Showing posts with label sinclair lewis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sinclair lewis. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III on college free speech - and the President's?

The Kebler Elf's evil twin, Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, spoke at Georgetown yesterday. He was introduced by a guy named Barnett. You can't make this stuff up. Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks on campus free speech at Georgetown Law PBS Newshour 09/26/2017:



For those of you blessed enough not to recognize the Barnett reference, he was the most notorious governor Mississippi ever had. And that's saying at lot! This 1959 campaign song of his gives a flavor, Roll With Ross:



Yes, you may wonder why "he's his own boss" would be considered a desirable qualification for an elected public servant. One of the many eldritch mysteries of Segregation 1.0.

JBS III was talking about free speech on college campuses. Two things to understand about this. One is that JBS III is a straight-up segregationist. He could have stepped into a time warp at the 1948 Dixiecrat convention and emerged this past Sunday, just in time to be briefed on the latest white supremacist phraseology.

When I was in college in Mississippi, I heard Ross Barnett speak to a small group of student in a classroom. This was 1974, as I recall, well after defending de jure segregation was consider pointless (for the time being). Rolling Ross came off just like he sounded when inciting a treasonous uprising at Ole Miss in 1963. A blithering bigot, in other words. I remember thinking at the time that it was a momentary dose of something preserved from 10 years ago. Which seemed then a much longer time than it does now.

Watching JBS III is a similar kind of thing. Although he's part of a full-blown segregation-restorationist movement that currently controls the White House. Their predecessors of the 1870s liked to call themselves Redeemers.

The other thing is that this speech is an example of what Alex Pareene in another context has cleverly is called a “the greatest threat to free speech in the nation today is college students heckling an asshole” presentation. (You Are Jonathan Chait's Enemy Splinter 09/26/2017) This is also part of a long-standing authoritarian-conservative obsession, the idea that colleges are dominated by Jew-Commie-Mean Libruls who look down their noses at Real Americans.

Sinclair Lewis created a minor character that embodied this attitude, the Rev. Ezekiel Bittery, in the 1943 novel Gideon Planish. The Rev. Bittery had been discovered by some leftie newspaper who reported he was preaching hellfire sermons about the virtues of Jesus and fascism. After a while, a regional newspaper picked up the story. Finally, it made its way to a major metropolitan daily. Eventually Congress and others make formal investigations, and there is considerable hand-wringing about this exotic development in the heartland:

And during all this time, the Reverend Ezekiel himself will, as publicly as possible, to as many persons as he can persuade to attend his meetings, have admitted, insisted, bellowed, that he has always been a Ku Kluxer and a Fascist, that he has always hated Jews, colleges and good manners, and that the only thing he has ever disliked about Hitler is that he once tried to paint barns instead of leaving the barns the way God made them.
JBS III's speech was stock whining about the Mean Libruls being mean to nice Christian white folks, based on generalizing from marginal cases for the most part. There are a number of Christian Right legal groups who present themselves as civil rights advocates but actually are more interested in trying to get courts to ratify a theocratic political agenda. The American Center for Law and Justice, Liberty Counsel and the Alliance Defending Freedom are some of the better known of these groups. See: Daniel Bennett, The Rise of Christian Conservative Legal Organizations Religion & Politics 06/10/2015. Bennett also reports on a current case being pursued by the latter group, Masterpiece Cakeshop: Meet the Christian Legal Group Behind the High-Profile Court Case Religion & Politics 07/19/2017.

JBS III was vague on Tuesday about just what cases he was referring to. But they sound like the sort of thing such conservative groups pursue. They sometimes have good grounds to pursue them, and more legitimate civil liberties groups like the ACLU are sometimes on the same side. But often they are fairly marginal cases, like overzealous school administrators not allowing Christmas carols to be sung in school assemblies. And the AG made it clear that the Justice Department was prioritizing Christian nationalist sort of cases going forward.

