As the Republicans are fighting hard to keep tax cuts for the wealthy, one of their spokespersons, Newt Gingrich—former Speaker of the House, whom David Broder of The Washington Post once described as a “visionary,” lamenting that he didn’t run for President in 2008—seems to be running a side-show diversion. The latest visionary thinking could be a parody of a postmodern political-science course on Africa.
Believe me, before this makes any sense you will have to understand the Export-Import bank, but that comes later.
First the quote where Gingrich deconstructs Obama’s “real” thinking.
Here is the Newt Gingrich quote: “What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?…That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.” He goes on: “I think Obama gets up every morning with a worldview that is fundamentally wrong about reality,” Gingrich says. “If you look at the continuous denial of reality, there has got to be a point where someone stands up and says that this is just factually insane.”
Gingrich is not so subtle in promoting the idea that Obama is an outsider when he assigns African sensibilities to the President. What is Gingrich’s news hook, what is he basing his analysis on? Of all things, an article by Dinesh D’Souza claiming that one can discern Obama’s “anti-colonial” stance in the recent decision by the U.S. Export-Import Bank to help support offshore oil drilling in Brazil.
Without taking you all through the intricate workings of the U.S. Export-Import Bank (“Ex-Im” to the cognoscenti), all you need to know is that it provides funding for U.S. firms to sell their products and services overseas—Republicans and Democrats love it.
Most people might ignore the fine points of Gingrich’s postmodern analysis, but the poor folks at the Ex-Im bank had to get out a PR fact sheet quickly, and pathetically, reminding people that the loan enables the purchase of American goods and services, that no direct tax moneys are spent on these loans, and that all of the Board members who approved the loan were appointed by George W. Bush.
Mind you there is a debate about the Ex-Im bank ranging from it being too teensy to matter or so large that it distorts trade, but there is no debate that its purpose is to help U.S. companies. Aiding U.S. corporations is not “Kenyan, anti-colonial” ideology. At least it wasn’t the last time I looked at anti-colonial ideology. Indeed, Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman describes this attack as a “stark demonstration of the madness that has overtaken the American right.”
Coming right on the tails of the 9/11 hate rallies I have to assume this material is being put forward to further generate hate and fear in an effort to polarize voters before the November elections. That motive is destructive, but sane.
I am more concerned that intellectual Republicans are believing this stuff.
12 Responses to Right-Wing Madness or Political Ploy?
_perplexed_ - September 14, 2010 at 4:28 pm
I’m wondering what Newt thinks is problematic about “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior”? Is the problem that it is Kenyan (or of Kenyan origin), such than any behavior by a Kenyan is problematic; or does he think Kenyans of sound mind should be pro-colonial? I’m guessing he just offering up the current epithet of the wrong-thinking right: Obama the Kenyan. Newt has outed himself as a “birther”.
dank48 - September 15, 2010 at 9:06 am
“Right-wing madness” and “political ploy,” sadly, are not mutually exclusive terms, thanks inter alia to Gingrich and the rest of the 1990s-era GOP rabble-rousers. Gingrich himself has shot his bolt and hasn’t yet realized it. He should assess his options and then offer his services as Glen Beck’s stand-in.
cwinton - September 15, 2010 at 10:35 am
I guess old Newt is trying to make himself newsworthy again by mouthing rather transparent and unsupportable innuendos for which he can produce plausible deniability as to his intent if so challenged. Poor old William F. Buckley must be turning over in his grave at the retreat from thinking conservatism to this kind of jingoistic behavior.
marktropolis - September 15, 2010 at 10:44 am
Echoing dank48, is there any difference between the ploy and the madness? D’Souza holds a special place in my heart as it was his “Illiberal Education” (1991) that introduced me to the rabbit hole that is the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” It’s no surprise that he’s the one who wrote an extended treatise on Obama’s otherness – he’s merely attempting to add a tinge of academic legitimacy to the Tea Party theory that Obama is really a Kenyan Socialist. Who better to write on colonialism (or attempt to redefine anti-colonialism) than a “native” Indian. In the 90s he was the right-wing’s poster boy in their assault on affirmative action and diversity. D’Souza has made millions trading in this particular strain of madness. That the evidence backing his argument is pretty flimsy is par for the course: In “Illiberal Education” his entire case for proving that Howard University is an Afrocentric institution was based on the fact that they offered course in Swahili. The fact that the Export-Import Bank actually makes money and doesn’t cost tax-payers a dime is immaterial to the argument. Always remember that the goal is to prove that Obama is not an American, and therefore is an illegitimate President. And it always helps if you can make the case that he’s a socialist. And it definitely helps if the person making the case actually *isn’t* a native American. If D’Souza says it, it must be correct. Kind of like how Clarence Thomas can’t be challenged in his views on race – after all, he’s an African American, so he must be right.
mavprof - September 15, 2010 at 11:44 am
Marktropolis’s ad hominems against Dinesh D’Souza ignore the more probable point that what he writes about the roots of President Obama’s purported anti-colonialism may well be written from conviction. And to Ms Ghilarducci: You fail to impress by introducing Paul Krugman as a “Nobel prize winning economist” when you offer only an example of Paul Krugman the histrionic polemicist of the left who shotguns generalizations about “the madness that has overtaken the American right.”
