Reactionary Right Wing [again]

I’ve been trying to come up with a word or phrase to help explain the ‘philosophy’ of the so-called reactionary right wing, but I struggle with delineating the group. My political and ideological philosophy is so far from that of this group that I am at a loss in an attempt to figure them out. Perhaps that task is altogether impossible given the term ‘reactionary.’ Or perhaps that is, in fact, all that there is to know.

The right-wing cave posse to which I often refer are ready to ‘bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran’ as John McCain urged. Nukes too! It’s all about that alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador. Knee-jerk reaction: blow Iran off the face of the earth. That posse must have been drooling [with erections lasting more than 4 hours]  at the opening volley of Bush’s Shock ‘n Awe on March 19, 2003. Kick-ass! Waahoooo! Kill them bastards!

Yes, they now want to do the same to Iran [link]. Apparently the reactionary right would be willing to sacrifice another 30,000 U.S. Military killed or wounded to ‘teach’ them a lesson. Ironically, those posting comments to that blog linked above claim to be veterans and/or are strong ‘supporters’ of the military. Go figure, because I can’t.

Kick ass!

Imagine if ‘their’ candidate actually won the Office of President. I can’t.

In case you missed the details of the assassination story that has lit the fuse of the reactionary right, here they are.  You may need to take notes because the plot is highly complex:

An elite branch of Iran’s military handpick a divorced, 56-year-old Iranian-American used-car salesman from Texas to hire a hitman from a Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the ambassador to Saudi Arabia by blowing up a bomb in a crowded restaurant in Washington.

There you have it. The perfect plot!  What could possibly go wrong?

I’ve often said that the reactiveness of that group reminds me of my adolescent years when ‘the moment’ was a lifetime. Adolescents seldom think of the big picture, the consequences of their actions. The future is tomorrow, the moment is everything. My Psychology 101 analysis is that perhaps these reactionary right-wingers never left their adolescence and are forever stuck in that awful stage of life that we were so happy to leave behind. Kay S. Hymowitz, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a Contributing Editor of City Journal, wrote a piece a few years ago in which she defined a ‘new hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence.’ She used the term, ‘the child-man.’

Take bombs, guns and GI Joe, for example. We boys [and several girls] used to play war, cops and robbers and cowboys and Indians. We used to ride tricycles and poop our pants, too. Yet, not too sadly, we left that stage of our development and moved onward and upward towards adulthood. Sadly, many on the reactionary right still like to play guns and war. They may not dress like GI Joe [some do] but they sure like to pretend that they are. Vicarious warriors, alternate reality.

Dare I throw religion into this potpourri? After all, most are true-believers- yet another example of an alternate reality.

Have I been successful in delineating the reactionary right-wing? Hardly. Who can? The term, amorphous mass comes to mind. And not at all a benign amorphous mass, to be sure.


9 thoughts on “Reactionary Right Wing [again]

  1. In my household we have a debate going…..are they like 3rd graders on the playground trying to impress because of a poor home life or do they resemble a clique of 7th grade girls acting out because of the teenage “condition”?

  2. Bombing Iran is stupid, and they are permanently frightened. The reaction of the fearful amygdala ‘primitive brain’ crowd rather than the forebrain cerebral citizens.
    The craziest thing I’ve heard so far is the contention that the particular Saudi diplomat is gay, as the reason for going after that particular individual.
    The only thing that does have a familiar thing in all of this is the part that has been lost too often in the news accounts. This was to be in conjunction with attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Back in the 90’s there were a couple of attacks in Argentina which has resulted in continuing warrants in Interpol for Iranian officials. The Argentinian allegations are one of the aspects of this that give it a possible plausibility– but NOT any credibility for declaring war on Iran.

  3. Mud- I have debated with the Conservative crowd numerous times. Their opinions do not waiver. But, we have disagreed and debated also. Your opinions do not seem to waiver. That’s what I like about all these blogs. Everyone seems to stand by their convictions. And as often as I disagree with you, CS, Sepp, or whomever. I still appreciate the fact that all you guys stand by what you believe. That my friend, is what makes America a wonderful place.

  4. Everyone seems to stand by their convictions.

    Standing by ideology is OK, but skewing reality is not. Nor is it alright to use specious debate ‘tactics’ to attempt to denigrate one’s opponent.

  5. I have been meaning to write about this for some time, and it just came up again on Morning Joe. I heard it first from Fred Thompson, you know the
    conservative Senator-actor from TN and bumbling presidential candidate.

    And, in a way, M_R, it is a possible solution to one of our dysfunctional national government problems. The plan calls for an amendment free way to change the election of the President instead of eliminating the Constitutional electoral college. The idea is to have States pass a law individually that says whoever wins the popular vote nationwide the electors of that state vote for that
    person. This is an interesting proposal, M_R. What do you think?

  6. Nada, UptheFlag. Why have electors if they are forced to cast a vote based on the national vote? Seems redundant.

    Rather, what about apportioning the state electoral vote mathematically according the the results of that state?

    1. Well, M_R, it would have given us Gore instead of Bush in 2000.

      Moreover, I believe something like 6 States have passed the law. It
      includes NY, MA, CA, HI, IA and maybe NH, plus the D.C.

      How can it be redundant? It’s only one vote.

      What the plan does is to give a State a chance to have a significant role
      after the election. Take Mississippi or any State, The odds of Obama
      achieving a slate of Democratic electors is nil, but under this program the
      States in the program get to support the popular vote getter, and then
      their electoral votes go to that person. Say Fl or OH or a VA is not
      in the program and casts its votes for the other candidate. MS and other states in the program then increase their value to the popular winner. It could very well take away the “solid GOP South”.

      Your suggestion, it seems to me, offers no chance of ever being enacted
      because will only go for a full loaf and not a half loaf. They lose in the
      power struggle. Moreover, it would probably still necessitate a Constitutional
      Amendment to pro-rate the vote…..

  7. 1. It sounds a lot like Gerrymandering. In the statewide popular vote you, could elect a Democrat; but if you just let the congressional districts place a single vote for whoever won the popular vote in that district, you could easily elect a Republican statewide.

    2. In the current Electoral College in the United States, the individual states are a mixed bag. Take Ohio; it was a close race between McCain and Obama in 2008. But with Obama squeaking by with a small lead, all of Ohio’s Electoral votes (number of congresspersons plus two Senators) went to Obama. It was just the opposite in Arizona. But a few states split their Electoral College votes in direct proportion to the popular vote.

    3. Now with the votes cast at the two National Party Conventions, all common sense thinking goes out the window. It is really still the “old boys network” in selecting Presidential candidates in the United States. Just look at who gets the Vice President slots.

Comments are closed.