JBS III's case might sound convincing if you don't know anything about what happens on college campuses and don't want to know. One "tell" was that he even mocked UC-Berkeley for bending over backwards just this month to allow a couple of obnoxious white nationalists to speak on campus. And somehow even this is a sign of how Berkeley is run by Mean Liburuls who hate free speech. Emily Deruy reports on some of this week's events there in Milo Yiannopoulos’ 15 minutes in Berkeley cost university $800,000 East Bay Times 09/24/2017. To those not washed in the blood of white nationalism, this looks like a university being very serious about protecting free speech, even though everyone involved knows that the rightwing provocateurs holding the event were hoping for disruptions that would give them more excuse for their WATB stock whining about Mean Libruls pickin' on them.

JBS III of course tossed in a lot of standard general quotes about why freedom of speech is a good thing, so there's that.

Another real "tell" came in the brief questioning period afterward, when the AG is asked about the President's tirade against black football players over "taking the knee" during the playing of the National Anthem at football games. JBS III responded, "The President has free speech rights, too."

This is a mirror-image redefining of free speech not as protection of free speech against existing authorities into the defense of declarations for the highest governmental executive authority. This is rightwing victimization taken to an insane extreme. Of all people in the country, the President is the least in danger of having his free speech restricted. As he illustrates daily in his tweets and speeches.

Sunday, November 01, 2015

Bobo on meaning and colleges

The perennially favorite American conservative complaint about allegedly liberal/leftwing domination of academic continued to be aired this year.

Early in January, David "Bobo" Brooks took the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack as an occasion to complain about all the Mean Libruals in US colleges and universities, I Am Not Charlie Hebdo New York Times 01/08/2015. They are setting up "speech codes" and the like that are producing "crude censorship and a strangled conversation," in Bobo's considered opinion.

Another Mr. Brooks, Arthur Brooks, the head of AEI, aka, Neocon Central, is complaining in the Times now in the last quarter of the year about Academia’s Rejection of Diversity 10/30/2015. The AEI Brooks claims to see "discrimination and hostility within academia toward conservative researchers and their viewpoints."

This kind of talk reminds me of one of my favorite stories, about the Rev. Ezekiel Bittery, from Sinclair Lewis' 1943 novel, Gideon Planish. That was pre-Internet times, so news didn't go viral quite as fast as now. The Rev. Bittery was discovered by some leftie newspaper who reported he was preaching hellfire sermons about the virtues of Jesus and fascism. After a while, a regional newspaper picked up the story. Finally, it made its way to a major metropolitan daily. Eventually Congress and others make formal investigations, and there is considerable hand-wringing about this exotic development in the heartland:

And during all this time, the Reverend Ezekiel himself will, as publicly as possible, to as many persons as he can persuade to attend his meetings, have admitted, insisted, bellowed, that he has always been a Ku Kluxer and a Fascist, that he has always hated Jews, colleges and good manners, and that the only thing he has ever disliked about Hitler is that he once tried to paint barns instead of leaving the barns the way God made them.
Conservatives were fretting even then about them thar Islamocommonist tendencies in those colleges that teach all those fancy ideas.

Steve M at No More Mister Nice Bloggrappled with Bobo's January complaint David Brooks Makes A Category Error in 01/09/2015:

Yes, activists fight to block speeches by Ayaan Hirsi Ali [who propagates anti-Muslim propaganda of the most dubious kind] on their campuses, but not only do they not try to kill her, they don't try to prevent her from speaking anywhere else. They don't try to prevent her from publishing. They don't (violently or nonviolently) threaten bookstores and online retailers that sell her books, or periodicals that publish her articles.
To the extent his column was coherent, it sounds like Bobo was more-or-less adopting the same position as the thoroughly obnoxious Bill Donohue, who pretty much validated the French terrorist attack in his own version of using violent Muslim extremism to validate Catholic fundamentalist extremism. (See: Andrew Seidel, Charlie Hebdo, Bill Donohue, and the freedom of thought 01/08/2015) That was too over-the-top for even Megyn Kelly at FOX News, and that's saying a lot! (Arturo Garcia, Megyn Kelly puts Bill Donohue in his place by linking Larry Flynt and Charlie Hebdo Raw Story 01/08/2015)

But still performing the same verbal acrobatics, Bobo doubled down on the colleges-are-like-Islamic-terrorists point in Shields and Brooks on Paris terrorism and tolerance, GOP takeover in Congress PBS Newshour 01/09/2015. And Sleepy Mark Shields, in his characteristic semi-somnolent mode, says Bobo's point is "absolutely legitimate and valid":



This is Bobo's highbrow version of what all the Mississippi segregationists were saying about places like my undergradute alma mater Millsaps College in Jackson MS circa 1965, when they were denounced by segregationists defenders of the White Race because they de-segregated before they were forced to by a court.

