Hate Party

I felt a bit nauseous watching the Republican convention last night. I’m very much a give-the-benefit-of-the-doubt kind of guy, so I try to listen to the arguments people make even when they’re made in over-the-top or patronizing ways. Sometimes it’s good to distinguish between the rhetorical devices and the underlying substance. Even people who use manipulative language sometimes have an important point beneath their persuasion techniques (ads against smoking, for example).

I usually don’t feel uneasy when I put those filters on, but last night – during the Guiliani speech – I realized I was no longer filtering a speechwriter’s intentional manipulation; I was trying to look beyond real hate. These folks were gritting their teeth, shaking their fists, and smiling the way gladiators do when going into combat against barbarians. And this is the incumbent party. The ones currently in power.

What is it they hate? Guiliani and Palin both made it pretty clear: community organizing. Community organizing is energized from below. From the periphery. It is the direction and facilitation of mass energy towards productive and cooperative ends. It is about replacing conflict with collaboration. It is the opposite of war; it is peace.

Last night, the Republican Convention made it clear they prefer war. They see the world as a dangerous and terrible place. Like the fascist leaders satirized in Starship Troopers, they say they believe it is better to be on the offensive, taking the war to the people who might wish us harm than playing defense. It is better to be an international aggressor – a bulldog with lipstick – than led by the misguided notion that attacking people itself makes the world a more dangerous place.

In their attack on community organizing – a word combination they pretended they didn’t know what it meant – Giuliani and Palin revealed their refusal to acknowledge the kinds of bottom-up processes through which our society was built, and through which local communities can begin to assert some authority over their schools, environments, and economies. Without organized communities, you don’t get the reduction in centralized government the Republicans pretend to be arguing for. In their view, community organizing as, at best, equivalent to disruptive and unpredictable Al Qaeda activity.

But it actually goes deeper than this. Consider how Republicans have so far justified their choice of candidate: he is a “great man.” That America needs a “hero” in the White House to lead us in continued preemptive strikes against Bin Laden in Iraq (I know Bin Laden is not in Iraq, but Giuliani clearly implied he was). Only a leader with McCain’s war record and paternal qualifications can help Americans muster and maintain the tenacity necessary to “drill baby drill,” (even though this will have no influence on oil price or supply) and generate the requisite hate to “kill baby, kill.” As I explained in Coercion, having a parent figure on whom to transfer authority allows people to regress to a more childlike state. This not only allows them to feel safe; if gives them the freedom to express their rage. Make no mistake – that’s what we’re witnessing. And this rage – not America – is the greatest threat to humanity’s long-term chances for survival.

Republican party representatives are proud today that their convention has finally produced the “same level of energy and enthusiasm” as the DNC’s last week. And while it may have produced the same level of excitement, the excitement was of a very different character. It’s much easier to get people riled up but inviting them to hate a man – particularly one who they haven’t been allowed to hate for traditional reasons. Giuliani’s job – much like his job as mayor of NYC – was to give the Republicans in attendance permission to hate Obama and the potentially intelligent society he represents. It’s not about city vs. country or educated vs. military. It’s about thought vs. violence.

In the black and white world of those committed to war as an international relations strategy, voting “present” makes no sense – especially when the Illinois legislative process is willfully misrepresented. (Voting present is a way to preserve the bill without passing it in its current state. Far from an easy out, it is the hard path – requiring further negotiation to remove earmarks and other problems.) They would prefer the simple relief of a “yes or no” world, where the evil are punished and the good rewarded. For in such a world, we get to know who the enemy is and just hate them.

I don’t believe hate is the best way to motivate people to develop long-term solutions to problems. It is a tried and tested way to motivate them to short-term support of dangerous leaders. That much is certain. But if McCain and Palin are able to rouse the national hatred they will need to actually win this election, I fear they will have unleashed a force that they will be unable to control.

Posted on 4 September '08 by Douglas, under politics.

71 Comments to “Hate Party”

#1 Posted by Michelle (04.09.08 at 16:33 )

Very nice. You mean “without” instead of “with” in the 12th line from the bottom. :)

#2 Posted by chris23 (04.09.08 at 16:37 )

Excellent thoughts here, D. Interesting to parallel these ideas with the notion of an American/Christian death culture. We’ve been steeped in it since our inception as a nation and it runs much further back into the Crusades and the roots of Christianity. Our most prominent idol is a man nailed to a cross, dying. Weird and a bit twisted. Seems like it’s been balanced out to some degree by a resurgence of the pastoral vibe, at least for the last 5 years or so. The central myth of Tolkien seems to be playing out in the American landscape: War & oil versus peace and land. (Is this an emanation of the central dynamism between Force & Form?)

#3 Posted by Rob (04.09.08 at 16:38 )

Coercion by hate and fear is a standard technique. America’s increasing fractionalization into isolated subcultures with their own media sources sustains it. Cultivated paranoia fuels it, paranoia integral to some spiritual systems.

It will be interesting to see if the campaign can explicitly call out manipulation by fear, and disarm it. Obama’s hope campaign has the potential to do so.

Hard core supporters, left and right, will unlikely be moved. The decisive battle of images and emotional identity takes place in the middle.

#4 Posted by quentin (04.09.08 at 16:38 )

I’ve been struggling myself with watching the speeches last night. I’m glad you are able to put into better words than I, the impression I also received form the speeches last night.

#5 Posted by peter (04.09.08 at 16:40 )

I think you nailed a few points here i’ve been trying to think through. Particularly the worldview differences. I am the epitome of a swing voter this season, because I’m a conservative and feel the party has betrayed me with their anger, hate, lies, manipulation and deviance from principle. I’ve been doing my best to listen to both sides, and I’ve found similar: the worldview of the left is an optimism in the reasonable nature of people, the worldview of the right is that there is good vs. evil, and that you cannot treat a beast like a reasonable person.

I have actually heard that analogy alot from the right – obama thinks you can try to negotiate and persuade a wolf or a snake. Rather, the GOP thinks you treat a snake like a snake and a wolf like a wolf and a person like a person.

Both thinks the other is naive.

I still don’t know how I see the world…mostly because I have seen examples of both sides. Interesting to ponder though…alot to figure out before november

#6 Posted by Thomas CermakS (04.09.08 at 16:43 )

Simply fab, man. The dichotomy (violence/peace) you’re wielding helps to simplify the spectacle of this event. Pepe, from therealnews.com, gave a similar account about the speeches as fuel for the demonization of community organizing and the chaotic/paranoiac spirit of war. You articulated the manifest destiny of the Republicans incredibly well.

Reminds me a lot of the Jerry Levitan interview with John Lennon featured in the I Met The Walrus vid on youtube. Not much has changed – eh?

#7 Posted by mason mckibben (04.09.08 at 17:26 )

I’ve come a long way, learned from you, Douglas, to put on my filters and try to avoid the hate, the belligerently Manichean “yes or no” these people thrive upon and force upon the rest of us. Last night virtually the whole lot made me feel quite sick.

McCain passed upon the mildly vomitus inducing Lieberman because the party had to have the lipsticked pit bull in the whitehouse. It”s like they are hoping their “hero” will die (and soon) for the same old perversions of government and hatreds they intend to keep perpetrating.

Check out the book review @ in these times:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3847/unholy_allies/

These leaders, these “block by block” fascist community organisers consider themselves saved by Jesus and every hate filled Republican who has any anxiety about his or her hateful political sins can be comforted that it is ok by Jesus.

The whole Christian community should be as disgusted with these people as the Islamic community can be disgusted with Bin Laden and company.

I can not recommend enough the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

We have seen the enemy (over and over again) and he is us. Clearly, the Republican party and Sayyid Qutb know who us is. Jihad!

When will the Billions of faithful, thoughtful, considerate and (yes) occasionally truth loving people recognise these impostors for who they are? We don’t have to do anything to them per se, just know them for what they are, give them no quarter and stop voting for them.

Chazak!

-mason

#8 Posted by Morgan Warstler (04.09.08 at 17:45 )

Doug,

I think you are pretty aware that it wasn’t about hate, and you are simply trying to create some horrible straw man on the right.

Let me suss out just a bit for you. The “community organizer,” thing is disturbing because it is 100% Saul Alinsky… and most people don’t know what it means. And if most “likely voters” actually bared witness to it in practice, they’d be disgusted with its tactics.

The bottom up that you speak of, finds itself in notions of the free software movement and federalism – not it agitation and striking. Said another way, to you the “bottom” is the poor. To others, the “bottom” is the individual. In that way, conservatives are very much bottom up. You should acknowledge it and force yourself to accept the paradigm as logical, even though you don’t like where it leads – other’s do. To many, the maintenance of the individuals rights is paramount – and nothing you’ve written here negates that basic premise.

Indeed, you do a dis-service to your own cause, to pretend that the libertarian conservatism found in the Repub party is based on “hate” of some “other.”

The anger is palpable, but it is anger at theft justified “by any means necessary.” It is not anger at a man because of his skin, or because of his favorite vegetable, or his choice of career – it is anger at his ideas. Nothing else.

That said, if Obama just comes out and says he will support a balanced budget over more spending if given the choice, I’ll support him.

We aren’t all as far apart, but with your missives, you make it so.

#9 Posted by James (04.09.08 at 17:50 )

@Peter
Do you think there is any chance of creating a lasting peace where one side characterises the other as being less than human?

People are people, not wolves or snakes.

#10 Posted by Laura (04.09.08 at 18:10 )

Thanks for that post, Doug.

#11 Posted by Mthomson (04.09.08 at 18:13 )

A great article I think. Though I’m not a 100% supporter of Obama (I think it will take more than four years to rebuild what has been done in the last 50 years of Western corporate foreign policy), he does clearly represent a sane alternative that might actually allow for more of the bottom-up organizing Rushkoff advocates. I particularly like the metaphor of paternal states allowing people to regress to childish states. This causes not only the rage he so accurately describes, but also an inability to take responsibility in any meaningful way for one’s actions (thus the conservative tendency to blame immigrants, environmentalists, queers and lefties for the current political, economic and ecological problems we’re all currently facing, if they can accept that these problems exist at all).

One more thing I’d add: it’s not simply the fascists of Starship Troopers these Republicans seem to mimic, but the fascists of Germany and Italy in WWII, the totalitarian “communist” states of the USSR, Cambodia, etc. This is happening, here, now. And though Harper seems more benign, I fear we face a similar spreading of hate here in Canada–Harper is to a Republican’s anger what Marlow’s “flabby-eyed devils” are to Kurtz’s madness. Simply another expression of darkness that masquerades as moral caution.

Hate’s so much easier to invest in than community organization (and works way more quickly). In any case, scary stuff, and a call to the election booths (if the conservative hawks don’t steal them from liberal neighbourhoods and toss them in the river).

#12 Posted by RU Sirius (04.09.08 at 18:25 )

There’s the visceral anger and warrior stance for sure. That’s what they’re selling to the marks. But the underlying message in the contempt for “community organizer” is… who the hell needs a community organizer? All our needs are met by the market. We can go to the supermarket, the movie theater, the mall, the bar. We don’t need no steenkin’ community organizers. And if there’s a crisis, like a flood or Category 5 hurricane our community organizers are the cops, the National Guard, and now… Blackwater.

#13 Posted by merkley??? (04.09.08 at 19:43 )

I’m a Ron Paul-ish atheist who grew up in UTAH. I moved from the reddest right neighborhood in Provo utah to the reddest — oops, bluest neighborhood in the Lower Haight of SF. I never experienced hatred in Provo, they are an evangelical bunch, they want you to join up, it’s about conversion. Conversely, the hatred expressed towards people in SF who hold opposing political views (they hardly exist here) brings to mind what a potential lynching might have felt like back in the good old days.

This post is a perfectly good example of the pot calling the kettle hateful.

You HATE them so you demonize them.

So original.

What about just accepting the fact that other people see things differently?

Have fun!

#14 Posted by Douglas Rushkoff: Hate Party | Phil Nelson (04.09.08 at 19:53 )

[...] A very well written and interestingly thought-out essay. [...]

#15 Posted by News » Douglas Rushkoff on the RNC (04.09.08 at 20:06 )

[...] the rest of his essay, titled Hate Party, [...]

#16 Posted by strean/beans / Last Night (04.09.08 at 20:17 )

[...] can I say? I was thinking; but really this is better. (Thanks, [...]

[...] the rest of his essay, titled Hate Party, [...]

#18 Posted by Douglas Rushkoff on the RNC (04.09.08 at 20:22 )

[...] Read the rest of his essay, titled Hate Party, here. [...]

#19 Posted by Kittelsen (04.09.08 at 20:40 )

The crowd’s booing and hissing last night took me back to another time and place where paranoia reigned supreme and the emotional common denominator was rage: a high school football game.

I’m no lovebug but it is because of this raging crowd spirit that I’ve always been so ambivalent toward sporting events.

Far more nauseating than the speeches or the crowd’s willing acceptance of them, though, was the hard-swallowed truth that a significant share of Americans–a significant share of our species–responds to this signaling affirmatively.

Having been subjected to this convention, today I looked at my fellow people on the street and wondered which of them were bulldogs prepared to kill, baby, kill. Exactly the kind of thinking that, once it grinds your ideals down enough, brings a man all the way over to the Far Right. The Fear Right, if you will.

To prevent this from happening to me, I’ll donate more money to Obama and draft secret exit strategies to flee the country if McPalin wins.

#20 Posted by Jun (04.09.08 at 20:42 )

I don’t know about Giuliani, but I’m pretty sure Palin doesn’t hate it when communities organize — she was a PTA mom for goodness sake.

What I think she might hate — as do many folks — are those people who use their positions as professional community organizers in cynical ways, for example to further their own (political) careers.

Can’t disagree with you on the war-mongering, though. The GOPers certainly seem eager for battle.

#21 Posted by dejamuse (04.09.08 at 20:55 )

Yup. This pretty much parallels the “strict father morality” notion that conservatives adhere to, as put forth in George Lakoff’s book, “Moral Politics – How Conservatives and Liberals Think”. They are either authoritarian figures themselves or align themselves with such people. The model fits many conservatives I know. My mother used to chastise me for labeling people, but it’s natural to do so if you understand the family model. In another book, “Don’t Think of an Elephant”, Lakoff wondered what conservative’s seemingly unrelated issues had to do with one another – what does abortion have to do with taxation, for example? He then realized that progressives were just as galvanized, but around the exact opposite positions of conservatives. After some time he realized it had to do with so-called family values. Recognizing various metaphors like “father of our country”, and “daughters of the revolution”, and sending our “sons” to war, he worked backward looking at positions on issues from both the conservative and liberal viewpoints and concluded that family values to conservatives represent a “strict father” family whereas the liberals identified with a “nurturant” family model.

In the conservative’s world, the strict father can:
Protect the family in a dangerous world.
Support the family in a difficult world.
Teach his children right from wrong.

Thus obedience is implicit in this model, and is why conservatives can so easily dance around the facts, logic and well reasoned arguments. They are irrelevant in their emotionally driven world.

I am a flaming liberal but my brother is way on the right, yet we grew up with the same father, who was not particularly strict in the conventional sense, though a centrist, non-religious Republican. So I believe these notions are developed somewhat independently of actual family life. Perhaps another father figure was influential in their lives. My brother was heavily into the boy scouts and I reviled them.

Anyway, these books are interesting reading and really helped me to get my arms around this complex subject. The subtext is “Know Your Values, and Frame the Debate”.

….Jeff

#22 Posted by Dugan (04.09.08 at 21:06 )

Another simple yet surprisingly accurate way to polarize the two sides would be to say Republicans are fearful and willfully ignorant and Democrats give credence to science and sound economics.

It’s a lot shorter to type and is easily backed up by voting records and quotes from each. But what you wrote is more opinionated and interesting.

#23 Posted by Aaron (04.09.08 at 21:08 )

Most intense is the way in which this particular brand of conservative ideology is manifesting itself on the street outside the RNC:

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-72526

#24 Posted by americanliberal (04.09.08 at 21:14 )

@ Morgan – you say “…the maintenance of the individuals rights…” as if the Republicans had any such intentions. sadly no. they wish to remove individual liberty and allow the church and state to decide what is okay for you and what is not okay for you. of course, i guess you could argue that this is only the case in terms of those most personal of liberties: who you love, who you sleep with, who you raise children with, and what those children are taught in public schools. but who wants a government that tells them who they may or may not love? is that really what you want? is the market a trustworthy arbiter of our personal values? i disagree. the market is not the be all and end all of our decisionmakers, nor should it be. people, especially “the bottom” (ie THE POOR) need safety nets. life does not proceed according to corporate mission statements, and if the Savings and Loan Companies (and McCain along with them!) can be bailed out by the taxpayer, than the gov’t can help the individual out, too. afterall, does the taxpayer not pay taxes, too? you wish to create logical arguements out of conservative “values”? good luck. you’re going to need it.

#25 Posted by Douglas Rushkoff on the RNC « WTF Grand Old Party!!?? (04.09.08 at 22:16 )

[...] Douglas Rushkoff’s article is back up at http://rushkoff.com/2008/09/04/hate-party/ [...]

#26 Posted by Douglas Rushkoff on the RNC | The Current Buzz - Tech (04.09.08 at 22:38 )

[...] have unleashed a force that they will be unable to control. Read the rest of his essay, titled Hate Party, here. UPDATE: Doug’s site is under a Denial-of-Service attack, so he’s kindly given us [...]

#27 Posted by BubbaBuddha (04.09.08 at 23:57 )

I would recommend you pick up Karl Hess’ “Community Technology” if you would like an example of why that kind of “movement” leads to a dead end. People generally speaking don’t crave to be told to be responsible by someone that has their interests at heart, they generally crave advice on how to even the score with others in the community. Most don’t want any kind of “community” organizing if it means they have to do something other than complain about something or be obsessed with the crime of others to the expense of their ability to actually change the environment that has created such outcomes.