marktropolis - September 15, 2010 at 12:07 pm
mavprof, I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say in your first line. That I’m ignoring D’Souza’s convictions? And while this might be a short-cut, I took a quick trip to Wikipedia, and pulled this line from their entry on Ad Hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem): “The ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.” That said, D’Souza is nothing if not a man of conviction. I was attempting to make the point that he’s had these “convictions” for a long time. And it’s curious that your calling Krugman an “histrionic polemicist” when in my book, D’Souza has that particular market cornered. At least Krugman has some legitimacy to his writing (you know, Nobel prize, chaired professor, etc). D’Souza is simply a hired gun for the right. And he has been for a long time. If it’s true, is it still ad hominem?
mavprof - September 15, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Well, Marktropolis, here’s what I see as you’ve asserted about D’Souza:He shops his South Asian ancestry in delivering mad notions in order to gain recognition from the political right and untold wealth for himself. All assertions, all unproven. Not sure about his “millions”–are you his accountant? (Advice: ditch the hyperbole)And why in your first posting is the reference to D’Souza as a “‘native’ Indian” manacled in “scare quotes?” (or “convictions” for that matter–seems just another sophmoric and lazy shorthand way of dressing up yet more ugly ad hominem assertions). Isn’t he a native Indian?And you left my own claim about Krugman entirely unscathed in your riposte by your reference to Krugman’s Nobel Prize and his chair (guess that means they gave him a job, too). Histrionic and polemical generalizations remain dubious no matter who delivers them. And Ms Ghilarducci may be faulted (like you) for touting his credentials in economics while only offering an example of his political polemic.
marktropolis - September 15, 2010 at 4:28 pm
mavprof, check this profile of D’Souza (http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2005/apr/14/controversialist/). At the time (2005) he was living in a “big” house in Fairbanks Ranch, CA, which is a pretty exclusive, gated community. Median income in excess of 200,000. I’m guessing (based on seeing a variety of IRS 990s of the orgs that he worked for) that he began making a salary in the low six figures beginning in the early 90s. I may not be his accountant, but I can add.Also, in the article cited above, D’Souza himself is quoted acknowledging that he’s used his race and skin color to his benefit. The “scary quotes” may have been intentional (but characterizing them as “manacled” bring all kinds of disturbing images to mind, whether that’s your intent or now), but that’s merely an acknowledgement that the right-wing loves to have people of color out there flacking for them. And D’Souza has done that very well for many years – and much of what he was talking about had to do with race. Furthermore, if you can show evidence to refute my claims, please do so. I provided evidence to support mine. Again, if it’s true, is it still ad hominem?I’m much more sympathetic to “histrionic and polemical generalizations” when they are emanating from someone who actually has some credibility in their field of choice. Polemics are not necessarily “dubious.” Krugman is a recognized economist. D’Souza is not. And the fact that D’Souza went to great lengths to “prove” Obama’s Kenyan and Socialist underpinnings – including a fair amount of “ugly ad hominem assertions.” To whit: “the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history;” or characterizing Obama’s actions as “strange” or “bizzare.” All in the context of a decision the Export-Import bank made on some obscure international agreement. Obama is supporting off-shore drilling in Brazil – he must be a Marxist Mau Mau. At least that’s the case D’Souza is making.D’Souza’s piece is riddled with ridiculous accusations that only make sense if you understand How D’Souza Thinks. And also only make sense within the larger assualt on Obama’s legitimacy as a president that has been going on since he started running. Interesing that Public Enemy is on tour celebrating the 20th anniversary of the seminal album “Fear of a Black Planet.” And there’s a Black man in the white house. Hide your women! Unless of course that Black man (or Indian, or Hispanic for that matter)is a bonafide conservative. Than it’s all good. Evidence: Clarence Thomas.
mavprof - September 15, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Same concoction of sneering innuendo, apparently incurable hyperbole (Obama supports drilling for oil in Brazil, so conservatives believe “he must be a Marxist Mau Mau,” etc.), frosted over with the now routine accusations of pandering to racism. Right, Marktropolis, whatever.
marktropolis - September 15, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Sneering? Incurable hyperbole? Did you actually read D’Souza’s column? He spent a lot of ink making the case that Obama has inherited his father’s “incurable” socialism. And he ties it back to Obama’s decision related to the Brazil oil drilling (among other things, but also including something about NASA, the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, taxes, and ironically enough bank bailouts – I’m not sure how someone who is so anti-business would support a bank bailout).So, mavprof, instead of engaging in the content of either the article, or Ghilarducci’s posting, it appears that you’d rather engage in ad hominem attacks against me. So I guess you’re last line is rather appropriate. Whatever…
mavprof - September 15, 2010 at 7:49 pm
No, Marktropolis, “whatever,” as in indifference to exchanges without accusatory ad hominem attacks, reductive hyperbole, and reckless “crying wolf” accusations of racism.
marktropolis - September 16, 2010 at 10:14 am
mavprof, who’s crying wolf? Or who’s making accusations of racism? It’s real easy to shut down the conversation by hurling around phrases like ad hominem, or reductive hyperbole. I do find it interesting that your phrasing seems to indicate that your don’t care about conversations that DON’T have ad hominem attacks and reductive hyperbole, and reckless accusations. Perhaps it was a typo. Or perhaps that’s actually what you’re here for. And since I have been trying to not take the bair, you don’t want to talk about it anymore.It’s also becoming oh so predictable that when someone on the right starts to lose an argument, out come the weak “but you’re accusing me of racism” charges. Could I accuse Newt of racism? Certainly. Did I accuse D’Souza of it? No. Althought I did point to his use of race. Which is different. But, it’s apparent from your last two postings that you actually have no interest in discussing the topic. So why engage in the first place, unless your’re just trolling…