And so
the question remains:
What do we call the people who are trying to systematically destroy the greatest things about America?
There is a battle of words going on here.
Several names have been put forth here, on blogs and in email and in person, by a number of folks....
- We have the popular Repuglicans (or Repugs, for short)...
- ...and there's the variation on that theme, Rethuglicans, which captures some of their brutality, but these all are insults to other Republicans out there who are not dittoheads.
- wingnuts -- It certainly has the advantage of being descriptive. One might even call them loose wingnuts, because they sure seem to have a screw loose.
- Dr. Laniac has been using corporatist a lot -- which makes sense, in the context of their power base being centered in the corporatocracy. But I get the sense this is a much more pernicious bunch than a bunch of profiteers.
- Repub-junta -- Again, insulting to the Rockefeller Republicans out there.
- Neo-con artists -- This one as a certain ring to it.
- GOP hit punks is offered up by Jonathan -- but I have trouble thinking of a bunch of crusty fat old men as punks.
- Powermongers -- and they sure to lust for power. You'd think it was cocaine. Oh, wait, they have both.
- In an email, Ralph suggested calling them Gannonists --
I think their actual secret religion has been Gannonism all along. They live and breathe it. They sure aren't Christians. As a bonus, to elevate one of their Republican saints, he or she just has to be gannonized. I nominate Ann Coulter as the first recipient of that great honor. Ted Rall recently pointed out (at http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2005/02/03/) that Coulter wrote of Pat Tillman, on December 31, 2004, that "Tillman was an
American original: virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male
can be.
To me, it sounds like Ms. Coulter judges men by how much she wants to fuck them. That does not strike me as a very pragmatic approach to politics. But hey, if it works for her...!
- Ralph also suggested Fishists -- which would resonate in the rhetoric circles, but that's about it.
- Then there are the neos -- neofascists, neobrutes, neopods, neopreens, neopervs, neoconvicts, neo-Nazis...but I don't know if there's anything "new" about them, except for their vision of a "New World Order" (read: empire).
- One could argue that they are our very own insurgents -- They show as much tolerance for their fellow citizens who disagree as what's-his-name who's blowing up people in Iraq. Yes, Republican Insurgents could work.
- warmongers seems accurate -- though to me they seem to be blind to war. For them, it really is politics by the only means.
- freepers -- I really think this lovely label belongs to the dittoheads who get off on marching in step. (This marching in step seems to be a sort of pathology, perhaps compensating for their absence from the military ranks and a dearth of marching bands for grown-ups.)
- hate-mongers certainly seems to fit the bill, for despsite controlling the government and media, they are still full of hate and rage and go around as if they were victims. (Maybe whiners would be a good label.)
- dehumanizers -- yes, that's right, anyone who disagrees with them is not human and unworthy of any consideration.
- America-hating goofs -- I don't know, it doesn't seem strong enough. I wish they were just goofy.
- Pharisees -- read John Dear's insightful and damning article about how they are modern-day Pharisees
And yet, and yet....
...when all is said and done, I keep returning to this word, because it really seems to capture their fetish for power, authority, military adventurism, scapegoating minority groups, and shutting people up:
- fascists -- oh, but no, I'm sorry, no, it can't happen here! Never in America! This is the land of the free! The president says so!
Instead of playing on words, perhaps we should just look at how they behave. They bully, they abuse, they threaten, they torture, they kill, they steal, they "take out" people who oppose them, they keep the citizens in a state of fear, they live in a constant state of rage, they take what they can whenever they can, they disrespect and oppress women, they flout the law, and defend their "homies," right or wrong....
It's descriptive.
This all may seem like a bit of whimsy, but, as onlooker notes in a thread on DKos:
Your enemy is killing you with language. Time and time again, the Right defines the terms (literally) of engagement. They don't care about accuracy, they just want impact. The centre-left/reasonable people want to say true things, want to be fair. This slows them down. They also don't hate so viciously.
The Right labels themselves Conservative but few of them are. If you look up Conservative, you will not find the modern Republicon.
Don't call them conservative. Conservatives are respectable. Call them neocons, right wingers etc.
Many are fascist in belief but that word will discredit you in most discourse.
People are buying these lies because them are omnipresent but also because they are simple and are being tied in with greed, fear and anger which are powerful feelings.
Truth is the core of your best weapon. You must marry truth to emotion or you will not win people over. John Q Public needs to know that, not only did the Republicon lie, he lied to John Q Public. Your message must relate directly to the audience.
On the other hand, via email, someone else (who shall remain nameless until/unless I get permission) Bill suggests:
I think that we should not aim our guns at particular people and label them as fascists. Fascism is a natural outgrowth of right wing power that doesn't have to have an individual sponser. The proponents of policy that we recognize as fascists in the United States probably would be shocked to think someone thinks of them as such. I think we should concentrate on pointing out fascist behavior and policy and let the blame fall naturally on those that promote those behaviors.
In the end, perhaps this is best. Forget the names, just keep exposing the behavior. Attack them not for who they are (which admittedly can be tempting) but by what they do (which is pretty fucking awful).
Evil-doers?
This all may seem like so much whimsy, but I think it would help if we could come up with a consistent vocabulary. Any thoughts?