Thursday, July 16, 2009

Proof, once again, that the Dems really are the misogynistic party...


That was sarcasm.

In my recent downturn in activity during May and June, I took the time to write about health care. Since my return to a slightly higher level of activity this month, I've waxed philosophical, explained why I'm not wasting my time piling on Sarah Palin until 2011, and re-posted a comment I made about religion on another blog. While I have naturally been free with my views of the health care plans being kicked around Congress, I have not really let go with full vitriol on any subject just yet.

For those of you who read me for angry polemical rants, this is your lucky day.

It is popular in many circles on the right, especially since Hillary Clinton's defeat in the most recent Democratic Party and the rallying of many socially liberal-to-moderate feminists (both among Democrats and 'Tammy Bruce Republicans') to the McCain-Palin ticket in response, to argue that the Democrats are the racist and misogynistic party and the Republicans are truly the most palatable to genuine feminists. Geraldine Ferraro, the most notable example, spent the election venting a great deal of personal rage and hurt against Obama and the Democratic Party on Fox News in what must have been Rush Limbaugh's dream come true. I certainly understand the disappointment of feminists in one of their most revered public figures failing to win the nomination of 'their' party, but I can't help but disagree with their final conclusions. As someone who voted for Carol Mosley Braun in the 2004 Democratic primary and the son of parents who voted for Shirley Chisholm on the ERA Party ticket in 1976, I did not vote for Hillary Clinton in the most recent Democratic primary. Senator Clinton, iconic standing among many feminists aside, ran as the single most neoconservative candidate for the Democratic nomination and made votes on foreign policy issues, as a Senator, that I personally could not ever approve. I did not vote for someone else because Senator Clinton was a woman and I would not have voted for Senator Clinton had she been a man.

I would have voted for Carol Mosley Braun again. I would have voted for Hilda Solis. Were she younger and in better health, I would have voted for Anne Richards. They are all individuals whom I admire and respect to a great degree and whose politics I find quite acceptable, though naturally very few Democrats meet my ultimate ideal. I did not vote for Senator Clinton for the same reason I did not vote for then-Senator Obama, that I did not vote for John Edwards or Joe Lieberman in 2004, and that I chose Bill Bradley over Al Gore in 2000. Neoconservative foreign and business policy, however 'electable' it may make a Democrat in a general election, is not something that will win my vote in a Democratic Party primary. I am absolutely certain I am not the only Democratic primary voter who felt this way this past election cycle. I have little sympathy for the claim that misogyny defeated Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton defeated herself with her record, her positions, and her character and Senator Obama defeated her by being a more skilled political performer, a more skilled political operator, and more impressive ethical, oratorical, and intellectual figure.

Why do I bring up all of this very old news?

As it happens, I knew I wanted to write today but was uncertain what I wished to write about. So I did what I always do when stumped for a topic. I looked for the most offensive Republican blog post I could find this morning and found inspiration.

Robert Stacy McCain (along with his co-bloggers and much of his actively commenting readership) is an excellent example of what is wrong with the Republican Party in the United States today and represents the 'real America' to which Republican strategists pitch their election campaigns. In April, when McCain was comparing gay marriage advocates and other gay rights activists to anti-Semites, I wrote about him not once but twice. He is an excellent example of the moral and ethical failure of the rump of today's Republican Party, which is the overlap between the 'Moral Majority' bloc of conservative Christian Dominionists and the social Darwinists of the corporate commercialist bloc of neoconservatives. As a person of faith, the combination of Christianity and social Darwinism is something I find particularly offensive.

In the above linked post, McCain singles out for his particular attention and abuse... a 24 year old girl. His particular reason for making her his target of the moment? Well, apparently, she wants the GOP to be less prejudiced.

""Does it sound campy to say I love gay men?" says Meghan in typical fag-hag fashion, since this is the only way she has of getting affection from men."

An excellent example of the feminism of the GOP, yes?

McCain continues:

"What Meghan does not fully comprehend is the special contempt that exists within gay male culture for such desperate female hangers-on otherwise known as fish."

I'm sure an expert of gay subculture and 'public intellectual' like McCain would know exactly what gay men think of their female friends. Naturally.

He even copies a page from Laura Ingraham's book, showing just how creative original he is.

"And, unlike Meghan, Jamie is attractive."

Wow, not only is she one of those horrible people with that most un-American and immoral of traits, tolerance for her fellow humanity, but she's ugly to boot!

Clinton Democrats and Tammy Bruce Republicans alike should pay closer attention to bloggers like R.S. McCain. They speak for the priveleged men of the Republican Party whose worlds revolve around their country club and their church and who are entirely out of touch with what people in the real world, outside of either, think. They are not content to attack Democrats and liberals (though they are happy to call the reasonably conservative Meghan McCain and the very conservative Andrew Sullivan 'liberals' when turning on their own) but must also seek and destroy those in their own party (that 'big tent' Republicans like to talk about) who show the slightest bit of tolerance for those they hold in contempt. To them, Christian charity is something practiced by and for Christians who meet their own standard of Christianity and freedom is something members of their own religious and economic circles enjoy exclusively. The only natural rights are those they enjoy, which are only available to those that meet their standards.

