/of-words.htm"> Michael Yon
Michael Totten
Iraq The Model
My sincere codolences to Mohammed and his family.
I'll buy in to this
How about you?
Posted by: DaveC | April 20, 2006 at 03:41 AM
But you guys think that your views are "suppressed"?
Uh - no. That's not the topic here.
The topic is whether the characterization of the left as angry is accurate, in comparison to the right.
Until you start producing quotes of popular left figures calling for/celebrating in the death of members of the right, producing signs that 60 minutes has an "anti-bush" bias doesn't actually seem relevant to the topic.
The quote you use from Michael Moore is a criticism of the language used by the Bush administration. He is arguing that describing iraqis resisting our occupation of their country as "terrorists" or "the enemy" is a deliberate twisting of the language. Whether you disagree with him or not, to compare the anger of Moore's statement with the anger of someone proposing the nuclear annihilation of Muslims boggles the mind.
Posted by: Shinobi | April 20, 2006 at 04:30 AM
DaveC: I vote at least 35% Democrat, because I live in Illinois. But I have kids, am married, care about national security, is it so awful that I would choose to vote for the candidate that best addresses my concerns?
No, not at all. But since you vote for the candidate who doesn't "best address your concerns", why ask? You have kids, so you vote for the party that wants your kids uneducated and poor: you're married, so you vote for the party that wants to pass a Constitutional amendment against marriage: you care about national security, so you vote for the party that puts profit ahead of national security. This isn't awful, it's just kinda weird. People do it all the time.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | April 20, 2006 at 05:48 AM
How about "opportunistic"? I've listened to Paul Savage, so I may in fact count among his 8 million listeners. Paul doesn't have much to say that I agree with; he's more the radio equivalent of Jerry Springer(12 million viewers, once upon a time). Or: his show holds the helpless fascination of an accident on the freeway. You don't want to look, but you can't help yourself. He's the World Wrestling Federation of radio.
I don't criticise him because there's very litte he says that's unworthy of criticism. Usually you'd like to sort of nudge people back on the path of correctness via criticism, but correctness isn't even on the same map as Michael. I mean, this is a guy who (apparently earnestly) makes frequent references to "the gay mafia".
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 20, 2006 at 08:04 AM
I mean, this is a guy who (apparently earnestly) makes frequent references to "the gay mafia".
Proving that he knows nothing about the gay mafia, because if he did, he'd know better than to talk.
Did anyone see my copy of the gay agenda? I dropped it somewhere.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | April 20, 2006 at 09:08 AM
I will post a list of 2004 Sixty Minutes shows with links that were anti-Bush, and talk about that. Zinni is not a 2006 phenom. He was on the 60 minutes line-up with Moore, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, yes Zinni, and on and on, probably half the weeks of that year had anti-Bush shows.
could you post some links where Dan Rather or Morley Safer says "We need to execute people like McVeigh in order to physically intimidate conservatives, by making them realize that they can be killed, too" ? at least that would be relevant.
Posted by: cleek | April 20, 2006 at 09:24 AM
The first rule of the gay mafia is you don't talk about the gay mafia.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 20, 2006 at 09:49 AM
One of the things I admire about some people on the right is their persistant belief that anybody who criticizes Bush or things this administration has done represents an "Anti-Bush" faction.
It does not matter if the statements by those people have the facts behind them. What matters is that they have dared to bring up something that is critical.
If DaveC wants to present an anti-Bush bias, then it is incumbent upon him to show that what was presented was not based in fact.
Oh, and Slarti, you may be able to realize that Savage rarely is in contact with reality, but my guess is that a large segment of his audience does not. There are people who believe everything they read in the tabloids like the National Enquirer.
In fact, the two sets of people may be identical.
Posted by: john miller | April 20, 2006 at 10:02 AM
Completely agree. Just as, for instance, there are people who believe that the people one sees starring in the WWF Smackdown du jour are just like that in real life. Or, worse, that what they're seeing IS real life.
