Why Are Right Wingers So Proud of Being Such Bootlickers

[Ocean Seal]

Its as if it were some sort of badge of honor to them. I've been reading Demonic by Ann Coulter, and it really seems like there is some sort of merit in discussing how little property you destroy. In a sense you cannot even defend the actions of your cause by any means as it would harm your exceptionalist worldview. Violence on behalf of "legitimate powers" is okay, but destroying private property is a no-no.

"Violence and property destruction are specialties
of the Left. As the New Yorker reported, a twenty-six-yearold
Tea Partier from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology thought about printing out a copy of the
entire 2,000-page 2010 health care bill and throwing it in
Boston harbor, but changed his mind when he found out it
would be against the law."

"Just a few years earlier, in 1770, John Adams had
famously defended the British soldiers who shot and killed
Americans in what came to be called the Boston Massacre...
In his closing argument, Adams portrayed the crowd as
a howling “rabble” that shouted, “Kill them! Kill them!”
and threw “every species of rubbish” at the soldiers: “We
have entertained a great variety of phrases to avoid calling
this sort of people a mob. Some call them shavers, some
call them geniuses. The plain English is, gentlemen, [it
was] most probably a motley rabble of saucy boys,
Negroes and mulattoes, Irish teagues and outlandish
jacktars. And why should we scruple to call such a people
a mob, I can’t conceive, unless the name is too respectable
for them.”

I assume that it has something to do with the dissonance that would occur when attacking the left for its destruction of private property. But how can you substantiate your views when you cannot even defend the weakest actions of your unorganized constituents.

[Art Vandelay]

I've been reading Demonic by Ann Coulter,

Dear god, why?

Edit: how does she write off the Boston Tea Party as not being "property destruction?" Or let me guess, she doesn't mention it.

[Zav]

It's because they were wearing boots during their first sexual experience.

[Ocean Seal]

Dear god, why?

Edit: how does she write off the Boston Tea Party as not being "property destruction?" Or let me guess, she doesn't mention it.
Mainly because I thought that I could learn something about conservative indoctrination, or at least get some lulz. But she's way too charged to allow for lulz. And the Tea Party is interesting. She talks about how the major founding fathers didn't support it, and how it was a "mob action" to a lesser extent than the "liberal" French revolution which shows how evil the mob is.

[Omsk]

Please don't read this idiocy, read revolutionary poetry, Mayakovsky comes to mind.

Or listen to nice songs, Georgian/Russian music, it's beautiful in a hot summer night, with a glass of nice wine looking at the ugly city and thinking how great it would be to launch a revolution and crush the enemies of the peoples power while establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Questionable]

I wish I was patient enough to sit down and laugh at stuff like Ann Coulter. I'm way too emotionally attached and I just end up getting pissed off before I can laugh.

[Sea]

Their twisted view of reality puts them as heroes that fight against the menace. They see themselves as such heroes and being conditioned to put a lot of importance in pride, they take pride in it.

Either that or they're colorblind and jealous, so they start bashing the reds greens blues and rainbows. :P

[o well this is ok I guess]

Please don't read this idiocy, read revolutionary poetry, Mayakovsky comes to mind. Revolutionary poetry is the worst.

On the topic, you'd probably have a much easier time finding the psychological foundation of sexual fetish's.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Mainly because I thought that I could learn something about conservative indoctrination, or at least get some lulz. But she's way too charged to allow for lulz. And the Tea Party is interesting. She talks about how the major founding fathers didn't support it, and how it was a "mob action" to a lesser extent than the "liberal" French revolution which shows how evil the mob is.

The incidents of mob violence were truly the greatest moments of the American Revolution, like drunken mobs of rabble stumbling out of Boston taverns to hurl shit and rocks at British soldiers, roving crowds who enforced boycotts against British goods with force, armed groups who instituted a reign of terror against Loyalists and fought a guerilla war against the Crown, etc. Conservatives don't like to talk about any of these things, though, for obvious reasons.

Admittedly people like Washington didn't like these sorts of things, either. He tried throughout the war to build a force built upon the traditional European codes and structures of warfare, y'know, advancing your line of cannon fodder to the front, fire, advance another line, fire, repeat repeat repeat.

[MarxSchmarx]

Ocean Seal you raise a terrific question - I guess here's where I let slip my less-than-marxist approach to these kinds of issues.

Basically I think what makes right-wingers right wingers comes down to their authoritarian world-view - be it driving a car, politics, religion, science, ontology - they see justice as a natural hierarchy (on which they conveniently occupy a pretty high place) and efforts to disturb that hierarchy as contrary to the way things should be and hence ultimately unjust.

The idea is as old as Plato and has never died. Thus there is a hierarchy if not among races and sexes then certainly between a peoples' different genes, between clergy and flock, between capital and worker, between state and citizen, hell between "Flag and Queen" and the rest of us cannon fodder. The "bootlicking" you attribute to right-wingers is so-often about their glorified efforts to maintain the hierarchy. They are proud of such efforts, because they see it as contributing to justice. In their twisted minds, buttressing hierarchy is fighting for social justice.

When historical conditions are such that such a hierarchy becomes reinforced through material circumstances (e.g., whereby capitalists/lords extract from workers/serfs the means of their own enrichment) such ideas are so pervasive and powerfully ingrained, rightwingers have a hard time seeing any merit in tearing down such hierarchies.

It is a disease.

[MuscularTophFan]

Ann Coulter is a very interesting character. She sells lots of books by making outlandish edgy statements. In fact here is the world according to Ann Coulter:

1.) Obama holds "Noam Chomsky's world views"
2.) Women should not be allowed to vote because they support abortion
3.) She claims eventually humans will be able to find the "gay gene" and abort gay babies which is why gay people should be pro-life

And yet she's make fun of people like James David Manning and Fred Phelps for claiming Obama was born in Kenya or he's the anti-Christ. Than again James David Manning and Fred Phelps seem to go off the right-left political spectrum. James David Manning claims the entire US congress and US Supreme Court know that Obama was born in Kenya and are covering it up in a grand conspiracy and Fred Phelps claims the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is god punishing American for our acceptance of homosexuality.

[The Jay]

Ocean Seal you raise a terrific question - I guess here's where I let slip my less-than-marxist approach to these kinds of issues.

Basically I think what makes right-wingers right wingers comes down to their authoritarian world-view - be it driving a car, politics, religion, science, ontology - they see justice as a natural hierarchy (on which they conveniently occupy a pretty high place) and efforts to disturb that hierarchy as contrary to the way things should be and hence ultimately unjust.

The idea is as old as Plato and has never died. Thus there is a hierarchy if not among races and sexes then certainly between a peoples' different genes, between clergy and flock, between capital and worker, between state and citizen, hell between "Flag and Queen" and the rest of us cannon fodder. The "bootlicking" you attribute to right-wingers is so-often about their glorified efforts to maintain the hierarchy. They are proud of such efforts, because they see it as contributing to justice. In their twisted minds, buttressing hierarchy is fighting for social justice.

When historical conditions are such that such a hierarchy becomes reinforced through material circumstances (e.g., whereby capitalists/lords extract from workers/serfs the means of their own enrichment) such ideas are so pervasive and powerfully ingrained, rightwingers have a hard time seeing any merit in tearing down such hierarchies.

It is a disease.


I think that reasoning is a pillar of conservative thought even if they don't know how to voice it. I used to think exactly in that way so I know that what you say is true for those are like my former self. Many more think that way but if it was pointed out they would either reject that they believe so or realize their folly. I'm going to assume most will choose the first option. For those that choose the second there's some hope.

As for your calling it a disease, that may be more apt than you meant. If one accepts certain psychological conditions as diseases, as I do, then one might also know that one of therapies is to find cognitive distortions and correct them. I think that here is one of those cognitive distortions, at least on the part of those who deny the reasoning you proposed as a hallmark of many conservatives - if not most.

[The Douche]

The incidents of mob violence were truly the greatest moments of the American Revolution, like drunken mobs of rabble stumbling out of Boston taverns to hurl shit and rocks at British soldiers, roving crowds who enforced boycotts against British goods with force, armed groups who instituted a reign of terror against Loyalists and fought a guerilla war against the Crown, etc. Conservatives don't like to talk about any of these things, though, for obvious reasons.

Admittedly people like Washington didn't like these sorts of things, either. He tried throughout the war to build a force built upon the traditional European codes and structures of warfare, y'know, advancing your line of cannon fodder to the front, fire, advance another line, fire, repeat repeat repeat.

A very interesting author is Gordon S. Wood, who wrote "The Radicalism of the American Revolution". He is very much a conservative historian and his book attempts to portray the founders as radicals, but in a non-european sense, and he prides the founders as not being like Robespierres or Lenins, and attempts to paint the American revolution as being radical, but not radical like other revolutions and as not having any class content.


The idea that there were not American Jacobins is just silly, the sons of liberty and people like Thomas Paine were certainly the Jacobins of the American revolution. And they exercised a whole lot of terror and brutality against occupying troops and their supporters. Tarring and feathering is a pretty nasty fucking treatment, afterall.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And the Tea Party is interesting. She talks about how the major founding fathers didn't support it, and how it was a "mob action" to a lesser extent than the "liberal" French revolution which shows how evil the mob is.Wow, it's amazing how their contemporary fears about things extend to not only covering up working-class fight back, but their own traditions as well!

Actually, I shouldn't be surprised. Though the American and French Revolutions were both motivated by similar ideas, by the time of the French Revolution, the U.S. was passing laws against sedition and even French immigrants.

In many bourgois revolutions there was an initial phase of a sort of populism - trying to unite (under republican or protestant leadership) all the classes against the old regime. But once the old ruling class was deposed, there would be a repressive period where the new rulers would try and clamp down to make sure that the hopes and radicalism necissary to mobilize the population against the old rulers wouldn't turn on them. In north America, this was how the Constitution and entire idea of the U.S. was formed - they needed a federal government in part so that they could overcome rebellions.

As George Washington said of Shay's rebellion (a rebellion of ex-revolutionary war soldiers): "You talk, my good sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found, or, if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is not government. Let us have a government by which our lives, liberties, and properties will be secured, or let us know the worst at once."

[Os Cangaceiros]

A very interesting author is Gordon S. Wood, who wrote "The Radicalism of the American Revolution". He is very much a conservative historian and his book attempts to portray the founders as radicals, but in a non-european sense, and he prides the founders as not being like Robespierres or Lenins, and attempts to paint the American revolution as being radical, but not radical like other revolutions and as not having any class content.

The idea that there were not American Jacobins is just silly, the sons of liberty and people like Thomas Paine were certainly the Jacobins of the American revolution. And they exercised a whole lot of terror and brutality against occupying troops and their supporters. Tarring and feathering is a pretty nasty fucking treatment, afterall.

That's pretty ridiculous, I think. Of course the American Revolution had class content, just look at the position many of the American Revolution's luminaries held within the economy at the time! There was also an ideological spectrum within the American Revolution, as in all revolutions, with some founding fathers representing the cutting edge of republicanism, such as Samuel Adams who was opposed to slavery and supported universal education, and conservative elements like Alexander Hamilton, who rather liked the kind of authority that a king could command.

And arguing that the American Revolution lacked "Terror" is kind of hard too, not as much "Terror" as the French Revolution, but it definitely existed to a large extent in the American Revolution, one book that documents American revolutionary terrorism pretty well is "Violent Politics" by William Polk. Also the term "lynch mob" originated in the American Revolution:


Charles Lynch (1736 – October 29, 1796) was a Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia) planter and American Revolutionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_(American_Revolution)) who headed an irregular court in Virginia to punish Loyalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)) supporters of the British during the American Revolutionary War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War). The terms "lynching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching)" and "lynch law" apparently derive from his name.

So yeah...



But actually what I find most interesting about the American Revolution was the concept of "liberty" in it. Perhaps best personified by a quote by Marquis de Lafayette after the war: "Humanity has won it's battle. Liberty now has a country." Reminds me of quotes from leftists around 1917 about how the working class now had a country, etc. All through the American Revolution you see stuff about liberty and the rights of man and so on, officers from all over Europe came to fight in the American Revolution because they embraced the ideals, Johann De Kalb perished saying that he was going to die for the rights of man, etc.

I think it's a fascinating historical portrait of an ascendant ideology that would make another big impact in the French Revolution. The same could be said for communism/socialism during the early 20th century, with the SPD in Germany and the Bolsheviks in Russia, but we all know how that ended...

[Dumb]

They're boot-lickers for the same reason that the military has boot camps and frats have hazing: degradation of self increases the institution's value relative to that of the individual.

[CryingWolf]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the capitalist propaganda machine as an explanation for why conservatives believe what they believe.

[CryingWolf]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the capitalist propaganda machine as an explanation for why conservatives believe what they believe, as it also explains the beliefs of liberals.

If we accept this explanation, instead of postulating some fundamental character flaw, the fact that people can have beliefs so insane should serve as a warning to us all about the effectiveness of propaganda techniques.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Because they think it will help them out.

[eric922]

The incidents of mob violence were truly the greatest moments of the American Revolution, like drunken mobs of rabble stumbling out of Boston taverns to hurl shit and rocks at British soldiers, roving crowds who enforced boycotts against British goods with force, armed groups who instituted a reign of terror against Loyalists and fought a guerilla war against the Crown, etc. Conservatives don't like to talk about any of these things, though, for obvious reasons.

Admittedly people like Washington didn't like these sorts of things, either. He tried throughout the war to build a force built upon the traditional European codes and structures of warfare, y'know, advancing your line of cannon fodder to the front, fire, advance another line, fire, repeat repeat repeat.

The second paragraph always seemed like a really stupid way to wage a war if you ask me.

[eric922]

Mainly because I thought that I could learn something about conservative indoctrination, or at least get some lulz. But she's way too charged to allow for lulz. And the Tea Party is interesting. She talks about how the major founding fathers didn't support it, and how it was a "mob action" to a lesser extent than the "liberal" French revolution which shows how evil the mob is.
I can sympathize with you on that. My best friend used to be a Glen Beck fan and when he stayed the night at my house one time he started reading on of his books out loud. I told him to stop or I'd throw the damn thing out the window.

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the capitalist propaganda machine as an explanation for why conservatives believe what they believe, as it also explains the beliefs of liberals.

If we accept this explanation, instead of postulating some fundamental character flaw, the fact that people can have beliefs so insane should serve as a warning to us all about the effectiveness of propaganda techniques.

The problem with your claim is that it puts the proverbial cart before the horse. Different propaganda is effective in different societies - it's important to understand not just that capitalist propaganda works, but why it works the way it does in capitalism. For example, the "freeloader problem" is among capitalism's most effective propaganda talking points, and this appeals to a certain capitalist mindset. Moreover, in places like America, France, and Britain, it's dressed up with a lot of racist and sexist code words, where it takes on a particularly virulent form.