Abstract
In this brief essay, I describe the right-wiheadingng agenda that comes forward day after day, comes forward as a political assault. Isolating just five arbitrary days, I specify what I see as problematic claims by the right wing and offer alternative counter-narratives. I end by identifying actions I feel I should take to speak back to their agenda.
They keep coming at you, day after day, with their relentless attacks that target the poor and middle class, that disenfranchise everyone who does not look just like them, that reduce health care to an option for only a select number of our citizens, that diminish women’s rights to make decisions about their own bodies, that push a “Christian” agenda based in ignorance, hate, and fanaticism, that deny the rights of same-sex couples to live with marital privileges, that dismiss science when it appears inconvenient to their profit making or ideology, that assume certain citizens who might stand in opposition to their beliefs should not be allowed to vote or to protest, that protect banks as they throw people from their homes, that perpetuate lies to conceal their dangerous agenda and to position themselves in power, that call for force over negotiation, that prioritize party over people in need, that attempt to eliminate regulations protecting people from corporate abuse, that reject workers’ right to stand together for fair pay, safe working conditions, and health care, that assume hard-earned pensions are a fix for their deficits, that . . . .
They keep coming at you, day after day, protecting their own interests, using fear to convince people to vote on their behalf, relying on FOX news to repeat their talking-points twenty-four hours a day, depending on misinformation and deception, reinforcing racist, sexist, and homophobic beliefs, deploying their misreading of Christianity to manipulate, and placing their lieutenants in our courts, on our school boards, and in our local governments. Such strategies, to name just a few of the most blatant, never stop, never end. You feel their assault weighing you down. You feel exhausted. You feel their efforts as wrong.
In this essay, I speak from a shared location with all those who find common ground in the above paragraphs, who stand in opposition to right-wing politics and tactics. I proceed by describing a series of typical days of right-wing assaults. I assemble each day’s listing from a variety of news sources and I restrict myself to only one or two incidents from each day. I follow each account by offering counter-narratives (Goodall, 2010) to their agenda. I end the essay with a reflection on the efficacy of telling alternative narratives and by identifying actions I feel I should take to confront the right-wing assault.
February 1, 2012
The morning after his Florida Republican primary victory, Mitt Romney said: "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it." In this unguarded moment, Romney puts on display that he just doesn’t understand what it might mean to be poor in the United States. To be caught by the safety net does not mean that people there are doing just fine, that they are living lives of joyful contentment, that they are happy with their entrapment. To have a safety net does not mean that everyone gets caught by its web—some slip through the holes and hit the ground hard. Some can never get back up. To see a safety net as a satisfactory solution for poverty does nothing to address why people find themselves there, why we have allowed certain structural conditions to exist. And when people find themselves in need, they are likely to be told that they are nothing but lazy, government parasites, that they should not expect their government to help them, that the rich have no obligation to give them a hand. Much had already been said about Romney’s disregard for the poor. This comment only provides further proof.
February 2, 2012
During a meeting of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Republicans denied ABC news and Josh Fox, director of the Academy Award nominated film, Gasland, to film a public hearing on the hydraulic fracking. The Republicans called Capital Police and had Josh Fox arrested for disorderly conduct. Despite the Democratic members’ objections, the Republicans refused to permit a filming of the hearing. This denial was a clear violation of the right of a free press protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. One can’t help but wonder why they did not want their hearings to be filmed, wonder whose interests they were determined to protect, wonder what they were trying to hide from U.S. citizens.
On the same day, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s strategic attack on Planned Parenthood covered the news. As the story unfolded and as many suspected, this was once again the right-wing covert assault, an action designed to police women’s health. Karen Handel, who ran on a platform to defund Planned Parenthood in her unsuccessful 2010 bid for governor of Georgia and who had subsequently been hired as their vice president, designed the poorly created strategy to convince people that this was not an attack on Planned Parenthood.
The right wing is content to use whatever tactics it can to advance its agenda, tactics that often cross ethical and/or legal lines to put in place the right wing’s ideology, even when it is at odds with the desires of the majority of U.S. citizens.
February 3, 2012
Denny Rehberg, GOP Congressman from Montana, promised to use his funding powers to stop the Labor Department from implementing child labor laws designed to protect children from dangerous tasks in the farm industry. His primary objection was that the regulations would hurt how family farms are run, but the regulations for the most part excluded family farms. His sensibility is in keeping with Newt Gingrich’s idea, based upon the assumption that economically underprivileged children are not taught sufficient values in their homes, to teach children a work ethic by putting them in custodial positions in their schools. The right wing, it appears, believe that it is fine to exploit children, particularly if they can be exploited under some guise of helping them, particularly if they are from poor families and, hence, require a disciplinary hand from their right-wing betters, particularly if corporate interests are served and rich get richer.
February 4, 2012
In the recall effort to unseat Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker, the right wing developed a plan to subvert the system. Their idea was simple: Get Republican voters to write in Walker’s name in the Democratic primary. The same strategy was deployed in the Wisconsin’s earlier re-call elections when the Republicans ran several “fake Democrats” in the Democratic primaries. Such manipulation of the election process is moving across the country as the right wing tries to put in place laws that disenfranchise certain voters, voters who most likely would not be voting in their favor. Fair and honest elections hurt the right-wing agenda, and put the right wing at a disadvantage. Fair and honest elections frighten the right wing.