People whose lives are screwed up probably watch Jerry Springer for the misery-loves-company effect, though, or (probably more prevalently) the life-is-good-because-others-have-it-so-much-worse effect.
Another strong effect could be the outrage-addicts. Some watch him because they're outraged that he could be so damned mean, while others watch him because they enjoy being inflamed by him. A liberal smearing of Preparation H could take the latter out of the picture, maybe.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 20, 2006 at 10:11 AM
BTW, completely OT, the occasionally brilliant Pearls Before Swine is occasionally brilliant today.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 20, 2006 at 10:14 AM
Slarti,
What is your opinion on how Get Fuzzy is coordinating with Pearls before Swine this week by copying PbS's comic and then adding GF's characters to it?
Posted by: Dantheman | April 20, 2006 at 10:52 AM
And where were Savage and Coulter at the Republican Convention?
Coulter has been an honored and popular guest at conservative gatherings. And Limbaugh, an equally vile figure, has a huge daily audience and is clearly a major spokesman for the Republican Party Are you suggesting hs audience doesn't, by and large, agree with him?
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | April 20, 2006 at 11:05 AM
Savage is to conservative thought what International ANSWER is to liberal thought: The Lunatic Fringe. Savage regularly bashes Republicans. He does not represent the mainstream of conservatism and is widely reject by the mainstream. Just as I would not expect you to justify the Stalinst ravings of International ANSWER, don't ask mainstream conservatives to justify the ravings of that ape Michael Savage.
Posted by: Bill | April 20, 2006 at 11:18 AM
DaveC - You keep changing the subject to avoid discussing the issue at hand. As others have pointed out, I wasn't discussing whether or not the left's views are supressed. I also wasn't disputing the existence of the angry left. I'm not even going to dispute that there are probably some on the far left who actually sympathize (not just understand, but sympathize) with terrorists.
But you have utterly failed to show that the rhetoric from public, prominent Democratic partisans is as heated, eliminationist and violent coming from the left. Try this post for an example of the unhinged right.
The popular media figures on the left are, at most, calling for Bush's impeachment and Rumsfeld's resignation. They're not saying conservatives need to be shipped to Gitmo for re-education. Or that conservatives need to be physically intimidated so they "know they can be killed". Or that Oklahoma should be bombed because it voted for Bush. And we don't regularly go around calling conservatives traitors, treasonous, and calling for them to be tried for sedition.
You also seem oddly fixated on Conventions, as if Limbaugh not being there makes him a fringe figure, despite Cheney and Rumsfeld appearing on his show regularly. What about Coulter's paid (and cheered) appearance at a recent RNC event?
Despite the fact that I think Bush & Cheney's actions re: warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention represent a completely extra-legal gutting of the constitution, I wouldn't call either of them a traitor. Horribly misguided, yes. Deserving of impeachment, scorn and anger? Yes.
Even people like Coulter I don't want murdered. I have no respect for her opinions, and little respect for her as a person given her sustained attacks on liberals. I might even "hate her", but I don't think she needs relatives to be blown up by an IED-wielding terrorist to be "taught a lesson".
So Dave. How about it? Come back with prominent Democratic media figures calling "with glee" for the death and destruction of your favorite conservatives or conservative cities and we'll talk.
Posted by: jcricket | April 20, 2006 at 11:21 AM
Savage is to conservative thought what International ANSWER is to liberal thought
where can i find the multi-million-listener ANSWER radio show ? has ANSWER ever hosted a talk show on MSNBC ?
Posted by: cleek | April 20, 2006 at 11:29 AM
Here is another point of view. If it isn't the angry left, it may be the looney left.
http://maxine-log.blogspot.com/2006/04/looney-left-rant-vs-one-long-sustained_17.html
Muslim fascistic fear and hatred has to be stopped and this is not a situation we find ourselves can not be nuanced. Reasonable people do not take passenger planes and fly them into skyscrapers.
Posted by: ecj-MAXINE | April 20, 2006 at 11:34 AM
According to International ANSWER's web site it was formed on September 14, 2001. Had anyone heard of them until the protests just prior to the invasion of Iraq? I had not.
