On Loughnerism

Browsing around for reactions, and reactions to reactions, to the President’s reaction to the Tucson shootings, I ran across a commenter at one blog who offered a confession about his immediate response to the dreadful news:

I found myself (at times) wishing that there was a connection between Palin (or Limbaugh, Beck, Levin, et. al.) so I could say, “Do you see? Do you see what you stupid mother fuckers have been working on for the last 2 years?”

The President’s call for words that heal rather than wound led this commenter to some soul-searching:  “I absolutely do not wish for a connection between Loughner and Republicans (or anyone) anymore–thankfully, that impulse withered quickly. But I’m holding on to a lot of shame for ever feeling that way.”

The commenter’s guilty conscience reflects an admirable intention, the one affirmed by the President, but all the same remains ill-founded.  That “connection” is and remains real.  That it is not causal in some legally accountable way, that some particular set of un-civil utterances did not cause the shooting rampage – “It did not!” exclaimed the President, ad-libbing – cannot erase facts that are so obvious it seems ridiculous to have to point them out:  especially that, in short, the shooting expressed “incivility” itself, incivility in an extreme form. As incivility itself, as murderous violence against a politician and citizens exercising civic responsibilities, Loughner’s “acting out” naturally makes us wonder about the spectrum of civility. The connection to the far right and to Tea Party protests in particular arises not just because threatening words or images and murderous gunfire exist on a continuum of “violence,” but because both Loughner’s insanity and a certain type of far-right “Don’t Tread on Me” Tea Party-ism happen to be expressed on the same continuum of anti-statism.

For the far right faction of conservatives who rejected Obama in Tucson – and they are legion – or who are still nursing grudges over attacks made (or supposedly made) on the Tea Party or its representatives, any vision or validation of an integrated national community (much less an integrated transnational community) is suspect, if not anathematic.  In the real world, the one the lunatic refuses even to visit except through violence, but which the ideologue acknowledges mainly through violent language, such a vision necessarily takes on the concrete character of government action or actions of public administration – of the only state we know.  We all yearn for a human community. The lunatic reaches out with bullets, and his act ironically but at some level intentionally puts him firmly in the hands of the state:  behind bars, grinning idiotically.  The ideologue reaches out with self-contradictory sublimations: Those on the hard right compensate for their rejection of the liberal’s format for national community – institutions of the state – with affirmations of an imaginary state, a fraught pseudo-community built up from exaggerated patriotism, religiosity, militarism, ethnocentrism, etc., in diverse re-combinations.

Loughnerism is on one level the inevitable, eventual concretization of all of those opinion polls showing Congressional popularity in the range of 20%:  Congress is supposed to represent us.  Apparently, we hate ourselves.  Tucson was the eventual recourse of the self-loathing national “individual” to self-mutilation, and Loughner’s actions were the typically exceptional eruption of ultra-libertarianism, an outlook so extreme that it could only persist in a disturbed mind, since even the structure of language is “oppressive” to it.  Yet the form of its irrationality is easily recognizable, and was utterly and immediately intelligible to everyone even glancingly familiar with American politics – including both that ashamed blog-commenter and those responding to his suspicions as though to a dental nerve being probed.

The thrilled-tooth reactions were visible throughout the rightwing media from Saturday afternoon forward, and were visible again in the reflexive reactions of Limbaugh, Malkin, 95% of HotAir commenters, and others to the President’s speech. Many observers – I was one – were struck and even moved by the President’s evocation of a nine-year-old’s beliefs about government – about, in short, the state.  At the Thought News blog, Conor Williams  pointed to the passage where Obama conjured  government, public service, and public servants themselves as the nine-year-old victim Christina Green must have imagined them:

[S]he saw public service as something exciting, something hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model.

Predictably, the reactions from the “anti-tyranny” bloc, the faction to the right even of the National Review, were excessive and condemnatory.  When its members hear a Democratic President call for “unity,” they immediately assume – and I think they may be right in a way – that he can only mean unity within statism, unity under a status quo of “government interference.”  Put more philosophically, they react against any call for unity within a national/cultural state that includes a public administration and government obligated to seek the good however imperfectly.  Having spent the last two years invoking (R)evolutionary sentiments against the liberal “ruling class,” they are not about to admit that a little blood in the street has made them re-consider the fundamentals of their worldview.

A reflexive and all-embracing hostility to the state/statism leads the far right toward the ultra-right (and ultra-left): It’s a self-contradictory and philosophically untenable position for anyone who aspires to be accepted within the mainstream of politics – which is a long way of saying that it is irrational, and, when pressed, must manifest as insanity. As with some other political pathologies, its superficial symptoms often include a kind of exaggerated hostility towards any form of disagreement, a foul meanness for which the polite and civil term is “incivility.”  Its emotional evocation of libertarianism, its anarchistic energies, push it recognizably, palpably in the direction of Loughnerism, madness whose ideological expression is conflict with “standards” of any type.

Loughnerism also reflects an attitude toward language reminiscent of literary avant-gardism and salon-ready post-modernism, but also reminiscent of populist anti-intellectualism with its typical suspicion of “correct” speech, and its affection for leaders who are incapable of it, whose very incoherency speaks for their followership. Loughnerism in its non-violent form also speaks in sometimes bizarre, illogical or even anti-logical ways; is also obsessed with notions that no one outside the in-group much cares about; and also leaves the rest of us to scratch our heads, as we struggle to understand the motivations and intentions of their inappropriate, self-contradictory web-videos…

Especially those desperate to deny any conceivable association with the thoughts and actions of a depraved killer had all already made that same shameful connection made by the commenter – which is why from the first they scrambled and lashed out frantically, as though “caught in the act.”  The scrambling and denial became even more desperate when it turned out that Loughner’s main target had left behind an “if anything happens to me” letter in our cultural safety deposit box.  These connections are nothing new:  The Tucson events merely re-confirm them.  They also help explain a widespread alienation from politics so at odds with older American traditions.  The only participants in our national culture who cannot recognize them would be those who rely on being totally insensate, or at least on maintaining the pretense.

30 comments on “On Loughnerism

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. That “connection” is and remains real, and even direct.

    interesting theory.

    nee…ds a little phlogistoning….. or maybe a little less “direct”

  2. I don’t know anything about the print-media, or how Internet news services work, but I wish more people could read this piece, so if you can possibly get it “out there,” I suggest you do. It’s important.

  3. @ fuster:
    I suppose that’s true. I hope Colin doesn’t mind, but I copied it and sent it to some of my friends. So at least some other folks will read it.

  4. @ Scott Miller:
    well, you should have given him time to clean up the

    That “connection” is and remains real, and even direct.

    and even direct…… thingy, but what the heck.

  5. @ fuster:
    I’m thinking that one over. I believe that a connection can be direct without being “directly” causal… I admit to a bit of uncertainty when I use the word “even.” My sense is that the atmosphere of anti-government fervor and protest – including forms of incivility and the specific implicit threats against Giffords and others, may very well make acts like Loughner’s more likely, create a kind of social space or possibility, but I don’t know that that’s avoidable in a free society, and I’d rather have a free society with eruptions of lunatic violence than a controlled society that did the lunatic violence for us. So Palin’s notorious crosshairs map didn’t cause Loughner to shoot Giffords and the others, but may still have been directly connected to Loughnerism.

    All of which is to say – you may be right.

  6. One has often felt like we’re in a Phillip K. Dick novel, a mean, a misanthropic anarchist type, murders six people, including a nine year old girl, and the adherents of self reliance and supporters of traditional
    institutions are blamed for it. From the first half hour of the saga, maybe Kafka fits better, you can be tried without evidence, in the court of public appearance. Scarborough is confused by small shiny
    objects, that’s why he’s affiliated with the blanc mange No Labels
    group, for those who thought John Anderson provided too much excitement.

  7. @ CK MacLeod:
    I thought that it was a rhetorical flourish intended as a grabber. but the piece is too fine for such device.

    That’s the biggest quibble that a curmudgeonous frog can find.

    It IS fine.

  8. OK you’re right I deleted it.

    @ Scott Miller:
    Under every post, or in the margins when displayed in single-post format, there’s an “e-mail this post” link. On any post that you think ought to interest other people, you can use the link, which will take you to a form that you can use to e-mail one or more people while adding your own comments.

    If we were seriously interested in widening the readership of this blog, we’d all make a point of using that feature regularly – even by e-mailing our own posts to people whom we quote or otherwise refer to.

  9. you run the quote as it ran until you sense that it’s an awful distraction, someone pays you handsomely to change it, or it makes you uncomfortable.

    and don’t be an ass. you wrote something fine. I gained well by reading it. thanks from the guy that did the real work is de trop.

  10. @ fuster:
    Colin jokingly points out from time to time that things are my fault. This time it really is. I’m always thanking him for things after I’ve done the real work. He picked the habit up from me.

  11. fuster wrote:

    and don’t be an ass. you wrote something fine. I gained well by reading it. thanks from the guy that did the real work is de trop.

    Now who’s having trouble receiving a compliment? No piece is complete until someone has read it, and it’s difficult to find anyone who will make a perceptive argument about something you’ve written.

    I thought that it was a rhetorical flourish intended as a grabber

    …was quite right.
    @ miguel cervantes:
    We’re all Loughners. Loughner is my fault, too. In my time, I’ve been a Loughnerist, and I see myself in you and your ideological comrades.

    If I can find the time and strength, I’ll try to say that in a way that means something.

  12. @ Scott Miller:
    well, no wonder he’s terrified of going to your home. lord knows what what habituative delights he might find in a brush with real live-in-the-flesh people.

    maybe you could try affixing a super-spicy carrot to a long stick and lure him into daylight.

  13. @ fuster:
    You don’t understand the geography of these here parts. Riverside is several virtual light-years (SoCal freeways/traffic) from Upland. By my usual horse and buggy apparatus it would take a day or two to get there.

  14. Okay. Astrology as final word:

    Eris stationed in the sign of Aries, which rules the head. While we’ve had many men assassinated or threatened in our rather violent history, I believe Ms Giffords might have been the first woman and first Jew shot for her politics. As you might guess, Our Favorite Cowgirl, RELOADing Sarah Palin (February 11, 1964, 4:40 pm, Sandpoint, Idaho) has a VERY prominent Eris. Sarah does seem to sow discord as part of her path on earth! Eris in Aries squares Sarah’s Nodes of Destiny. Eris is in Sarah’s Tucson chart’s eighth house of death ~ so the ASTROLOGY indicates Sarah WAS “involved” due to her map with the bull’s eye rifle sighting imagery on Gifford’s Congressional District even as pundits argue that Sarah wasn’t involved.

  15. @ Scott Miller:
    Well that obviously settles everything… except it’s not the last word.

    Giffords likely qualifies as the first Jewish “Congresswoman” shot for her politics. Sandra Lee Scheuer was Jewish and killed for other people’s politics, but Allison Krause was an anti-war protestor when she was also shot and killed at Kent State, and was also Jewish.

    Her father, Arthur Krause, who had emigrated from Nazi Germany, became an outspoken advocate for the press for truth and justice about what occurred that day.

    I suspect that over the years other American Jewish women were shot for their “politics,” probably leftist politics or labor union organizing. I don’t suspect there were many Jewish women politicians among them.

  16. She was shot by a Discordian nut bar, if that faction, really exists but Mark Rudd, a classmate of the good Imam, and a Weatherman, wants to claim the anomie for his own,

  17. @ Scott Miller:You make fun of astrology and it’s like you’re stabbing the Reagans in the back. For shame!

    second most honest president from California of the 20th century and all.

  18. And if we’re going to get serious, I do want to point out that in India, Vedic Astrology has been conducted with great skill by some of the world’s smartest people for thousands of years, and even when we’re just playing around with western astrology, it can lead to some interesting scientific recognitions. For example, most people don’t know what Eris is. Thanks to astrology, lots of people find out.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *