06-16-01
HONEST FREEPERS, MORAL RIGHT-WINGERS, AND OTHER OXYMORONS
An exercise in deconstructing regressive rhetoric
Part One

A few days ago, a friend sent me an email letting me know that Fringefolk was posted as a link on a right-wing website - ConservaVets - under the heading 'The Opposition'. I thought this was pretty nifty - I'll take all the free publicity I can get, and it was nice to be recognized as a worthy opponent. Of course, I found it rather annoying that they also listed extreme right-wing groups (in an attempt, I suppose, to paint themselves as 'moderates') under the same heading ("Extreme Left and Right, Hate and Divisive Groups"), but hey - if someone wants to paint me into the same corner as the KKK, then I say: "Go right ahead! There's no law against proving your stupidity, hon."

And they've actually got a rather nice little collection of good, solid progressive sites in addition to some of the truly extreme sites. It's hard to be offended when you're listed right along with such websites as CLG, Common Dreams, VoterMarch, People for the American Way and the like.

After looking through the links and chuckling a bit at some of their selections (Million Mom March is one of the 'hate and divisive' groups, which you have to admit is pretty damn funny), I followed a link to a write-up of the DC Voter March written by a fellow named Michael Wallace - you can read it for yourself here, as I'll just be posting excerpts (parts of it are pretty irrelevant, and would I be being petty if I said that Wallace is waaay too long-winded? Okay, I'm petty).

A bit of background here - when I was at the March, I heard that there were a couple of "freepers" there, but I never caught a glimpse of them (probably just as well, as I have a nasty temper). So I was eager to see Wallace's write-up of the march.

I'll admit I found the title of his 'essay' - 'Another Expression of Liberal Illogic' - somewhat disappointing. Personally, I think he could have come up with a catchier title...'The Logic of Liberals' would have been a good choice (much as 'The Compassion of Bush' would be a better title for an anti-Bush essay than 'Bush's Lack of Compassion'), or he could've gone for a really biting, sarcastic title such as 'The Liberals' Million...er, Thousand...Voter March'. But boring titles do not a poor essay make, so I soldiered on.

In his first paragraph, he writes:

"We learned of the Voter's March a few months ago. Simply put, it was to be the expression of the liberal's (sic) continuing beef about George W. Bush's presidency, and their desire to "reform" the election processes in this country so as to ensure their victory in future elections."

What a disappointment. Here I thought I'd get a straightforward account of a freeper's reaction to the march, and instead I'm treated to the same old lies and propaganda. YAWN.

Notice that he doesn't mention voter disenfranchisement, the Supreme Court decision, or any of the other reasons why we are still angry over the election - instead, he attempts to paint us as run-of-the mill dissidents who simply don't like Bush. Why does he do this? Because he knows very well that Al Gore won the election, and that Shrub is not legitimate. But he couldn't say that, oh no - that would be giving us a voice, and that's not what this guy was interested in. It's much easier to tear people down if you misrepresent them, and who ever heard of a regressive NOT taking the easy way out?

Putting quote marks around "reform" was cute, I'll admit, as was insinuating that our sole aim is to try to "fix" the election process so that we could be assured of winning every future election. Cute - but dishonest. If this guy's trying to present himself as an example of a patriotic veteran, he's already doing a pretty pathetic job of it. I know some patriotic veterans...they're listed right here in the Fringefolk directory. He doesn't measure up to their ankles.

He then goes on for several paragraphs to describe what he and his friend did the morning of the march. Nothing to do with me or the march, so I skimmed it. When he gets to the actual description of the march, it's your basic run-of-the-mill regressive blather - he and his friend were brilliant, every liberal they spoke with was an idiot. He mentions being given a button by a young child, smiling at the child, and then throwing the button onto the lawn in front of the Capitol (without looking at it, of course - we all know how easily one can be brainwashed by liberal propaganda!). For someone who went on at great length early in the essay about 'paying his respects' to various memorials, you'd think he wouldn't be quite so proud of littering, but I've never pretended to understand the inner working of the regressive mind.

There are then a few paragraphs in which he insults some of the speakers, complains about liberals insulting him and supposedly threatening him (I say 'supposedly' because Wallace has proven that he is not a reliable source - however, I'm not dismissing his claims outright, as I suppose it's possible that he WAS threatened) after which he does an admirable job of listing all the right-wing talking points about the election. All in all, a pretty predictable essay, and I would have shrugged and gone about my business but for one thing he mentioned in the beginning of the essay -

"My participation was assured when I received e-mail, written by liberals, describing how they were going to use World War II veterans to protest President BushÕs legitimacy as president. Their plan was to get pictures of WW II veterans, no matter how they voted in the election, and indicate their dates of service on individual posters."

Now, this was clearly an attempt to mislead any readers he might have into thinking that the organizers of the march were planning to make posters with photos of veterans who might or might not support the march itself. Since he has a copy of the email in question posted RIGHT UNDERNEATH his 'essay', it's not possible to assume that he merely misunderstood the plan. It annoyed me enough that I sent him the following email (note - for anyone who isn't familiar with the term 'freeper', it refers to someone who posts on the right-wing extremist forum FreeRepublic.com; freepers are nasty, ugly people who continually harass and threaten anyone who opposes their radical agenda):

Hi Michael.

In your long rant about the Voter Rights March in Washington D.C., you write: "My participation was assured when I received e-mail, written by liberals, describing how they were going to use World War II veterans to protest President Bush's legitimacy as president. Their plan was to get pictures of WW II veterans, no matter how they voted in the election, and indicate their dates of service on individual posters."

Though the above statement is factually correct, it seems to me that you are attempting to insinuate that the organizers intended to use photos of veterans who currently support Bush and believe that he actually received the most votes on November 7th. The truth, as you know (since you appended the email itself), is that the organizers planned to use photos of any veteran who feels that Bush is an illegitimate president. I find it disturbing (though not, of course, surprising) that you would make such a deliberate attempt to mislead people with your report. Perhaps you didn't mean to mislead, but I can't for the life of me imagine why you would have taken such an offended tone, unless it was because you hoped people would think that the organizers planned to use photos of veterans who did not support the march.

It's certainly a shame that you were insulted by some of the people at the march. While I myself am a pacifist, and so would never threaten anyone, it's entirely possible that I would have insulted you as well, had I seen you (I knew from others that there were a couple of 'freepers' at the Capitol, but was too busy to notice them myself). It would be nice if everyone could 'just get along', but I for one have no goodwill toward people who condone and support the theft of democracy. I love my country too much. If someone doesn't know the facts, I am happy to educate them, but people who know the facts - and I suspect that you do - and yet refuse to acknowledge them make me sick.

I cannot be polite to people who so gleefully abandon the principles upon which our country was founded. I cannot feel anything but utter contempt and revulsion for people who who think so poorly of themselves that they are able to "look up" to a cowardly liar like George W. Bush.

In your heart, you know that Al Gore won.

And in my heart, I know that you would have made a splendid Nazi.

No, this is not an invitation to begin a discussion with me. You would, I assure you, be wasting your time by giving me the right-wing talking points on the election. I've heard them all - probably more of them than you have. And I am far too busy to engage in pointless debate with people who refuse to stand up for democracy.

Rose

p.s. Be warned that if you do send me email, it WILL be posted on the Fringefolk website. If you email me, then you are explicitly agreeing to the posting of your comments.

-- There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice,
but there must never be a time when we fail to protest. -- Elie Wiesel

PROUD TO BE ON THE 'FRINGE' - http://www.fringefolk.com
The only online directory of anti-coup protesters
STAND UP AND BE COUNTED - get listed today!

Well, that should have been that, but Michael - while not quite gutsy enough to email me directly - couldn't resist responding, so I received a polite little note from someone named Dave Dilegge letting me know that Michael had responded to me on the ConservaVets website.

I have to confess, I'm getting a little tired of regressives always being so predictable. Wallace is no exception, as his response shows.

Click here to read Part Two.


~Rose




Opinions expressed in the daily rant are those of the author and may not reflect the opinion of every member of the fringefolk project. The articles posted here are protected by copyright and may not be reproduced in any form without the author's express permission. You do, however, have permission to post a link to this article and include the first few sentences as a lead-in, if you wish.