I marched in San Francisco and what struck me was the wide variety of attendees ... families with babies in strollers, veterans in uniform, to me it seemed like mostly ordinary people. Sure, there were some with other agendas (I particularly remember anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian protesters) but they were way outnumbered.
My presence at the march in no way indicates support for International ANSWER as an organization or agreement with its stated positions on any other issues. So, I grant that Michael Savage or Ann Coulter do not speak for all conservatives, and certainly not for those we meet here.
However, I have to insist that there is a big difference. Even in the '60s the strident voices on the left were more bark than bite, even more so today. The extreme left has never held real power in the United States. On the right it's a different story.
Posted by: ral | April 20, 2006 at 11:40 AM
Most of the millions who listen to Savage do so for the same reason that people slow down to look at a car wreck. To suggest that all his listeners endorse his ravings is just silly. A tiny fraction do, the rest just like a good insane tirade.
Posted by: Bill | April 20, 2006 at 11:40 AM
I love irony. Savage isn't angry, at least not in this piece. Yet our intolerant host mislabels calm self-preservation as hatred and the usual suspects chime in with the usual lexicon of instinctive, self-reinforcing attacks. Much back-slapping ensues.
Like a collective personality disorder, the hard Left runs almost entirely on images and appearances. Like unruly children, the hard Left never holds itself accountable to unpleasant realities, prefering to attack their appearances, wishing them out of existence.
Blogs like this one prove that some people have too much time on their hands ... and too much emotion to think rationally.
Posted by: 6Gun | April 20, 2006 at 12:00 PM
The difference between Michael Savage and a car wreck: do advertisers pay money to place signs at a car wreck?
Posted by: ral | April 20, 2006 at 12:02 PM
6Gun, who is this "hard Left" ? got any names ?
Posted by: cleek | April 20, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Bill, meet 6Gun.
Posted by: Gromit | April 20, 2006 at 12:12 PM
6Gun: I love irony. Savage isn't angry, at least not in this piece. Yet our intolerant host mislabels calm self-preservation as hatred and the usual suspects chime in with the usual lexicon of instinctive, self-reinforcing attacks. Much back-slapping ensues.
Yes, hilzoy, shame on you for being so intolerant of eliminationist -- er, I mean self-preservationist -- rhetoric.
Posted by: Gromit | April 20, 2006 at 12:17 PM
I think 6gun is a parody.
Posted by: lily | April 20, 2006 at 12:19 PM
"I think 6gun is a parody."
One can only hope.
Posted by: john miller | April 20, 2006 at 12:30 PM
Other than 6Gun, there seem to be many occasional [do those numbers distinguish first ever /regular/never again?] listeners to Savage who are not fans/choir members but curious, even critical assessors of a opposing view.
Notably absent are those darling "undecideds" who refuse to join "the angry left" or "the angry right".
I'm not sure whether 6Bun's "hard Left" is an improvement on "angry Left", but I kinda think that "some people have too much time on their hands" is embarrassingly candid.
Ditto that disturbing remark that Savage is not angry but calm and self-preserving. We undecideds can rescue you 6Buns, we must.
Posted by: calmo | April 20, 2006 at 12:36 PM
One can only hope.
The sad thing is, it's impossible to tell the difference between parody and reality where the Angry Right are concerned. It's like the Onion becoming indistinguishable from the MSM.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | April 20, 2006 at 12:45 PM
"It's like the Onion becoming indistinguishable from the MSM."
Actually, I think The Onion is usually more accurate about some things.
Posted by: john miller | April 20, 2006 at 12:48 PM
He's right about the too much time, at least in my case. We're doing the state-mandated standardized testing which means I sit here for hours.... and hours... and hours while kids take tests, or (morely likely) sleep...
Posted by: lily | April 20, 2006 at 12:53 PM
Hilzoy is a member of the hard left? Obsidian Wings is an example of a blog with too much emotion and too little rationality?