Another one worth picking up would be “In Praise of Decadence” by Jeff Riggenbach. If you go through the book you get a sense that the 60′s were far more Libertarian than the media always lead us think, and that a real revolution can occur from the right mostly because most people already hold those assumptions about government.

R.D. Laing mostly showed that people were always fighting battles with each other in a manner that resembled the kind of mentality of the cold war, a very paranoid game theory modeled on John Nashs’ theories, specifically the “F**k You Buddy” scenario in which people tried to screw each other over. Politicians have seized upon these notions not because they actually exist in reality but because they bring about conditions with which people can effect reality through market choices. But market choices alone appear not the actual outcome, if one were to take the fact that people do express some sense of altruism in the world also as a given then there can be room for communities but they would be organized around individuals working to further each others liberty through mutual aid or Anarchy.

Most liberal and conservative people simply have not been presented with alternatives based on a non-violent expression of anarchy. Most people see anarchists as evil and more like terrorists, both parties agree to these narrow definitions of liberty. The conservative party though offers the gretest opportunity for takeover in the manner with which Ron Paul tried in 2008. Someone younger with generally anarchist capitalist notions could effect more change than any democrat under the current set of issues regarded as importent to them.

Both parties fail to shrink government and only make the cancer worse usually, and both do so for differing reasons. Leopold Kohr in “Th Breakdown of Nations” wrote that “But what is the critical magnitude leading to abuse? The answer is not too difficult. It is the volume of power that ensures immunity from retaliation…This means that, whether we are individuals or groups, once the critical point is reached, we become brutes almost in spite of ourselves.” That means to me that it matters not whom you elect, they will surely find a use for their massive power gained and will behave in ways that nobody can predict, which in my opinion as well as Leopolds we need to scale down governments not just abroad but here at home. If people want to organize their communities then do so and break away from the federal union, why just have Russia breakaway states when we can have our own. That can be the only kind of way in which the great massive power of the US will lose it’s power, your taxes brought you these wars without end and these Imperial societies, I say don’t just talk about decentralization do something. None of these candidates even acknowledge any kind of seperation of powers amongst the states because they know they derive their powers from a unified centralized society.

#28 Posted by CounterClckWise (05.09.08 at 00:10 )

The culture war theme was pretty large for the Republicans, but it sounds to me much more defensive than you read it. Rural and red-state people have a huge chip on their shoulders (like the Chinese) for the condescending attitudes they endure all the time from elite culture. And that condescension is very real.
Palin obviously has no real problems with community organizing — she was in the PTA, which is a lot more concrete than buttering up administrators for social welfare dollars. I find it hard to believe that you sincerely peg her with this. She was counterattacking on her experience as an actual executive, experience that had been scoffed at by Obama apparachniks. Defensive action.
When you say “Giuliani and Palin revealed their refusal to acknowledge the kinds of bottom-up processes through which our society was built” you’re really talking past what they said. In their view, Obama is the one who is attacking bottom-up community organizations — churches, PTAs, etc. — by replacing them with a nationwide, coercive, top-down, one-size-fits-all social agenda (that doesn’t have room for their ignorant rube lifestyles). Again, this is an essentially defensive position.
As far as demonizing opponents as the Other, look to your own violation of Godwin’s law. Read a few pages of comments on the DailyKos, and you’ll see it on the other side. The sad fact is that demonization is a universal trait in all societies everywhere throughout all of human history. It’s a measure of our cultural achievement that a few of us are able to learn from the other side. Please rise above.

#29 Posted by Mthomson (05.09.08 at 00:27 )

To respond to Morgan Warstler:

Of course the bottom up approach embraces individual rights. What we’ve forgotten though is that individual rights are not mutually exclusive from collective responsibility.

Some of the most interesting political philosophies seek to reconcile individual freedom and collective action. Conservatism doesn’t do this. Neither, really, does state-based liberalism.

You’re right that liberalism embraces federalism. I think likely its because federalism is the only tool that at this point can meaningfully deliver social safety nets: health care, education, income support, daycare etc. Corporate services just don’t cut it.

And before we get onto the “individuals should take care of themselves” train, which is an argument that comes up far too often, let’s keep in mind a few things:

a. We live in societies (I’m not American, but Canadian and American societies aren’t that different these days) that owe something to history. Slavery, genocide, sexism, prejudice: these mean something. They have historical legacies. To expect an individual to escape their own history is the equivalent of saying, “leave your home town with nothing on your back and make yourself rich.” It can happen, but more often than not you’ll wind up dead in a ditch. Colonialism and prejudice are passed down, generation upon generation, and to expect pure inidivualism because the law (or the market) makes it so is as impossible as expecting democracy when an invading army frees you.

b. If we assume that communities are good (and there aren’t many who’d deny this, but we all disagree on what it means), then let’s start acting like one. That doesn’t mean just your town–it means your region. But wait, you’re dependent on your state for some goods, your nation, your globe. You have a responsibility to those places (whether you acknowledge that or not) because at this point we’re all interlinked. And if you think they should just pull themselves up their own bootstraps? See point a. Again, that’s why, though I hate nationalism and I’m not crazy about federalism, I’m not deadly opposed to it. It can be a useful ally in creating these inter-community links. If we keep the tenets of democracy in mind.

c. The tendency away from the collective toward the individual has (in recent history) tended toward the corporation. This may be because corporations are recognized legally as individuals, and because it might seem they deliver services more cheaply than governments. But let’s be honest: individual welfare even when divorced from collective responsibility (survival, care of self, taking care of those around you) is directly opposed to the stance taken by many (though not all) large corporations (which is profit at any cost). I support federalism (at this point) because my government keeps (in theory, and relatively poorly) the big corporations in check.

d. Which brings us to civil society. This is the best of all worlds: individually run, collectively responsible, and bringing big government and big business to account. This is what the Republican, and admittedly sometimes the Democratic, parties pass themselves off as.

**These parties are not grassroots. They may have grassroots supporters, they may appeal to marginalized urban and rural voting populaces, but they are not, by their very national, corporatized, overly funded existence, grassroots.** I think both parties pretend to be civil society, but the Republican party is the only party that has built a reputation for itself as marginalized while (Rushkoff points out above) being in power! That’s pretty remarkable. How can a pro-war, anti-choice, discriminatory party that has held the White House for the last 8 years ever seek to represent itself as marginalized?

By getting people angry and mobilizing them through hate (and for the most vocal Republicans–granted not all–yes, it’s about hate, of gays, scientifically-verified climate change, impending energy scarcity, minority rights, non-religious government, etc.).

And I’ll grant it to you that you’re right that Democrats (liberals?) perpetuate hate against Republicans (conservatives?). But let’s be honest. . . without a major civilization-wide collapse, federalism represents the best opportunity to counter large-scale corporate appropriation of what (I think we might both agree) are the most important rights: those of our communities and ourselves.

Federalism needs to be held to task, absolutely. But moreso, the unchecked, rampant greed of multinationals. They’re here to stay, and unless we decide to act against them collectively, it’ll be for the worse.

#30 Posted by Obo (05.09.08 at 01:20 )

I’m sorry, but that is the stupidest thing I have read during this election. Amazingly dumb on every single fucking level. You ignored the political reasons for the comments, the contexts and you tried to somehow evangelize the word “community organizer” like it’s some new way to say philanthropist.

#31 Posted by alephsvision (05.09.08 at 02:46 )

some of the commentary written is insightful, and communicates inner-feeling of proponents.

My own feeling is that one side leaves me with an impression of real hope. That side is not the GOP.

I appreciate the appeal to those parts of my being which I hold to be “the better side” … the part that wants to rise above “tooth and claw” and become human in a way that is not petty and base.

your mileage may vary

#33 Posted by John Edwards (05.09.08 at 04:20 )

Where has the spine gone in America? None of you, from Rushkoff to bloggers 1 – 15 has the faintest idea what is at stake here. As a college professor, I have spoken directly with hundreds of Middle Eastern students and stared REAL hate directly in its dark brown eyes! E.g.: A Palestinian student pushed a steel ring in my face, which showed a skull with assualt rifles for crossbones, and declared “This is the peace that the world deserves.” A Yemeni student asked me to move him to the extreme opposite corner of the classroom because he discovered the student next to him was a Jew. An Iranian student declared to me “There is a prophecy attributable to Mohammed, in which he stated ‘The day will come when the very rocks cry out “there is a Jew hiding behind me for the faithful to slaughter,” ‘ and that is exactly what I will do on that day, professor.”

Tragic people who think like you are the children of the wayward hippie generation of my youth that refuses, to this day, to love this country and its values. Unfortunately, most of you will ultimately inherit the wind before you know what hit you. Most of you will never understand the real difference between hate and patriotism until you are led off in chains to your conquerors’ re-education camps. The threat to America is real, not propaganda, and you had better be afraid of that threat when you vote this fall.

#34 Posted by Josh Ellington / Blog » Blog Archive » RNC Debacle (05.09.08 at 05:54 )

[...] the South Side of Chicago: Time-Blog.com. Also, here’s a good piece on the theme of the RNC: Hate Party. 09 05 [...]

#35 Posted by Jonathan Salem Baskin (05.09.08 at 06:18 )

I was struck by much of the same observation as you, only I couldn’t have dimensionalized nor expressed it as eloquently. There are two different approaches being used in this election, and they arise both from the substantive beliefs behind each, as well as the context in which they’re competing. And, however blunt and imprecise the Republican message might be, it might well be more actionable…i.e. get-out-the-vote-able…than the Democratic position. I wrote about it a bit on DIM BULB today.

#36 Posted by ArtF (05.09.08 at 07:11 )

Douglas,
Thank you for putting into words what my monkey brain was feeling as I was watching/listening to these speeches.

Great essay.

#37 Posted by smsutton (05.09.08 at 07:52 )

Perhaps another dimension could be added to the “hate” discussion. Let’s not forget the matter of control. If you cannot destroy what you hate then a viable option is to control it. One need not look further than our capitalist economies, class structures and police states to see find effective conrol tools.

#38 Posted by Mason (05.09.08 at 08:44 )

I’ve come a long way, learned from you, Douglas, to put on my filters and try to avoid the hate, the belligerently Manichean “yes or no” these people thrive upon and force upon the rest of us. Last night virtually the whole lot made me feel quite sick.

McCain passed upon the mildly vomitus inducing Lieberman because the party had to have the lipsticked pit bull in the whitehouse. It”s like they are hoping their “hero” will die (and soon) for the same old perversions of government and hatreds they intend to keep perpetrating.

Check out the book review @ in these times:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3847/unholy_allies/

These leaders, these “block by block” fascist community organisers consider themselves saved by Jesus and every hate filled Republican who has any anxiety about his or her hateful political sins can be comforted that it is ok by Jesus.

The whole Christian community should be as disgusted with these people as the Islamic community can be disgusted with Bin Laden and company.

I can not recommend enough the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

We have seen the enemy (over and over again) and he is us. Clearly, the Republican party and Sayyid Qutb know who us is. Jihad!

When will the Billions of faithful, thoughtful, considerate and (yes) occasionally truth loving people recognise these impostors for who they are? We don’t have to do anything to them per se, just know them for what they are, give them no quarter and stop voting for them.

Chazak!

-mason

#39 Posted by Greg Riley (05.09.08 at 08:54 )

Doug,
Nice job, I very much agree with there is an appeal to anger but I don’t think the community organizer attack is a disparagment of community organizing so much as a way to distinguish what they claim is Obama’s inadequate experience from Sarah Palin’s limited experience. They want to show that Palin’s experience is in a responsible position while Obama’s is contrived and trival.

Morgan Warstler,
After the spending bender that GWB has been on how could anyone be expected to operate on a balanced budget? Put the “Patriot” Act on your reading list if your concerned about your individual liberty. You may be find it is the work of fear mongering conservatives.

#40 Posted by Andy Petrovitch (05.09.08 at 09:43 )

Some of the people here bashing this article, including post #33, are laughable. Rushkoff here isn’t expressing any sort of “Hate” – he’s merely criticizing the right, something that is taboo in America (meanwhile, the Limbaughs, Hannity’s, and Coulter’s of the world get to speak freely).

As for post 33 in particular – you had me there for a moment until you stupidly suggested that the left “doesn’t love this country.” But the very reason we criticize this things is that we DO. Yes, there is a danger from Islamic terrorism, but simply because we don’t believe in a constant state of war does not mean we hate America. THIS is precisely the demonization of the Left that Rushkoff is talking about. Your argument is a fallacy of non-sequitor.

Post #30 is the stupidest thing I’ve read in this election. “Obo” criticizes without mentioning a single, logical point of debate.

#41 Posted by Mike (05.09.08 at 09:59 )

I’ll go ahead and tell the terrorists who want to kill us all (and have already killed thousands) that we’re not really at war after all. What we really need is to send a few community organizers over to Iraq and Afghanistan to sort things out on a grass roots level.

Look, it’s not about the expression of rage, or “thought vs. violence”. It’s about two candidates who are for change and actually have experience bringing it about vs. a youngster with lofty ideas and generalities but no real experience executing anything specific and a multi-decade Beltway insider who’s not at all likely to change the Washington that has made him who he is.

Oh, and don’t try to turn the “hero” references around on McCain. That guy is truly a hero, and he doesn’t need a Greek temple or two autobiographies to prove it.

#42 Posted by Mark (05.09.08 at 10:03 )

At the end of McCain’s speech on Thursday, he spoke several sentences about how if you don’t like the system, run for office or volunteer in your community, etc. I was waiting for him to use the phrase “community organizer.” Very odd.

And after highlighting the anti community organizer comments, Jon Stewart ran a clip of the convention where scores of people were holding up signs saying SERVICE.

A striking double standard, but I guess that’s how hate works. Sort of like “Kill a for Jesus.”

#43 Posted by antimeria - Five for Friday, Sept 5. (05.09.08 at 10:30 )

[...] “Hate Party,” Douglas Rushkoff. The Republican Party’s ongoing war against the underclasses. Related: Sarah Palin’s book-burning background (halfway down). [...]

#44 Posted by Lexy-Lou (05.09.08 at 11:04 )

#8, you wrote:

“The “community organizer,” thing is disturbing because it is 100% Saul Alinsky… and most people don’t know what it means. And if most “likely voters” actually bared witness to it in practice, they’d be disgusted with its tactics.”

Do you mean practices in the Alinsky tradition like Rosa Parks seat at the front of the bus?

#45 Posted by Lexy-Lou (05.09.08 at 11:07 )

41:

Mike what exactly makes bombing Vietnamese peasants “heroic?” McCain ought not have been tortured, but his military missions were on par with the 9/11 hijackers: he slaughtered innocents to prop up his ’cause.

#46 Posted by rankandfile (05.09.08 at 11:14 )

Very appropriate considering this true experience I had.
I saw exactly 2 words of the Fascist National Convention….
(Un-intentionally seen, I might add, as I was channel surfing with no desire to watch the hateful white people celebrate their hatred and whiteness).

The two words that I heard/saw were spoken by Rudy.
They were: “Nine eleven”.
Seriously.

That sums up their whole deal, doesn’t it? No need to see or hear anything else.
Still riding that horse after 8 years.
What progress!

….and we, the doomed, grow more doomed by the day….

#47 Posted by Homer_J (05.09.08 at 11:16 )

“They would prefer the simple relief of a “yes or no” world, where the evil are punished and the good rewarded. For in such a world, we get to know who the enemy is and just hate them.”

Spot on. This is one of the reasons that the Neocons have been successful in recent years. It’s my belief that most people don’t have the capacity or patience to contemplate the “grey area.” Like young children, they prefer the simple black or white.

Great essay BTW.

[...] Read his full post.  (via BoingBoing) [...]

#49 Posted by DragonScholar (05.09.08 at 11:36 )

An interesting article, but most interesting to me is the question of can they control the hate?

I’d say the short answer is no. Take a look at talk radio and its right-wing members, at the religious conservatives, and the like. They’re actually weilding a lot of power – and they are often fed by hate.

The problems with hate are this:
1) It takes a lot of energy, even though its easy to start. So people have to keep being whipped up to use it.
2) It’s addictive, so people WILL enjoy whipping it up and will even do it themselves.
3) It’s wasteful and often ridiculous, so those addicted to hate have to keep modifying their functioning to maintain it.
4) It is destructive and solves little, so its failures require even more hate.

(It reminds me of an interpretation of Bateson’s Schizmogenesis that a social system, by focusing on one area, can spin out of control due to imbalance).

So basically, they’ve unleashed a “hate lifestyle” that can’t do anything productive, and that needs to be fed. It solves nothing, leaving people more in trouble, and some of them will resort to a “hit of hate” as opposed to solving problems.

My ultimate feeling is that win or loose, we’re stuck with the hate-addicted for decades. Frankly if Obama wins, I think some of them will go ballistic, and he, his family, and us will be in a great deal of danger. If he looses, we get hate and divisiveness blessed for another four years – and with our economic and other problems, things will be much worse four years from now.

#50 Posted by blowden (05.09.08 at 11:52 )

Thank you. This was an excellent article to read. I haven’t read through all the comments, so I may be repeating something. But if I am it can’t be said enough.

#51 Posted by Douglas (05.09.08 at 12:06 )

Krugman in today’s NYT:

“The Republican Party, now more than ever, is firmly in the hands of the angry right, which has always been much bigger, much more influential and much angrier than its counterpart on the other side.

What’s the source of all that anger?

Some of it, of course, is driven by cultural and religious conflict: fundamentalist Christians are sincerely dismayed by Roe v. Wade and evolution in the curriculum. What struck me as I watched the convention speeches, however, is how much of the anger on the right is based not on the claim that Democrats have done bad things, but on the perception — generally based on no evidence whatsoever — that Democrats look down their noses at regular people.

Thus Mr. Giuliani asserted that Wasilla, Alaska, isn’t “flashy enough” for Mr. Obama, who never said any such thing. And Ms. Palin asserted that Democrats “look down” on small-town mayors — again, without any evidence.

What the G.O.P. is selling, in other words, is the pure politics of resentment; you’re supposed to vote Republican to stick it to an elite that thinks it’s better than you.”

#52 Posted by Tom Guarriello (05.09.08 at 12:15 )

Very nicely said, Doug. The vitriol was pretty intense.

#53 Posted by Robert (05.09.08 at 12:19 )

When it comes down to it there’s little difference between the 2 parties, it’s more like “good cop-bad cop” where the Dems play nice guy and the Repubs are just all around dicks about everything. No matter who gets elected our government will continue to seek global dominance of the fossil fuel industry. Biden is a hawk just like Cheney, he “crossed partisan lines” to help draft the whole Iraq war.

That said, after seeing the 2 conventions I think I’m gonna have to vote Obama instead of a 3rd party candidate. The reason is not only the clear hatred for community organizers in their message inside, but their utter disregard for every aspect of lawful police procedure in their preemptive attacks on protesters and independent media outside in the days prior to and during the convention. The Dems and their barbwire cages were nothing to praise, but the republican party is determined to turn America into the next China, and if they aren’t given a break, with all that Bush has done I think it can be accomplished by the time McCain is succeeded.

#54 Posted by Tuff Mama (05.09.08 at 12:51 )

It is so interesting to read that you all think the Republicans are angry. My husband and I have been discussing the fact that all the Democrats we know (some in our own families) are so ANGRY all the time. You cannot discuss anything rationally because of the anger. I see it in your article and blogs, too.

I think you read too much into the speeches. You’re looking for something to be angry about, so you pretend the Republicans are angry. Everybody was smiling – I saw no anger. Even those “booing” were not angry. They were showing their support for the speakers and their disagreement with some of the Democrat policies.

If you dish it out, you have to be able to take it. Quit arguing and being so angry and do something to help our country. We are talking about our country here and making it better and the lives of its citizens better. There should not be all this anger at our friends and neighbors and families. You disagree with someone politically – that’s all it is. Quit turning it into more than that.

Thank you.

#55 Posted by The Rabid Republican (05.09.08 at 13:40 )

What a load of crap.

#56 Posted by JoeRigs (05.09.08 at 13:47 )

Excellent. Well thought, well said.

#57 Posted by John Robie (05.09.08 at 15:02 )

Tuff Mama – There’s a difference between anger and hate. Democrats are angry because of the manifold abuses and failures of the Bush Administration, and the craven inability of elected Democrats to stand up to that administration.

Republicans, at least a large percentage of them, hate. Hate isn’t necessarily angry. A shared hate can lead to the sort of smiling and smug laughter on display at the convention. Hate can bind a group of people together in a way that almost no combination of shared interests or well-reasoned arguments can. The fact that it is ultimately destructive is unimportant if your only goal is to win the next election.

#58 Posted by sly (05.09.08 at 20:17 )

To me, it’s not about anger so much as it is about the twisting of the truth and the twisting of words. We mislead our countrymen on a regular basis and it has become the norm on both sides of the political scale. Misleadership – do we really need more of that? I want my President and his selected peers to be beacons of leadership. Steadfast and calm, not spun up and pounding their chest. Leave the chest pounding to children like the leader of Iran. Reacting to putzes like that only fuels his power.

Another fellow mentions that real hate is in the eyes of the men, women, and children of the middle east. We feed this hate with all the ingredients into a nearly unstoppable chain reaction that will surely end badly. Our consumptionist, greedy, and lazy society siphons BILLIONS into the hate machine every year. This is a culture that wasn’t ready thousands of years ago for those kinds of resources and certainly isn’t ready today.

We defend our borders, close to our borders. Our best defense will be stemming the flow of resources from America’s economy directly into the coffers of hatred. This will take one thing, leadership. Calm, collected, and calculated leadership. Not more hate, not more violence, not a stronger response. You cannot stop the wave of hatred that is brewing in the middle east with force, it will not be rehabilitated, it will not be changed no matter how much money we throw at the problem.

Stop the twisting of the truth, the bending to the will of the commercial machine (BOTH Demo’s and Republicans), and stop the chest pounding bullshit. It doesn’t help when our leaders act like infants and showboat force. Build our forces, be ready to respond. Respond when necessary, but stop poking our fucking noses into everyone’s business and give up this delusion that we can change entrenched cultures with forcible reforms. The Crusades didn’t work, this won’t work either.

#59 Posted by Steve (06.09.08 at 03:33 )

Douglas,

I think you are clearly wrong to equate “community organizing” as commonly practiced with “bottom up” self-organization. If it was really about bottom up, there would not be all these well-paid “organizers” from other places coming to “organize” a community of which they are not an indigenous part. . The community members themselves would be the “organizers”. “Community Organizing” may or may not be a worthy activity, depending on many factors of context, but it is clearly *not* about “bottom up”.

-Steve

#60 Posted by Steve (06.09.08 at 03:40 )

Tuff Momma,

Cheney and Bush lied to the American people to get us involved in a war which is causing untold death and suffering both of our own soldiers and of Iraqis. They have turned our once great nation into something hateful and ugly.

I suggest that anybody who’s not angry about that has been taking too many “chill pill” type meds. The moral destruction of America is something any patriot *should* be angry about.

Just a thought,
-Steve

#61 Posted by Another socialist blog » Blog Archive » Hate Party (06.09.08 at 09:17 )

[...] Rushkoff wrote an excellent essay on the Republican National Convention, which may be why his site was under a denial of service attack for a while. What is it they hate? [...]

#62 Posted by Kayte (06.09.08 at 12:22 )

The type of community organizing that changes our live is often from the ‘bottom up’. Its when the people decide that they can make things better. In a world of complexities, that is actually such a wonderfully simple idea, an idea with a childlike optimism that is not childish.

I’m afraid of a world where we all shop at Walmart for toxic products shipped from places with no manufacturing restrictions, where we hate people just because they have a different world view, where education is a sad second to a fascist style of ‘faith’, where the holy are punished and put in prison for saying what is true.

There will nothing beautiful for our children to see, no wonder, no childhood.

I don’t want to live in this America. I hope things don’t go down this path. Don’t the Republicans want a better world? Don’t we all?

#63 Posted by mason (06.09.08 at 12:48 )

Republican Party: What do you hope to find down in the pig mine?

Palin: You radiate cold shafts of broken glass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNa551dR6Rc

Americans: Running over the same ground, what have we found? The same old fears. Wish you were here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB16O-5BfHo&feature=related

I was wrapped up in my filters listening for a loving change not John McCain in a lead role for a cage.

How i wish you were here, you house brown town mouse.

-mason

#64 Posted by jbird (07.09.08 at 01:22 )

we are in danger of becoming what “the right” say we are fighting against. i am sorry, but i don’t think “the left” has all of the answers either. what is happening is only natural and is fully explained in Howard Bloom’s book, The Lucifer Principle. we have lost so much face and slipped so far down in “the pecking order” of the world. they are trying to whip everyone into a frenzy, trying to make them think that “we” are going to stop the world from being destroyed, trying to make everyone think that what “we” are doing is right, moral, upstanding and just. they need a war, a victory, a conquest so our country’s “balls will drop” so everyone will look up to us instead of down on us. it’s just more rhetoric, the same kind of rhetoric that brought the Ayatollah to power. we all know where we are heading. we have seen the enemy, and he is us.

#65 Posted by TOL (07.09.08 at 21:03 )

This post is ridiculous in the way it uses the word hate. The implication seems to be that Republicans are bent on hate toward Democrats. The left in America sets the standard for intolerance toward those you disagree with. Political opponents are vilified as low-life scum bags. You don’t see that from mainstream conservatives. You can’t quote a single paragraph from the RNC or a major conservative blog that could reasonable be called hate of individual Democrats.

#66 Posted by M. Nestor (11.09.08 at 07:12 )

On a side note, it looks like just what I expected to happen is occurring: The media isn’t pretending that it doesn’t want the conservatives to win any longer, and is shaping a narrative that places Obama and co. in a defensive, weakening position. Sigh. I feel cynical. ^_^

#67 Posted by spacenospace (11.09.08 at 13:50 )

I couldn’t agree more with you here. That’s the only thing I could think and tell my friends after seeing the speeches I saw that night. I live in Canada where we really get as much media about your election as we do our own and it just seems like we were shown the heart of some sort of beast at that moment, of which the rest of the campaign is sort of a more cynical echo. People were virtually frothing at their mouths in anticipation of every negative comment. I don’t even remember hearing any constructive suggestions that night.

The dirt has already started to fly in Canada, with our election just having been called and I can only hope that it’ll be a little less hateful.

#68 Posted by chacha (12.09.08 at 15:06 )

I do have a question for anyone who would be willing to answer.

I was 18 years old in 1984 and was excited to vote for Ronald Reagan. I have to admit that I have admired him since then and I believe he was a good president. My question is this: Would I have heard the same rhetoric from Ronald Reagan in 2008 (or 1980).

Listening to the speakers (Palin, Guiliani, Romney, Thompson) and the responses from the crowd at the convention seems to have disheartened me and makes me wonder if Ronald Reagan was the candidate would I have the same disgust and disappointment for him that I felt on that Wednesday night

#69 Posted by monica (14.09.08 at 01:12 )

Thanks so much for articulating so nicely those things that make many of us downright queasy.

#70 Posted by mason (15.09.08 at 13:08 )

Hi chacha,

I was just entering college when Ronald Reagan become president and had been fairly active in politics, going door to door to get people to vote two election cycles prior. I knew what the guy was up to and was concerned about him.

His rhetoric was very upbeat and i could understand how people could get excited about deregulation of corporations and trickle down economics. The idea that this would stimulate the economy and make everyone rich was appealing.

But only with Bush II did we get to see what would actually happen with these policies in place. Since those years wealth and tax cuts and liberties have move up to the very very rich and the corporations. The costs of bailing out banks and protecting the rich have emptied the pockets of the average and above average workers. Unions and other organizational tools of the general populace are in tatters as the organizational tools of the business interests and their lobbies are firmly entrenched.

Today, instead of answering for this terrible situation , the Republican party is acting like they are not to blame. Douglas has it right when he questions the honesty and integrity of the angry rhetoric coming from the party.

It is hard to say what Reagan himself would say today, but any honest person, i should think, would have to admit Reagan policies were not and are not the answer. The media and the Republican Party kinda turned the guy into a saint. I think we should admit these policies were not what the country needed, but some folks, some angry folks don’t want to admit that the Reagan “Morning in America” was actually the beginning of a long decent into night.

On the foreign policy front one might say this decent began when before he was even elected, Reagan’s people were negotiating with the Iranian hostage takers, suggesting they keep the hostages to undermine Jimmy Carter’s chances of reelection. That Relationship with Iran turned into the Iran Contra Affair when against his own policies he eventually traded arms for hostages and used the proceeds to fund the murderous counter revolution in Nicaragua.

Then, if you recall, Old Donny Rumsfeld went to Saddam Hussein to support him with weapons of mass destruction because Iran was becoming to influential in the region. Saddam used them on Iran and his own people when he had them. Then, when he didn’t have them, Rumsfeld and company said he did and invaded. This schizophrenic, hypocritical and erratic foreign policy angered the whole Muslim world. And when they had taken our arms to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan they turned against us.

Republicans also created the culture wars here where the moral majority was getting into everyone’s business. Eventually they took over half of the party and more. In much the same hateful way, Bin Laden and Muslim world despots engineered their own culture wars against their secular politicians and the United states.

This is the Legacy of Ronald Reagan.

#71 Posted by chacha (18.09.08 at 01:24 )

Mason, thanks for the info. Some of what you say I have heard before. I do know that some of the things we did in the 80s from a business (and I guess social) standpoint were not positive in the long term.

Thanks for passing along the info :)