The Right, Our History, and The Fear of Understanding

The Modern American Right has always had an issue with the accurate portrayals of American History and it being displayed in text and film formats. That's always troubled me. And I'm not alone. Enter Oliver Stone and Showtime. The Right, whether in their more modest and farthers forms, have never liked Stone. I can almost see why - to a fault. From Stone's earlier works like Platoon to his forays into the world of documentaries like Persona Non Gratta, Stone has been cast in the character of a pariah for decades. Now he's about to complete another magnum opus for Showtime on American's "real" history. Enter William Bigelow and the serial distortionists at the Breitbart Media Complex

The polemic, which airs its final installment at 8 p.m. EST tomorrow night, intentionally distorts history in order to paint the United States as a terrible country that oppressed its people and hid the seamy side of its past. Ronald Radosh, in a brilliant attack on Stone and Kuznick in the Wall Street Journal, explains how they twist the truth in order to promulgate their attack on the noblest of nations. He begins by noting that Kuznick wrote in a book of essays that his role entails “creating a bridge between leftist and more moderate students … try to radicalize some of the more moderate and liberal students.” Kuznick said of the Vietnam War that America had gone so far "to the dark side" that "we were the wrong side." The authors deny that the Cold War was necessary, arguing that it only transpired because President Franklin D. Roosevelt dumped his socialist vice-president Henry A. Wallace (their hero) for Harry Truman in 1944. They assert that if Wallace had succeeded Roosevelt instead of Truman, everything would have been hunky dory with the Soviets.

While the documentary, regardless of subject matter, requires that somewhat of a common theme or narrative been reinforced throughout it's running time, the Modern American Right have clearly injected their own narrative without even the slightest attempt to understand that the history of this country isn't all waving flags, rhetorical flourishes from great men and women, and people prospering in the face of adversity. It was - and still is - at many times a bloody and scary place to call home and some of it's primary characters didn't always have a life that was white as snow. So here's the question - what does the Modern American Right have against even mentioning the seemingly more darker portion of our nation's history? They are all too willing at times to talk to us about "the truth", but are quite hesitant when that truth is revealed. This isn't to say that Stone's work on the Showtimes series didn't have historical plot-holes or spend longer stretches of time on subjects where more of a wealth of solid information is available or even hypothesize to a degree. Does that make it a documentary that is without merit? No. Does this mean that Stone is attempting to say that America is a place of nothing but evil and where not everyone is created equal? Not in the least. I'm not going to hold my breath in the hopes that the Modern American Right are going to even begin to accept the true history of our nation within my lifetime. Maybe never - based solely on the fact that they are creating their own dark history of this country, but it doesn't include anything about the Right - as the dark history revolves exclusively within the realm of anyone or anything that doesn't accept conservative or even libertarian beliefs as holy writ.

You People Could Learn From That

While sifting through some links posted by various bloggers I link on my site, I was immediately drawn to the irony of Mark Steyn attempting to wax philosophical about memory and society.

If anything, the modern American Right have done more just within the last 12 months to remove widely and accurately recorded American history in order to further some of the most specious and head-scratching narratives in my lifetime. From the level of religious fervor of the Founding Fathers, how Roosevelt was solely responsible for the extended length of the Great Depression, to reasons why Sarah Palin quit her elected position as Governor of Alaska, the Right could really use an American history lesson in the worst way.

This is no less clear than in a recent rebuttal to one of the Right's favorite "boogeymen", Bill Maher:



While Maher delivers a rather accurate portrayal of the Founders, this doesn't stop reactionary Right-Wingers from standing up an doing their best NUH-UGH !!!.

I hate to break it to you, Bill, but the majority of the Founding Fathers were religious. And those who weren’t orthodox in their beliefs, at least had a healthy respect and appreciation for religion. They didn’t want to force others to believe as they did – certainly – but they respected religion, and the Bible, nonetheless. Even those more critical, such as Thomas Jefferson, believed the Bible contained important lessons – lessons wise men should take to heart. There may have been a few, like Thomas Paine, who held religion in less high esteem, but they were the minority, not the majority.

It's clear that the author uses the word "religion" to imply "Christianity", but what they don't seem to understand is that Maher never once claimed that all the Founders thought there weren't at least a few good ideas in the Bible. As a fairly non-religious person myself ( I grew up in a strict Christian-conservative home ) I do think there are more than a handful of interesting ideas in Biblical text that could actually make the modern American Right more palatable if they actually abide by them rather than insisting they either don't apply or just apply to everyone else but them.

The realities surrounding the Founders is that the majority of them espoused - to varying degrees - a religious bent that would in no way mirror what the modern American Right would agree with. That is the point of Maher's monologue, but is lost on anyone too afraid to step outside of their clingy nature of King James text and what they perceive are it's messages to the modern world.

But then the author at HotAir's "Green Room" takes his "message" in a completely different direction:

Furthermore, unlike what Maher seems to believe, the Founding Fathers weren’t big fans of a welfare state. At all. In fact, they considered the government the greatest potential threat to freedom. They understood that an intrusive, activist state always limits a people’s freedom. That’s why they wrote the Constitution in the first place: they wanted to guarantee Americans specific rights, the government could not take away.

Funny, I never once heard Maher mention "welfare" of any kind in reference to the Founders. But, that is the nature of a Tea Bagger, to insist that anyone outside their limited sphere of understanding - whether of the history of this country or that of others - as they are more interested in claiming that all liberals/progressive are more interested in a handout than actually earning what they have.

Beyond that, I think this is a glaring example of how reactionary Right Wingers think that a strict interpretation of the Constitution and what they believe the Founders believed takes precedent over careful analysis of both. After all, do you think that Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Hancock, or Franklin could have envisioned what America would become even 100 years after the Constitution was written? To hear a Tea Bagger prattle on about it, you would think that they believed the Constitution was expressly written with multi-media election advertisements in mind.

The rest of the authors poorly constructed thesis reads a lot like a slightly longer and less interesting version of Pee Wee Herman shouting "I know you are, but what am I ?!?!?!"

The Tea Party continues this tradition. They too stand for individual liberty, over collectivism and social engineering. They want the government to get out of the people’s business – out of their health care and out of their pockets. If there’s one thing they demand, it’s to be left alone to live their lives as they please. Not as it pleases Maher and other cocky liberals who mess up their own lives in virtually every respect, but who nonetheless believe it’s up to them to tell others how to live.

Perhaps that Maher can do what he seems to value so much – get a good education – before spouting his mouth off again about things he has little to no knowledge of. If not, he’d do us all a favor if he’d just keep his deliberately humiliating mouth shut.

How has Marher messed up his life? He's a successful comic and host of a great show on HBO that has a wider variety of guests than any Fox"News" program that the author most likely would attempt to reference. Also, it seems that the author - and pretty much everyone within the blinding confines of the American Right Wing - think that just because someone from the Left responds to them means that they are jealous of how successful someone else is.

This isn't to say that the Founders would have agreed with the Left in America either. But then again, we don't operate under the delusion that the Founders are "just like us", as we can differentiate between the 1700s and today.

Ignorant Of History

Count this as another example of a Tea Bagger that wants to rewrite well recorded history.



But now it appears that Hayworth is doing his best to spin this in his favor.

The language of the two war resolutions is more or less identical, except for two lines: Japan “committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America” and Germany “formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:” Either way, in the lines that followed war was officially “declared.”

Hayworth is now attempting to split some hairs by saying he was referring to Roosevelt’s “message,” regarding Germany but the outcome, and the wording of the outcome, is the same. Probably in the future Hayworth should just stick with the basic facts and not attempt any frivolous interpretation.

I reminded of a special program Beck did on history and how it's recorded. He attempted to use the example of a news story being put through "the system" so that video and audio footage, along with accompanying text, can be called up in a control room at will. The only problem with this rationalization is that he was setting himself up for failure from the start, by relying on discredited, misleading, and often completely false information.

The same is true for Hayworth. I'm not entirely sure where he came up with this notion that America never declared war on Germany, but it's almost a given that he is attempting to validate "The Bush Doctrine" that conservatives once claimed didn't exit ( when Sarah Palin made an abject fool of herself during her first interview with Charles Gibson ) but then later claimed was quite real and in the better interest of our nation.

In the end, conservatives have a real problem with the history of the world and more specifically the history of this nation. For people that claim to love it so unconditionally, you'd think they would get something like America's involvement in WWII correct.

Selective Editing

Here's a short one, but one that should be addressed considering conservatives love for "Republican Jesus".

Do these people not remember that Reagan offered amnesty to illegals?

Seems that conservatives need a history lesson.

Does He Even Know What Progress Means?

Does Beck even realize that some of those "Founding Fathers" that he claims to love so much actually did own slaves - some even fathering children by them. Ah, the canted mind of the modern, reacitonary, conservative.

By default, the word progress means to improve, to change for the better. It appears that he is confusing that with "regressive", a standard mistake for the twiching masses that make up the fringe element of the conservative movement.

Historically Subjective

In my mind, one of the defining characteristics of the liberal movement versus the conservative is how the two groups view history.

Whereas conservatives are more than willing to gloss over or completely ignore any and all moments in history where America wasn't exactly the beacon of greatness they claim it always has been, liberals are open to the entire historical record - warts, scars, receeding hairline, poor posture, diarrhea and all. The who sha-bang-a-bang.

And I find it increasingly more and more bizarre that conservatives label accurately recounting this history of this country as "anti-American". Not only that, but conservative leaders, who have the ability to rearrange, muddle, and rewrite that same history in their own minds, are having a moderate amount of success in making others think as they do.

Recently, Fox"News" took up another torch for the wingnuts that they cater to on a daily basis by examining "bias" in school textbooks.





Now, a group of conservatives in Texas are attempting to reformat textbooks to not only remove people from the historical record, but to add in a religious component:

The Texas Board of Education, which recently approved new science standards that made room for creationist critiques of evolution, is revising the state's social studies curriculum. In early recommendations from outside experts appointed by the board, a divide has opened over how central religious theology should be to the teaching of history.

Three reviewers, appointed by social conservatives, have recommended revamping the K-12 curriculum to emphasize the roles of the Bible, the Christian faith and the civic virtue of religion in the study of American history. Two of them want to remove or de-emphasize references to several historical figures who have become liberal icons, such as César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall.

More @ The Wall Street Journal Online.

From removing black figures that have shaped American history, to deemphaziing the roles minorities have played in American history, to even removing the word "democratic" and replacing it with "republican", the conservatives appointed by the Texas State Board of Education seem to favor an indoctrinative process that is attempting to carve away whole sections of relevant American history.

One aspect of conservativism, aside from claiming that public schooling has suddenly become responsible for most of the ills in society, is the way in which those that subsribe to that ideological frame of reference advocate for the "voucher" program so that parents can put their children in otherwise unafforable ( and excoriatingly religious ) private institutes of learning.

What these people aren't telling you is that it isn't a "voucher" at all. By strict definition, a "voucher" is a document that allows you to have something for free - like a voucher for a free sandwich at Arby's. What these school "vouchers" actually are are coupons. With a coupon, you are given a certain percentage off the total price of something. No child gets a free ride from a private school on a voucher. And even with vouchers, these schools aren't suddenly affordable.

But back to conservatives and how they are maligning history.

Glenn Beck is a master of this particular trade.





While other bloggers have easily debunked Beck's migrane-inducing prattlings, it should be pointed out that he is - whether Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are willing to admit it - THE star of Fox"News" at this point in their history. Resting nicely in that comfortable timeslot before primetime news hour begins, Beck has been given a platform to drastically re-write the history of this country is order to fit into his canted ideology and scare the dress-pants off of the demographic that watches Fox the most - older, white, limited college education, and religious.

But, all this isn't to say that texts in the classroom are perfect to start with. Certainly, the public school systems that most of American went through in their younger years has improved to a certain extent. Though there are some schools that still have outdated texts books in virtually every catagory, we are still a far cry from the goal that all teachers and parents want for their children - comprehensive and accurtate texts and an environment that allows students to flourish, not stagnate.

The religous-right in America has no place in government and certainly no place in schools.

American History Becks

Once again, basic American history alludes those that claim to be unblishingly "pro-American".



In the upper regions of Greater Wingnuttia ( where everyone in this video apparently resides ) the air can get quite thin. It becomes rather difficult to concentrate, speak coherently, and use basic and essential reasoning skills.

Once these residents make there way to the grande towers of Fox"News", the journey must have tired them out to such a degree that they just simply don't have the mental capacity to do any type of pre-show prep - including doing a basic internet search to find out when Alaska was purchased and why.

William H. Seward, secretary of state under both Lincoln and Johnson, was an ardent expansionist. He was committed to the spread of American influence throughout the Pacific as a means of enhancing the nation’s trade and military standing.

Russia had been interested in selling Alaska for a number of years. The region seemed to have little value and was remote and hard to defend. Negotiations with the United States were opened during the Buchanan administration, but came to a halt with the opening of the Civil War.

Seward actually began negotiations with the Russians before receiving authorization from Johnson. Nonetheless, when the outline of a deal was presented to the cabinet, Seward was surprised to find little opposition. The agreement was signed in March 1867 and transferred Alaska to the United States in return for a payment of $7.2 million, amounting to a price of about 2.5 cents per acre for an area twice the size of Texas.

The treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate by a single vote.

Criticism in the press was harsh, portraying the newly acquired wasteland as “Seward’s Folly,” “Seward’s Icebox” or Johnson’s “polar bear garden.” It was not until the 1890s with the discovery of gold that public attitudes regarding Alaska began to change.

Also, from Wikipedia:

Sumner made a major speech advocating the treaty, and covering in depth the history, the climate, the natural configuration, the population, the resources—the forests, mines, furs, fisheries—of Alaska.

It was until 1959 that Alaska officially became a state:

1955 - Alaskans elect delegates to constitutional convention.

1955 - Constitutional Convention opens at University of Alaska.

1956 - Territorial voters adopt the Alaska Constitution; send two senators and one representative to Washington under the Tennessee Plan.

1958 - Statehood measure passes; President Eisenhower signs statehood bill.

Jan 3, 1959 – Alaska becomes the 49th State in the Union.

One has to wonder - do people like Beck seriously think that people lack the ability to research the things that they are talking about?

The problem is that those who follow Fox"News" as their primary ( or only ) source of news tend to be within the demographic that refuse to do any research. They are more than willing to be spoonfed lies, conjecture, and misinformation in order for them to feel comfortable with their canted ideological point of view.

And Beck wants to talk to Donald Trump? Why would Trump let Beck fumble at his brain like a freshman attempting to undo a bra? Donald certainly has better things on his agenda to attend to.

So Obsessed With The Constitution That He Doesn't Even Know When It Was Written

I missed this little gem on Friday.

Sen. Jim DeMint, the overtly eager and reactionary Senator from South Carolina, is just another in a long line of conservatives that get their constitutional facts complete wrong.

He has issued a pitch for his reelection bid in 2010 that revolves around the constitution, the year 1776, and the amount of money that he would like to raise.

I can’t do all this alone. That’s why I launched my Club 2010 team of Internet activists to help propel my re-election campaign. Just last week we received $5,000 from donors giving $17.76. I trust that conservative activists are willing to stand behind the ideas I’ve been pushing in Washington, so I’ve set a loft (sic) goal of raising $17,760 in $17.76 increments over the next five days.

Of course when people make their living as a politician, there are bound to be some verbal slip-ups, gaffes, and foot-in-mouth moments. But if you are a representative of the party that claims to be about "country first", limited government, and appreciation of what the founding-fathers had done, don't you think you would have the desire to do a little fact-checking?

In Senator DeMint's case, I suppose that the desire to get your message out first overrides the ability to be correct.

More from Alex Koppelman

Considering that this is part of DeMint's reelection campaign, one has to wonder what his state, and those that are considering reelecting him, have to say about this.

It's probabaly a fair assumption that no Republican in the state is going to have any qualms with DeMint's comments simply because they sound good. This is one of the foundations of the conservative movement and the Republican party - say something about your country that sounds good and back it up with a gimmick that will entice people to follow you around like a celebrity. We saw this with the "tea-parties" earlier in the year ( and word is that there's going to be more on July 4th ) and conservatives loved the idea.

Will this rhetorical mistake have an adverse effect on DeMint? Not at all. It's always the ones that say they know their history most and love their country most that have no relative sense of either country or history.