Share This Page

'Right wing'?

| Saturday, April 27, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Rick McKee | The Augusta Chronicle

“If history were to repeat itself,” warned President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his 1944 State of the Union address, “and we were to return to the so-called normalcy of the 1920s, then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of fascism here at home.”

The “normalcy” of the 1920s that Roosevelt referred to was a time of peace and prosperity. The decade began with Republican President Warren Harding commuting the sentences of political prisoners jailed by the Wilson administration, including the socialist leader Eugene Debs.

“Normalcy” meant the end to the Palmer raids aimed at rooting out dissidents, the end of economic rationing, the cessation of domestic surveillance and the state propaganda of the World War I years.

Also, “A return to normalcy” was Harding's campaign slogan in the 1920 presidential election, which he won in a landslide over Democrat James Cox and his running mate — Franklin D. Roosevelt.

That Roosevelt nurtured resentments against the Republicans for the drubbing he received in 1920 is no surprise. That those resentments ran deep enough for him to smear Republicans in 1944 with the “spirit of fascism” at the height of the war against the real thing is nothing short of disgusting.

But it was effective.

Harry Truman recognized that when he ran for president against the liberal Republican Thomas Dewey in 1948. Truman charged that Dewey was the front man for the same sort of “powerful reactionary forces” that orchestrated the rise of Hitler in Germany.

When a communist assassinated President Kennedy, somehow the American right got the blame. Lyndon Johnson translated that myth into a campaign of slander against Barry Goldwater, casting him as a crypto-Nazi emissary of “hate.”

After the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton saw fit to insinuate that Rush Limbaugh and his imitators were partly to blame.

Such partisanship is hardly reserved for partisans. The late Daniel Schorr, then of CBS News, reported that Goldwater's planned European vacation was really a rendezvous with the German right in “Hitler's onetime stomping ground.”

Schorr spent his golden years at National Public Radio. No doubt he would have been pleased with the “reporting” of its counterterrorism correspondent, Dina Temple-Raston. Before the identities of the Boston bombers were confirmed, she said her sources were “leaning” toward believing that it was a homegrown “right-wing” attack, and cited that “April is a big month for anti-government and right-wing individuals.”

How so? Well, because April's when the Oklahoma City bombing took place, as well as the Waco siege, the Columbine shootings and, how could one forget, Adolf Hitler's birthday.

Over the last few years, the invariably unjustified rush to pin violence on the “right wing” — particularly the tea partyers — has reached the point of parody. Remember when New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg speculated that the foiled Times Square bomber might just be angry about ObamaCare?

As the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein recently noted, among the myriad reasons conservatives take offense at this idiotic knee-jerk slander is that the term “right wing” is also routinely used to describe both terrorists and mainstream Republicans such as Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. I can exclusively report that neither of them celebrates Hitler's birthday.

Every Muslim terrorist enjoys not just the presumption of innocence until proven guilty but the presumption that he's a fan of Ayn Rand, too.

Ah, but some would respond that “right wing” is different from “Muslim” because there's so much similarity between mainstream conservative ideology and the terror-filled creeds of the far right.

Except there isn't.

Timothy McVeigh, an atheist, wasn't part of the conservative or libertarian movements. He wasn't even part of the militia movement. And what on Earth was right wing about the Columbine shootings?

In plenty of cases of multiple killings, from the Unabomber to Christopher Dorner, the perpetrators espoused views closer to the mainstream left's than McVeigh had to the mainstream right. Occupy Wall Street was an idealistic expression of democratic protest, but the tea partyers were brownshirts in khakis.

And, recall that Secretary of State John Kerry belonged to a group — Vietnam Veterans Against the War — that once discussed assassinating American politicians. Barack Obama was friendly with a convicted domestic terrorist.

But to even bring these things up, never mind invest them with significance, is considered outrageous guilt by association.

And you know what? Maybe it is.

But if that is outrageous, what do you call the paranoid style of liberal politics that has confused normalcy for fascism for more than half a century?

Jonah Goldberg is the author of “The Tyranny of Clichés,” which will be released in paperback on Tuesday.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.