The first thing we can deduce about the comment is that it is obviously derogatory. Putting aside for the moment the confusing anti-colonialism bit at the end, Gingrich is clearly saying that Barack Obama has a “Kenyan”—and therefore un-American—outlook, despite being born, raised, and educated in the United States.
As for the anti-colonialism bit, that’s a bit tougher. Gingrich seems to be equating Obama’s beliefs with those of radical movements that took place in African nations once their citizens were released from the oppressive grasp of European powers. The contemporary outlook on colonialism is that it was a cruel, unjust, and fundamentally racist system of imposing governance. If Gingrich thinks “anti-colonialism” is bad, does that mean he thinks colonialism is good? Does that mean that Gingrich—a man who was the third most powerful elected representative in America during the Clinton years—is racist?
Two days later, Gingrich spoke up again, this time calling Obama a “loud tribesman.” Yeah, he’s racist.
I’m talking about good old Newt because he is the latest in a series of bombastic conservative talking heads preaching—unfortunately quite successfully—about something that genuinely terrifies the hell out me: “reactionism.” You may be unfamiliar with this term, but you are probably familiar with the concept. Charismatic figures such as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and, of course, Gingrich have tapped a freaked-out and unstable base of conservative Americans, and have united them under the banner of bringing back “the good old days.” You may know them as the Tea Parties, but this is only one affiliation among many that reactionary, conservative Americans associate with.
I want you to be scared of this too. I think every rational person should be scared of an ideology that abhors progress and seeks to restore the “greatness” of a closed chapter in our history. This reactionsim is especially absurd when you realize that the Golden Age that they seek to emulate stretched exactly from the beginning to the end of the Cold War.
Why do they miss fighting the intrinsically evil Soviet heathens? One answer is that it provided them with a clear, undeniable enemy—hating Muslims is a much more tricky business because, well, the vast majority of Muslims are not evil. A second, even more important answer is that this was the last period in American history in which white Americans had unquestionable economic and political dominance in this country and the world. With the election of a half-black President and the clear statistical inevitability of whites becoming a minority in this country, some white Americans now feel confused and helpless, especially when they are losing their jobs.
Their logic, while certainly wrong, can be easily understood. Reactionaries fear that, after centuries of oppression, ethnic minorities will use their newfound electoral and economic power to “punish” white people, a phenomena referred to as “reverse-racism.” How they can see Barack Obama and other black politicians as vindictive and bloodthirsty remains a mystery to me.
Conservatives also miss the Cold War era because it was seen as a triumph of Christian values over the steadfastly secular Soviet Union. In both the 2000 and 2004 elections, we all saw the power of the mobilized Christian Right as they twice elected George W. Bush into office.
What’s changed? First of all, one in five Americans now think that the President is a Muslim, and those sixty million people are mad about it. If I were a Muslim I would be deeply insulted that it should matter if there were a conspiracy theory that the President were a Muslim, but that’s beside the point. There is an overwhelming and false sentiment that Islam is an inherently “violent” religion, and that, my friends, is a slippery slope.
The fight against Islam’s perceived “assault on Christian America” has manifested in many different arenas. Perhaps the most publicized of these arenas is the debate over the proposed Islamic center near the site of Ground Zero. However, this debate is tame when compared to the Qu’ran burning that happened in Florida, as well as Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin’s highly religious and partisan rally at the Lincoln Memorial to “reclaim the civil rights movement.”
These conservatives are reacting to Islamic radicalism (which they refuse to separate from peaceful Islam) with Christian radicalism. A political movement based on religion is volatile at best, especially when opposition to another religion is at its core. Right now, the angry voices of this movement are getting far more attention than any others, and that’s exactly what is so frightening about this seemingly ludicrous movement.
If you are frightened too, I encourage you not to remain apathetic about political developments in this country. America cannot afford apathetic liberals right now. The Tea Party and other anti-intellectual movements will continue as long as educated, forward-thinking people sit by and dismiss them as an innocuous fad. We need a movement from the left that is loud enough to oppose reactionism and keep this country moving—albeit one inch at a time—in the right direction.
http://wesleyanargus.com/2010/09/29/the-dangers-of-reactionary-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-81701
.
.
.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment