Skip to main content

It's probably a holdover from war propaganda technique. Dehumanize your enemy; make them less sympathetic. For Republicans, that requires inventing an artificial social standard for which they can create consensus, something they ironically call the "real America," a militaristic, political force of religious, cultural warriors who fight for all they choose to define as good and true, a standard that exists only because believing makes it so. They then point out how communities that challenge that standard are unfaithful, greedy heathens.

It could be as simple as Group X saying, "We keep the poor from dying," and the Republicans claiming Group X gives help to murderers, rapists and thieves. Wanting a hand up is cast as envy. Wanting a fair wage is seen as ingratitude. Asking for considerations when one has needs but no means becomes socialism.

Planned Parenthood and the United Nations are among those the GOP has singled out in its fight, organizations that a generation ago were honored and revered by Republicans and Democrats alike. Emboldened by their hand in the destruction of ACORN, an organization that did nothing but help inner city communities, they think they have a precedent of success for their self-righteous attacks.

So successful was the vilification of ACORN, that even though the organization went under in 2010, nearly half of Republicans recently surveyed by Public Policy Polling, 49%, believe that the defunct community group "stole the election for President Obama." That number is greater than expected, PPP points out, "given that ACORN doesn't exist anymore."

Even the Republicans' decades-old assault on unions is an example of how the GOP turns the fears of its largest campaign donors into an existential threat to the country.

Not surprisingly, there is more than a little hypocrisy, here. For the Right, it is more acceptable to be part of Grover Norquist's union of people who want to cut entitlements and eliminate most taxes than to acknowledge the United States' part in a union of nations. The shock for most observers is that they took their disdain for the UN to Tuesday's Senate vote on an international treaty on rights for the disabled. So vehemently do they oppose the body that endeavors to maintain global conversations for peace and human rights, that 38 Republicans voted against ratification, and the treaty failed to achieve its necessary two-thirds majority by five votes.

For many in the Old Guard, the reason for voting against the treaty was self-preservation. They are afraid that of a challenge from the Tea Party wing of their party in the next primary. That fear caused United States Senators to engage in isolationist driven, pretzel logic justifications of their stands. This is less about raising the rest of the world to the standard of our 22 year old Americans with Disabilities Act, they argued, than it is about making us more like them, or worse, subjecting us to their laws and oversight.

"I've heard from parents of disabled children," Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) said during Tuesday's floor debate, "that this treaty will threaten their rights as parents to determine the best education, treatment and care for their disabled children. I simply cannot support a treaty that threatens the right of parents to raise their children with the constant looming threat of state interference."

"That's the way it works in the United Nations," agreed Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). "Many other mischievous actions will certainly arise to bedevil our country and we'll have hypocritical meddlers complicating our internal efforts and our internal social and health policies."

In the case of the UN, the existential threat Republicans are pushing is sovereignty, which the courts have said can never be given up by treaty.

In the case of ACORN, the threat was electoral integrity, protecting the roles from people they don't want to see voting, even though voter registration was only one function of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Their main mission was advocacy for low and middle income communities in the arena of public safety and public health. And making Planned Parenthood a target gives them a bogeyman against whom they can defend their questionably religious morals.

The bottom line is, it's all manufactured. They've made up this whole moral, ethical, nationalistic platform like it's something to which we should all aspire, that to want anything else is unpatriotic, anarchistic drivel. It's insane demagoguery, and it sucks when it works.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), summed up the Republican penchant for putting their own interests before the needs of the American people, in an interview, Wednesday, with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, in response to Tuesday's failed UN treaty ratification. "Fear triumphed," he said, "and politics triumphed."

When will reason triumph?

-PBG

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Help me understand this treaty (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cfk, ER Doc

    I am not sure how these treaties work. Does the US have to approve this treaty for it to be effective? Or does each country sign if they agree to abide by the treaty, independent of what other counties do? If some number of member nations agree does that have any bearing on countries that don't sign? If the ADA is already in effect in the US does this treaty have a real impact on the disabled in the US if we sign, or not?

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 06:19:09 PM PST

    •  Each country does it differently (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pat bunny, ER Doc, VClib

      For the USA, the president can sign an international treaty, but it is not ratified, and therefor not binding on us, until 2/3 of the US Senate approves it. This treaty only got 61 votes. It needs 67.
      Not every country has such a process - the leader signs it, and that's that.
      I am pretty certain that this treaty stands internationally, regardless of how many of the countries actually go through a ratification process.
       It becomes a problem if it is a treaty between us and, say, Russia, on nuclear disarmament, and the Senate doesn't ratify it because they want to play politics with it. Then, it is not in effect until they get the vote or renegotiate the treaty. Still, most first world countries will abide by parts of a treaty they can control until the other side comes around, politically.

    •  As I understand it, ProseAndThorn is right... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, ProseAndThorn

          The treaty is in effect for all the nations that ratified it. It's not binding on the US, since we didn't ratify it, but since it's largely based on our Americans with Disabilities Act, we will largely be in compliance anyway.

      -7.25, -6.26

      We are men of action; lies do not become us.

      by ER Doc on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 07:12:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site