If 6Gun isn't a parody, he's posting from an alternate universe (possibly one that exists only in his head).
Posted by: KCinDC | April 20, 2006 at 12:54 PM
I think Savage is stating the fact that he believes that roughly 100 million of the 1 billion muslims out there are radical and willing to kill for Islam. That is our enemy and they will kill, so what to do? What to do?
Posted by: Ayatrollah | April 20, 2006 at 01:08 PM
I think 6gun is a visitor from Protein Wisdom, although I certainly could be wrong. If he ever comes back for the next volley, I urge him to read the posting rules, and keep in mind that "The Hard Left" and "those people who disagree with me" are not, in fact, interchangeable.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 20, 2006 at 01:21 PM
I'm not sure whether 6Bun's "hard Left" is an improvement on "angry Left"
i know which i'd rather be.
I think 6gun is a visitor from Protein Wisdom
... or Mars.
Posted by: cleek | April 20, 2006 at 01:28 PM
one word description:
"stalk·ing-horse (stôkng-hôrs) KEY
NOUN:
Something used to cover one's true purpose; a decoy.
A sham candidate put forward to conceal the candidacy of another or to divide the opposition.
A horse trained to conceal the hunter while stalking.
A canvas screen made in the figure of a horse, used for similar concealment."
...
But this is just my cryptic paranoiac-as- performance-art speaking.
...
Of course, all discussions of right wing demogoguery must link to Dave Neiwert. He is the professional who has actually been paid to study the nexus of extremism, propaganda, and praxis.
But, with all groveling and obsequious worship I can sincerely offer, Neiwert may be slightly prone to the occupational hazard of fascism-watchers. A tendency to overconnect or overinterpret. There is certainly interesting parallels to protofascism in the Savage eliminationism and Malkin's recent obvious directing the Sturmabteilung toward Santa Cruz, but sometimes I think hate-radio is just a variant of sports-culture. There seems to be a pretty large gap between the adoring crowd in the stands and the professional players on the field. The "homers" with the mikes alter the outcome of the game very little.
Course home-court advantage can be decisive in close contests. San Antonio over Dallas in 7, Detroit over San Antonio. I hope I am wrong.
...
15 hours without electricity yesterday. Luckily it wasn't one of our freakish 100 degree days, but I was still so jonesing over a lack of electronics I had to do yard work to distract myself. Pity the poor trees.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | April 20, 2006 at 01:35 PM
"That is our enemy and they will kill, so what to do? What to do?"
Give them NBA franchises, of course. It is a fact that countries with professional basketball teams never go to war with each other, even if it isn't. Thus speaketh the moustache of wisdom.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | April 20, 2006 at 01:39 PM
The points about all listeners to Savage not ascribing to his views is of course an appropriate one. After all, I listened to Limbaugh pretty regularly for a year (on AFRN, no less!), and I'm hardly the target demographic.
Still, there's something about eliminationist rhetoric that shouldn't be laughed off. Historically that sort of talk can go from ha-ha-only-joking to engrained and dangerous stereotype very quickly. And even without those consequences, the speech itself is hateful, even when it doesn't rise to the level of hate speech.
Posted by: Jackmormon | April 20, 2006 at 01:42 PM
Man, I love this blog. Inadequately educated one day, insufficiently rational the next.... what's next? Incapable of abstract thinking? Excessively tidy? Just too darn mean?
Posted by: hilzoy | April 20, 2006 at 01:46 PM
Are you excessively tidy, Hilzoy?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | April 20, 2006 at 01:50 PM
Ward Churchill wasn't exactly unknown. His works were par for the course in Native American history and culture courses, sociology courses, etc etc. Outside of academia he was little known, but within it he was a mini-star.
Posted by: AnonCon | April 20, 2006 at 01:51 PM
All is revealed. Pajamas Media has linked to this.
Posted by: hilzoy | April 20, 2006 at 01:51 PM
... what's next?
How about "interested only in the superficial"?
Posted by: ral | April 20, 2006 at 01:53 PM
And Jes: no. I was just trying to come up with some of the least likely criticisms ever. That one was prompted by the fact that my little sister and her family came to visit, and even after I vacuumed and everything she thought there was a lot of cat hair.
Posted by: hilzoy | April 20, 2006 at 01:53 PM
Outside of academia he was little known, but within it he was a mini-star.
Maybe within his subspecialty. Academia as a whole, though? Hardly.
Posted by: Jackmormon | April 20, 2006 at 02:05 PM
AnonCon: I'm an academic -- and an academic who reads some native American history for fun, though it's not my field -- and I had never heard of him.
Posted by: hilzoy | April 20, 2006 at 02:17 PM
In case anyone's interested, my recent dearth of wit (or at least, of the usual number of characters per second in comments) is due to illness that's sufficiently tenacious that I'm semi-regularly checking myself for buboes.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 20, 2006 at 02:20 PM
Slarti I hope you feel better asap. How's your eye?
Posted by: hilzoy | April 20, 2006 at 02:33 PM
My eye's the best part of me; seeing maybe 20/50 or so, and only a mild ache, discomfort-wise. J/K about the buboes, although I've had these glands in my neck that have been painfully swollen for days.
The other eye; the one that's wearing the contact lens, that one's not happy. I knew there was a reason I had given up on contacts, but it took my eye a while to remember.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 20, 2006 at 02:42 PM
Remember, Slarti: flu-like symptoms are also precursors for Lyme's disease, cholera morbus, and syphillis!
Posted by: Jackmormon | April 20, 2006 at 02:46 PM
"Still, there's something about eliminationist rhetoric that shouldn't be laughed off. Historically that sort of talk can go from ha-ha-only-joking to engrained and dangerous stereotype very quickly."
Cue Ahmadinejad then pan over to Rafsanjani.
:)
"Man, I love this blog. Inadequately educated one day, insufficiently rational the next.... what's next? Incapable of abstract thinking? Excessively tidy? Just too darn mean?"
Some one once yelled at me "Can't you just take something literally" and I almost laughed out loud. Nearly every other person in my life (starting with my mom and going from there) has noticed that I'm way too literal. It is the kind of thing that makes you want to look around to your left, and to your right, and behind you and say "Were you talking to me?"
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | April 20, 2006 at 02:51 PM
On House a couple of nights ago, the patient of the week was suffering from, it turned out, the Black Plague.
Moral: don't watch medical dramas when sick. Still, it's a good show, and Hugh Laurie's character is somehow likeable and highly obnoxious, both.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 20, 2006 at 03:14 PM
My dad actually got bubonic plague forty years ago in Seattle, probably fleas from rats at the zoo. Been trying your new eyeballs out at the zoo, Slarti?
Posted by: lily | April 20, 2006 at 03:17 PM
Apparently some ridiculously huge percentage of the ground squirrel population in the Four Corners area are bubonic plague carriers. One of my sister's colleagues, who was studying the phenomenon, was hauled onto campus after 9-11 to swear up and down and sign some pledge that she would not bring the plague onto campus, or she would lose her funding, get expelled, and be subject to proscecution.(!) Later, of course, she got some DHS bioterrorism-related grant, so it all worked out.
Wow, Lily. How far did symptoms get before the antibiotics kicked in?
Posted by: Jackmormon | April 20, 2006 at 03:47 PM
The doctor in Seattle didn't recognize the plague. He thought my dad had some kind of cancer and nearly did a biopsy (which would have killed my dad). However, instead, the doctor told my mom to take the family back to our home in Iowa and get my dad to the family doctor. A couple days later in Iowa the family doctor made the diagnosis. I was only eight or so, so actually forty years ago was a bit of an underestimation. I guess antibiotics must of worked since my daddy didn't die.
Posted by: lily | April 20, 2006 at 03:57 PM
i guess i never answered the question. He had buboes around his neck and under his arms. And a fever.
Posted by: lily | April 20, 2006 at 03:59 PM