John Amato and David Neiwert, Crooks and Liars bloggers and authors of the new Over the Cliff: How Obama's Election Drove the American Right Insane (reviewed here last week) took time out of their schedules this week to have an engaging, ongoing and wide-ranging email discussion about right-wing extremism and violence, the experience of co-authoring a work, the differences between right-wing and left-wing populism, and the discrepancy between conservative success in building a media infrastructure and the progressive movement's inability to dedicate resources toward catching up.
The authors are scheduled to be hanging out in comments today, so feel free to ask them further questions!
Dave, you've written a couple of solo books. What went into the decision to have a co-author? How did the process work?
DN: The book was John’s idea, but I was the guy who knew how to put a book together. And much of the material is really culled from our blog posts at C&L, which we often collaborate on. The two of us hash these ideas over on the phone daily anyway. So I created the narrative structure and outline, and then we assigned ourselves portions of the writing and went at it. When it was done, I assembled it and edited it so that the voice would be reasonably consistent.
John, have you written a book before, either alone or with a collaborator? What was this process like for you?
JA: I was asked several times to write a book by several publishers, but I turned them down. Most people and journalists have no idea how all-consuming it is to write your own blog day in and day out. It doesn't matter how much traffic you have because if it’s your baby, you feel the need to do the best that you can, but that process alone burns many people out in less than one year. Heck, I had no idea what I was getting myself into. After David came on board C&L as our managing editor I knew that if I was ever going to write a book, David was going to be part of it because of his tremendous skills and experience.
The process was pretty incredible. At first it seems like an impossible task to undertake when it's time to begin, but the premise of the book was one that I was both comfortable and confident in. The book focuses on what I call "Whiplash Politics" -- the backlash that was so instantaneous as soon as Obama was elected, it felt like I had been in a car crash. Once I got started and wrote my first few thousand words, the ideas just kept percolating. I completely feel in love with researching the history of the conservative movement and juggling 5-10 books at one time. I have continued my studies on this topic even now.
At one point in Over the Cliff, there is a discussion of producerism in this modern Tea Party movement, and you use Chip Berlet's definition, one portion of which defines it as "against unproductive bankers, speculators, and monopolists." Yet this immediately follows a section where you're describing the outcry against what the Tea Party-ists and their fellow travelers think of as a witchhunt against AIG. Yet isn't AIG pretty much the epitome, by any definition, of "unproductive banker, speculator or monopolist?" And is there ANY corporate entity that the Tea Party really takes on (at least in the way it takes on government)?
DN: Good question! – One that points to the internal inconsistency, the innate irrationality if you will, of producerism. They’ve so embraced Randist thinking that the concept of “captain of industry” has now expanded to include bankers and insurers and Wall Street, who seem in the Tea Party universe to have been displaced by Evil Big Government. After all, that was the upshot of Rick Santelli’s famous rant – the poor Wall Streeters whose wild speculation produced our ongoing economic debacle somehow were magically transformed into the victims. And the perpetrators? Those evil minorities who foolishly followed their advice!
Look, logic ultimately has nothing to do with right-wing populism, because it’s fundamentally illogical in its entire structure. This is about resentment and the exploitation of ordinary people’s fears of inferiority and displacement. The resentments that right-wing populism has always stirred up are primarily cultural, ethnic and racial. The “elites” have always been liberals and the well-educated, and the “producers” are always the people who make lots of money. Previously bankers were considered “elites,” but in today’s Randian/libertarian view, they’re now “producers” too. They’ve been replaced in the architecture of producerism by “Big Government”.
So your final question is very pertinent indeed: There is NO corporate entity they won’t defend. They’re opposed to Net Neutrality. They’re sticking up for BP and Big Oil in the Gulf. On and on.
Of course, it doesn’t hurt that corporate money, funneled through outfits like FreedomWorks, is largely financing all of their events and activities.