February 5, 2012
A right-wing judge serving on the Yuma County Superior Court disqualified Alejandrina Cabrera as a candidate for the city council of San Luis, Arizona, because he claimed Cabrera’s English skills were inadequate. Cabrera is a U.S. citizen and graduated from Yuma’s public high school. Her English ability is more than adequate for the job. As she told Reuters News, “I speak English and I read and I write. I know my English is not proficient but I can understand and I can answer.” More to the point, San Luis is a border community where most of the residents speak Spanish. Instead of seeing her bilingual skills as an asset, the right wing tries to keep her from running. At a time when Republican candidates are calling for a fence to run the entire length of the border and promising to make English the official national language, when racist immigration legislation is being passed in state after state, when police are being required to detain anyone who they suspect of being in the United States illegally, Latinos understand how the right wing values their presence.
February 6, 2012
Three ads appeared during the Super Bowl that dominated political talk the following day. Clint Eastwood, speaking on behalf of Chrysler, told the viewers that the car company was back on its feet, going strong, and competitive. Republicans were in uproar—they heard it as a disguised message for Obama’s auto bailouts. And perhaps they were right, even though both Eastwood and Chrysler deny it. But they must stick to their protocol: Nothing Obama does can be viewed in a positive light; never give him any credit; never applaud if he is responsible for anything that might be good for the country. In another ad, Pete Hoekstra, a Republican Senate hopeful from Michigan, used a young Asian woman speaking in broken English to suggest that China is taking away American jobs. When called on the racist nature of the ad, Republicans failed to see why the ad might be seen as discriminatory against Asian Americans, how the ad could lead violence against U.S. citizens, or how the ad makes its case by a politics of division and fear. The third ad, shown only in local markets, came from Randall Terry, a life-long Republican who filed paperwork in a number of states to run as a Democratic candidate so that he could gain access to television time. His ad showed a series of graphic images of fetuses to support his antichoice agenda. I remain angry, not only at Randall Terry for his tactics, but also at my local NBC affiliate in Paducah, Kentucky, for allowing this ad to air.
February 7, 2010
All of the Republican candidates for president have expressed their skepticism about global warming. Rick Santorum, however, stands out with his position that global warming is “bogus” science and a “hoax.” His environmental policy is found in his flimsy, so-called Christian belief. “We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth,” Santorum explains, “to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit.” If there is a God, he or she must be wondering how his or her creatures became so dumb.
Tomorrow
The assaults never stop. They are continuous and extensive. It is hard not to feel overwhelmed, exhausted by the constant barrage. In response, I offer counter-narratives, told to friends over lunch, shared with supportive family members, and presented in journals such as this one. In effect, I preach to the choir, solidifying my position and gaining strength from others who hold my views. But I often wonder why the congregation is not larger, why the right-wing nonsense is so seductive to so many. I know their narratives drive them, make them feel that they are under a left-wing assault. I know they have their own choir. I’d like to believe, however, that the most reasoned arguments would win the day, and that arguments on behalf of social justice would find resonance with everyone, but that seldom seems to be the case. It is one position standing in opposition to another. Counter-narratives, it seems, told within our own circles do little to effect change. There seems to be no way to bridge the gap between the two sides. Narratives that bridge the gap between the two sides seem difficult, if not impossible, to find. Obama tried to generate a collective narrative, only to discover he got nothing in return, only to realize he was compromising the power of his own beliefs. So, what should be done tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that? What should I do?
I believe I should continue preaching to the choir to reinforce our resolve, to give us strength. I should be cautious, however, that my preaching is not just a whine or a sorrowful lament. I should offer counternarratives formed by careful study and linked to good reasons. I should help arm my companions with the verbal weapons they need. I should be a good listener when they are doing the same for me.
I believe I should speak to others who do not share my perspective. I should speak with respect and with care. I should help them see how their interests are not served by a right-wing agenda. I should help them unravel the lies they have been given.
I believe I should, as a university instructor of communication and performance, teach my students how to spot fallacious reasoning, how the media constructs reality and when it can and cannot be trusted, how performance can be used as an interventionist strategy on behalf of social justice. I should make as part of my instruction how to become an informed and active democratic citizen.
I believe I should vote in every election, even the ones where little seems to be at stake. I should vote from an informed position, should know the politics of potential judges, school board members, and county clerks. I should, when I can, work on behalf of those I support. I should not let myself off the hook easily.
I believe I should use social networking, posting the work of others who provide insights worthy of sharing. I should write letters to the editor that hold neighbors, the media, and politicians accountable for their remarks. I should seek as many outlets as I can find to express my views and to challenge ring-wing claims.
I believe I should support liberal political action groups by signing their petitions and making donations to keep them running. I should read what these helpful watch dogs send my way.
I believe that the ring wing will continue to push their agenda, day after day, and we must do whatever we can to stop their assault.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.