And this is now official Pundit Groupthink? I'm sure if Ruth Marcus had been sitting in for Mark in that segment, she would have said, "I agree with David." But then, she tends to say that three or four times whenever she's there. (To be fair, Mark eventually gets around to pointing out that Christian terrorism is also a thing.)

Erik Loomis weighs in on AEI Brooks' recent complaint in Conservatives Want to Bring Politics into Academic Hiring LGM 11/01/2015:

As for the question of why there are more liberals than conservatives in academia–and note the op-ed conveniently leaves out economics and the enormous and growing business schools in this discussion–it’s about two things. First, studying the human past and present in depth tends to challenge the mythology about the world conservatives hold dear. I’ve known many a person who came to graduate school a conservative and came out a liberal. ...

Second, it’s that conservatives are unlikely to take low-paying jobs in professions that have no future. Chalk that up to conservatives being smarter than liberals I guess.
This type of complaint is not an issue on which should be difficult for people, even Bobo, to walk and talk and the same time. Classically "liberal" freedom of speech and freedom of religion mean that people can get to say stupid and ugly things about religion, and that people who are offended can say whatever they think is appropriate in response. It doesn't mean you get to shoot people who insult you. (Except in Stand Your Ground/Kill At Will states in the US, where you can claim you feel threatened and legally murder your critic, especially if you're white and he's black. And those laws are insane.)

And it means the law is required to protect people from violent retaliation on either side of that argument.

Conservatives have been whining about the alleged "political correctness" in campus speech codes since at least the 1980s. And sometimes, they have had a point that civil libertarians can agree with. But neither students in classrooms nor employees in a business get to address each other in formal settings as, say, "stupid n****r" or "worthless c**t." Freedom of speech means you don't go to jail for it. But it doesn't mean that you can still go to class or work at a workplace if you insist on that kind of trash-talking.

At UC-Berkeley a couple of years ago, some white frat boys did one of those "affirmative action bake sales," where white boys pay more than women or minorities. (UCB has the largest College Republican chapter in the country.) Other students did a very effective counter-protest with a "die-in," in which they lay down all over the plaza where the frat-boy twits were doing their bake sale. The frat boys weren't deprived of the option to publicly advertise what jerks they were. And the counter-protesters made sure as many people as possible were paying attention to what jerks the frat-boys were being. Free speech at work.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

The NRA and finding Rev. Ezekiel Bittery

Way back in 2005, when it was the Republican President George W. Bush pushing to cut benefits on Social Security and not a Democratic President, I recalled a story from one of Sinclair Lewis' less well known novels, Gideon Planish (1943), about the Rev. Ezekiel Bittery.

I was reminded of it this week, seeing people express surprise at the blithering fanaticism being articulated so proudly and publicly by the National Rifle Association (NRA). Joan Walsh, for instance, asks in Salon, Has the NRA lost it entirely? 01/16/2013 (or at least the headline-writer asks it). She explains what she means:

On the eve of President Obama announcing his gun control agenda, based on Vice President Joe Biden's task force recommendations, the National Rifle Association needed to go big: to remind Americans that the organization protects their gun rights, and to remind politicians that they’re a smart and formidable political force they’d be unwise to cross.

Instead, they showed us the truth: They're part of the vast and increasingly incompetent right-wing conspiracy that's sacrificed its own effectiveness for the pleasure of hating Democrats generally and our first black president in particular.
But, as Steven Rosenfeld explains in The Suprising Unknown History of the NRA Alternet 01/13/2013, the NRA went off the political deep end in 1977. And they've stayed there ever since.

Which brings me to the Rev. Bittery. Plagiarizing freely from my 2005 post here, Sinclair Lewis use the good Reverend to illustrate "Research", which he calls "[o]ne of the most important activities of any liberal educational organization." The example, set in the late 1930s, is the Rev. Ezekiel Bittery. Apparently he had some problems with his formal credentials, because the narrator refers to him as the "ex-Reverend."