JA:: And as a side note … Movement conservatism has totally incorporated the ‘free markets’ as part of their true religion, because the fight against the boogie man known as Communism died along with the Soviet Union and the Cold War. So there is a large segment that truly believes the government shouldn’t have stepped in and prevented the global financial meltdown because then the free markets aren’t really free. How can they be if the dreaded federal government had to step in and save the day? The bailout, TARP, also further validated FDR’s handling of the Great Depression, which gave us the New Deal and, most of all, an understanding that the federal government plays a critical role in stabilizing the economy so that everyday, hard-working Americans are not crushed when it hits a downturn. The conservative movement has been trying to rewrite the history of FDR's accomplishments ever since then, as well as undermine every aspect of his legacy. Case in point: Bush’s grandiose plan to privatize Social Security in 2005. In their minds, taking on the Fed is their substitute for taking on AIG.
Demographic and attitude surveys show Millennials to be much more tolerant, idealistic and civic-minded than previous recent generations. Will this kind of right-wing extremism eventually die off just due to attrition of older generations?
DN: I don’t think it will ever die off entirely. What we’ve experienced is actually a phenomenon closely associated with the turn of the Millennium – namely, there’s a significant surge in apocalypticism when you have significant dates like that. Something similar occurred back in the decades before and after 1000 AD – a large surge in apocalyptic cults and extremist behavior, and it took at least a decade for it to gradually subside. Ours seems to be going on longer than it should, but a lot of that has to do with the fact that the Powers That Be – particularly the Right – are actually encouraging it. Hopefully it will subside back to normal levels in another decade or two.
JA: It’s so much easier to tear down than to build up in almost all facets of life. It may take five years to build a skyscraper, but we can see it imploded on TV in a matter of minutes. Whiplash politics is predicated on an incessant need to indulge oneself in practicing victimhood. Not only are catch phrases and talking points easy to manufacture by the Frank Luntzes of the day, the Right takes it to the farthest limits by the way they revel in their ‘martyrdom’ to their causes. And they’ve convinced themselves that even if economic conditions deteriorate under their stewardship and their entire philosophy of 'small government' is repudiated by reality, well, they still must continue to vote conservative – and in fact become even more conservative – because there is no other solution for them.
What would a healthy liberal populism look like, and has this country ever seen it?
DN: Sure. We call them “labor unions.” Although one could argue that they’ve become somewhat ossified and marginalized, they’re still the embodiment of the American left-wing populism that arose between 1890 and 1930.
Essentially, left-wing populism has a roughly similar narrative -- working-class people are constantly victimized by elites – but there is no “parasitism at the bottom” part of the narrative. And there is no producerist myth that exalts the captain of industry. Indeed, in left-wing populism, those “captains” ARE the elites, along with bankers and speculators.
I think today’s progressive movement is fundamentally populist as well, actually, and I consider it to be quite healthy – largely because we’ve managed to shed much of the conspiracism that I think really damaged the progressive movement in the 1970s. It is awfully diffuse and disparate – most progressivism is tallied up into various camps (environmentalists, civil rights, gay rights, immigration, etc. etc.) that often have little to do with each other. But I think the anti-corporatism that characterizes much of the progressive Left nowadays is classically populist.
JA: On a smaller level, left wing populism can also be seen in fights against violations of our civil liberties like cases such as the eroding of our rights created by The Patriot Act and Bush’s warrantless wiretapping programs.
Also, the progressive movement has created a new form of fundraising to help elect progressive candidates. Small donations by large numbers of Americans which are being collected online have changed the dynamics of local and national elections to some extent. Helping Ned Lamont defeat Joe Lieberman in the 2006 CT primary supplied the blueprint for the 2008 midterm success and helped the Obama presidency to outraise John McCain. Now it's also being copied by the right in their efforts to elect their Tea Party candidates.
At one point, you write: Agitation over gun rights continued, even though the Obama administration made no attempts in 2009 to approach the issue. That, however, just seemed to make the extremist Right more paranoid because they believed the absence of discussion was proof that it was being planned in secret.
Given that reality, how CAN we even begin to counter such thinking, when whatever is done is taken as proof of guilt? Or do we simply give up on a certain percentage of the population in every generation and just try and make sure they do not have the opportunity (as far as we can) to act out violently?
DN: I think there is a certain percentage of every population that is simply unreachable. Unfortunately, I think they also have a disproportionate influence among people who ARE reachable – particularly working-class people who don’t have the time or wherewithal to devote to a lot of political thinking or awareness or activity, and unfortunately often just farm the thinking out to others. This is why talk radio is such a potent device for the Right: it brings a lot of people over to their side who might otherwise stop to think twice if there were anyone else speaking common sense to them.
That’s why I never give up in trying to respond to wingnuttery. Of course I’ll never convince the people I’m actually arguing against. My intended audience is their audience: the people who might be persuaded by their garbage. I think it’s my job to point out to them that it’s garbage. Eventually a lot of them wake up.
Just ask John Cole. When he and I first started blogging, back in 2003, John used to slag me with great regularity for pointing out how right-wing extremists were taking over mainstream conservatism. I don’t think he feels that way anymore.
JA: Exactly, there are the unreachable and that will never change, but by pointing out what is true and what is false can always produce results that might surprise us somewhere down the road. Sometimes there are shared ideals that can have a crossover effect, like in the case of John Cole, but I think we can only reach people that are not socially conservative. The indulgences of the religious right have driven your basic fiscal conservative away from the party at times because there is so much more that we had in common. If you are for the elimination of the federal government, then gay rights, stem cell research, religion or a woman’s right to choose will never be enough to lead to a meaningful partnership. But progressives believe that government can be good, whereas conservatives feel that government is always the problem.
Oh, yes, John Cole is a good example of traditional conservatives getting off the Crazy Bus. David Frum is another. But I wonder if it's impossible to expect anyone else at this point to ditch the Tea Partiers. Seems to me, if someone's still on board at this point, there's very little more that could be done to alienate anyone enough to leave. You agree? Or do you think there is some specific tack or stand that could be taken that would strip away followers?
JA: Um, no. Really, that's why we conclude that the American Right has just gone careering into the abyss of extremism, because the normal restraints within the movement have failed altogether. The only helpful response I can think of would be from the left and the Beltway crowd: I think progressives may want to recognize that A) thoughtful conservatism is a vital component of a healthy political dialogue, and B) do what they can to recognize and engage and celebrate the conservatives who take a stand against the insanity. Now, the Beltway Village is probably a lost cause, but I think the more we can get people like Chris Matthews to recognize that there's something really toxic about the American Right these days, the greater the likelihood they'll help encourage non-teabagging conservatives.
Granted that there is a lot of astroturfing going on ... still, there is something authentic (even if it's paranoid and based on crazy shit) going on, don't you think? How much of what's going on is manufactured, in your mind? And if this weird quasi-violent conspiratorial victimization streak were NOT being fed by Freedom Works (and/or Glenn Beck), where would this energy be going? In other words -- is this streak being tapped by opportunists, or is it being created by opportunists? And how does one tell the difference?
DN: It looks symbiotic to me: the opportunists are whipping up a component of the right that has always been latent in movement conservatism, which was what our chapter on the history of the politics of resentment was about -- and this resentment has in that period typically manifested itself as right-wing populism. One feeds the other. And the moneyed right is fueling the right-wing populism under the delusion that they can ultimately control it. I wish them luck.
Right-wing populism is ultimately always built on the psychology of right-wing authoritarianism. The people who are attracted to it desperately want to have figures of ultimate authority leading the nation -- which is why they react so strongly when an Obama or a Clinton, someone they despise, is nominally the leader, because this is someone whose leadership they reject. That in turn leads them on these campaigns of delegitimization; otherwise, the cognitive dissonance just overwhelms them.
I'd agree with you here. I think there's more genuine populism in the current Progressive movement than there has been in decades. To me, a great deal of that has to do with the rise of new media (cheapness of entry, tech tools for connecting and collaborating). And you mention in the book the paltry support the blogosphere and its online allies get from wealthy entities and establishment institutions. This raises a couple of questions: (1) We're seeing a wee bit of absorption of our voices into the mainstream (Ezra Klein at the WaPo, Nate Silver to the NYT) ... does this trend strengthen the grassroots as its voice gets acknowledged by the mainstream or does it, in your mind, co-opt it? And (2) one of the problems that's faced liberal populism in the past is fragmentation. In the current environment, are you seeing more of a spirit and/or practical application of unification by the different liberal camps?
DN: There's always some co-opting that goes on when progressive bloggers are absorbed by the mainstream, though frankly I haven't seen any sign of that in Klein's or Silver's or David Weigel's work -- I think it's as strong and independent as it ever was when they were on their own. I for one welcome the chance for the netroots to have its voice heard in any venue it can. Inevitably there will be some watering down, but it think it's where we have a chance to change the nature of the national dialogue, which is what is needed.
As to your second question, I don't want to step on fellow bloggers' toes, but frankly, I think there's a tremendous amount of fragmenting going on among progressives right now, and precious little of the unification we should be striving towards. The energy of 2006-08 is gone. However, I'm uninclined to indulge in pointing fingers about this, since it would run counter to my concerns on this score. I'll just say that yes, it's a problem, and no, I really have no idea what to do about it.
JA: The trend strengthens our movement, because no longer can the Brian Williamses of the traditional media call us cheeto-eating, pajama-waring lowlifes named Vinny living in efficiency apartments.
Now that I think back on your book, there was relatively little emphasis in your coverage of the Tea Party/militia groups that dealt with religion or the Christian Right. My own sense is that the current right-wing protestors are less motivated by religiosity than we were seeing with the Schiavo protestors or the abortion rights activists. Do you see this as well? And if there IS a kind of difference of tone or aim, what does that mean for the future of Right protesting/resistance?
DN: We didn't really discuss the religious component a lot because we really focused on what was emanating from the mainstream conservative media and politicians, and moreover religious fanaticism was really only a part of the picture.
As I mentioned above, the building blocks of right-wing populism are right-wing authoritarians -- those people who, for whatever reasons (usually arising out of their individual psychological needs) desire political and social leadership predicated on strong authorities, controlling crime and disorder and punishing misbehavior. RWAs fundamentally believe that human nature is innately evil and in constant need of restraint.
Religious fundamentalism is a significant and powerful expression of right-wing authoritarianism, but it is not the only one; there certainly are secular forms of it as well, embodied by the many non-religious Patriot/militia groups that have sprung up in the past year or two. A good example is what we saw in Michigan: the Hutaree Militia was a distinctly religious sect, but there were several other militia groups there in Michigan with whom they sometimes shared "training sessions" and exercises, all of which were adamant that they did not share the Hutarees' religious views or agenda. That is to say, they often share interests, but not all of these reactionaries are religious -- unlike with the Schiavo case, which attracted almost strictly a religious crowd.
Now the appeal is much broader, and less distinctly religious. But it remains fundamentally authoritarian, which appeals across a much broader swath, including the religious sector. So what this means is that the groundswell will be much broader.
Over the years, I met many a "Patriot" who expressed their disdain for the ultra-religious types, but shared their basic worldview. What the Tea Parties are really doing is bringing them all together under a much larger banner.
JA: As we covered Whiplash politics from the Obama presidency we did bring up religion, but in a much smaller sample because, to be honest, we had to turn in our final draft before HCR even passed. I’d say that there is no difference with the majority of the Tea Party movement and the typical Schiavo/abortion activists; the only difference is that a religious cause hadn’t cropped up in the forefront yet. Many of the Tea Party brigade are made up of the conservative movement and polls like the NY Times/CBS back that up. They are as religious as your typical conservative republican. During the health care debate, abortion came up at the end of the entire process thanks to a pro-life Democrat named Bart Stupak. There was such a strong push to go beyond the Hyde amendment that it almost derailed the entire bill until Obama and Bart compromised. HCR went even further than the Hyde amendment did, so Stupak was probably celebrated by the Right, correct? Of course not -- he was called a “baby killer” in the halls of Congress, received numerous death threats and it ultimately caused him to retire from the House. I’d say the Schiavo group is alive and well.