In his vicious and destructive rant, this 'public intellectual' manages to be both homophobic and misogynist in one snarl while displaying his ignorance and bigotry for everyone to see. This is not unique to R.S. McCain. This has been demonstrated repeatedly by many Republicans during the most recent election, during interviews and talk radio and television shows, during congressional sessions, and in blogs (and the commentary offered by readers of said blogs) all over cyberspace. What is more, movement conservatism considers this the 'mainstream' thought and opinion of the 'real America.'

In the end, that last fact may be the most insulting and bigoted belief of all.


Mike b.t.r.m. said...

Some feedback on your article. While I like to try to talk "tounge in cheek" or satirical often, as a new reader/writer on your blog let me try to be as plain and clear as possible. I consider myself quite conservative. When you said early in your article that you where going to unlease some "vitriol" I expected much more fire in your words. I fully believe your feelings may be that of bitterness and or hatred towards the specific sentiments of the blog you were attacking. Your words, on the other hand, I dare say where tempered and restrained. I share this as a critique and not a criticism. While clearly on the attack, it sounds rather mild in my opinion from what I hear and read on both sides.

In contrast, it surprizes me after an article I read of yours that got me thinking this guy (you) sees the evil of both extremes, right and left, then admits to seeking a source that by your own definition is "most offensive". You looking for inspiration from that article doesn't bother me but your last paragraph seems to argue this most extreme example that you can find idea permeates the republican side. In summary, I hear you saying: "Look at the worst think I can find on that side, and not 100%, but that side is chalk full of that." I'm I misreading you? (I hope after trying to use edit,I didn't inadvertantly post this twice)

Chris Richards said...

The last sentence is meant, as my last sentences usually are when I can manage to pull it off properly, for particularly dramatic emphasis... in this case the 'Burn!' reaction from the reader who either agrees with my sentiments in the first place or who is sold on them by the article.

As for the 'mild' tone of the piece, it is less intended to be 'mild' than to be responsible. I attempt to write in as responsible and intelligent a manner as possible rather than to appeal to the lowest common denominator, whether writing 'high-minded' philosophical or policy pieces or 'low-brow' attack pieces. I am writing to edify those who agree with me and edify those who do not and may wonder where I come from.

That said, my point about movement conservatism is important and cogent. I am not talking about 'conservatives', but rather the movement conservative wing of the Republican Party. This is the group that controls key voting blocs in the South and Midwest (including my home locale, Sullivan County, TN and most of the state) and delivers the 'die-hard' voters in elections.

The Brownbacks, McConnels, Bunnings, Sessions, Shelbys, and the like of the party appeal to this movement (which is primarily one of religious and economic chauvinism, coupled with a deliberate appeal to certain basic attitudes toward minorities and women too common among rural and small town white men) rather than to any genuinely 'conservative' political ideology. Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and others have increased this group's power by appealing to the worst in their listeners.

I have a great deal of respect for quite a few conservatives, despite broad areas of disagreement, and consider Barry Goldwater something of a hero despite deep political divides between my views and his. However, I have very little for a movement that can best be described as antithetical to Christian and American principles. This movement is increasingly presenting itself as the 'mainstream' of Christian and American thinking, and many liberals are incorrectly interpreting its religious message as genuine Christianity, which it is not.

The Republican Party as a whole, and the current Democratic president, appear to be giving great credence to the theory that the greater charismatic/evangelical/fundamentalist/Pentecostal Dominionist movement and the groups aligned that way within mainstream denominations are the most important representatives of Christian thought and opinion. That's not a good thing.

Mike b.t.r.m said...

Cool, thanks. We might want to want to talk about call centers sometime too. I work at one in Texas, Mortgage loan servicing, ok, I'm pretty much just a debt collector but with a fancy twist of various modifications and work out options I have to be able to explain and offer people.

Chris Richards said...

I did work in a 'call center' setting when I was in technical support, but, while I provide phone marketing services now, I run my own business and thus make my own hours and work out of my home. Though the line between being a contractor/subcontractor an employee is fuzzy at times, it's real enough to make a big difference.

Mike b.t.r.m said...

After my last post I regretted not being clear where I was going with the comment. Essentially I was intending to ask on a technician level, if you knew all,much, or anything about "dialers". For example the one we use reads the area code and calls at appropriate times based on time zone associated with area code. The problem is if someone has a cell phone # from one time zone and moves to another, seems there is no way to tell the dialer about the change. Perhaps that has nothing to do with what you do, but I thought I might throw that out there in case you knew of such things.

Chris Richards said...

Ahh. No. I don't have any helpful knowledge of out-call. In tech support, obviously, I was working entirely on an in-call basis. When I got into the sales business, I decided I did not want to have to deal with out-call at all. So I specialize completely in in-call sales, where the caller wants to buy and is therefore usually less hostile to additional sales offers. My focus is on customer service and making sure the caller hangs up the phone happy (though I get a decent number of upsells as well), so cold calls really don't fit my sales style.

So I have no real knowledge of out-call or robo-call technology at all.