The first step in Research is to gather a bunch of stories from newspapers about Brother Bittery and then write him to get some of his pamphlets. Then you have a few people go listen to his speeches live. With this procedure, it becomes well established that:

... Brother Bittery is a flannel-mouthed rabble-rouser who used to be charged not only with stealing the contents of the church poor-box, but of taking the box itself home to keep radishes in, and who at present if he isn't on the pay-roll of all the Fascists, is a bad collector.
After considering the matter for a couple of years, a Congressional committee proceeds to investigation, establishing for the record that "Mr. Bittery used to be a hell-fire preacher and is now a hell-fire Fascist."

More Research ensues, with scholars applying themselves to the phenomenon, which reveals "that Mr. Bittery used to favor lynching agnostics and now favors lynching socialists."

And during all this time, the Reverend Ezekiel himself will, as publicly as possible, to as many persons as he can persuade to attend his meetings, have admitted, insisted, bellowed, that he has always been a Ku Kluxer and a Fascist, that he has always hated Jews, colleges and good manners, and that the only thing he has ever disliked about Hitler is that he once tried to paint barns instead of leaving the barns the way God made them.

That is Research.
We're still rediscovering Rev. Bittery.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 13, 2005

The Christian Right old and new


The novelist Sinclair Lewis had a good sense for things that are enduring. He went to his reward long before the Internet or personal computers came along. But his novels still sound remarkably current in many ways.

For example, his 1943 novel Gideon Planish tells a brief story to illustrate Research, which he calls "[o]ne of the most important activities of any liberal educational organization." The example, set in the late 1930s, is the Rev. Ezekiel Bittery. Apparently he had some problems with his formal credentials, because the narrator refers to him as the "ex-Reverend."

The first step is to gather a bunch of stories from newspapers about Brother Bittery and then write him to get some of his pamphlets. Then you have a few people go listen to his speeches live. With this procedure, it becomes well established that:

... Brother Bittery is a flannel-mouthed rabble-rouser who used to be charged not only with stealing the contents of the church poor-box, but of taking the box itself home to keep radishes in, and who at present if he isn't on the pay-roll of all the Fascists, is a bad collector.
After considering the matter for a couple of years, a Congressional committee proceeds to investigation, establishing for the record that "Mr. Bittery used to be a hell-fire preacher and is now a hell-fire Fascist."

More Research ensues, with scholars applying themselves to the phenomenon, which reveals "that Mr. Bittery used to favor lynching agnostics and now favors lynching socialists."

And during all this time, the Reverend Ezekiel himself will, as publicly as possible, to as many persons as he can persuade to attend his meetings, have admitted, insisted, bellowed, that he has always been a Ku Kluxer and a Fascist, that he has always hated Jews, colleges and good manners, and that the only thing he has ever disliked about Hitler is that he once tried to paint barns instead of leaving the barns the way God made them.

That is Research.
And that is the Rev. Bittery. He's still around, only now he has cable TV channels and Web sites. And the press coverage, and often awareness of his shenanigans among politicians and political activists, is often as spasmodic as the Research being conducted on the good Reverend in Lewis' novel.

Most recently, after the 2004 presidential elections, when the Republicans spun the results as having to do with "values" interpreted as conservative religious values, we saw a similar phenomenon. Columnists and Big Pundits discovered that, golly Pete, there are a lot of people out there who claim to speak for God and all his servants who fervently declare that they're not fond of Jews, colleges and good manners. (Or gays, or evolution, or even Britney Spears!) And there are always some earnest souls at these moments who hope that liberals will be able to convince these folks that the Democratic Party understands their concerns and kinda-sorta sympathizes.

But what we know as the Christian Right is not a new phenomenon. What is new is that they are now one of the most powerful groups within the Party that controls all three branches of the national government. They're making similar demands to those the flat-earthers always have. But now they're getting a more serious hearing in the national government that probably ever before.

And consequently, they are adding a sharp element of hell-fire fury to everyday politics.

Tags: , , , , ,