terça-feira, 14 de setembro de 2010


Livro revela que a direita morbida dos estados unidos não é muito diferente da daqui. Nesta reportagem do New York Times, Will Bunch, jornalista descrito como "progressista" mostra em seu livro "The Backlash" (O Boicote)   revela o "motor" que está por trás da novidade da direita americana o "Tea Party". Entre as forças que movem os radicais está a mídia, com apresentadores e imitadores que batem no Presidente Barak Obama, tendo inclusive, recentemente, questionado a Certidão de Nascimento de Obama, perguntado se ele nascera nos Estados Unidos ou não.

The Engine of Right-Wing Rage, Fueled by More Than Just Anger

n his new book, “The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama,” the progressive journalist Will Bunch serves up his own anatomy of theTea Party movement, that loose agglomeration of right-wing insurgents, libertarians, conservatives, evangelicals, survivalists, gun-rights crusaders, antitax protesters, deficit hawks, antigovernment zealots, militia members, Ayn Randers, Limbaugh “ditto heads,”Glenn Beck fanatics, birthers, Birchers, and supporters of Sarah Palinand Ron Paul.
Yong Kim
Will Bunch


Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama
By Will Bunch
354 pages. Harper/HarperCollins. $25.99.


As Mr. Bunch sees it, there are three main reasons for the rise of the Tea Party:
1. “Genuine anger and panic by rank-and-file conservatives” who were deeply frustrated by the election of Barack Obama, and who “suddenly saw a world in which — thanks to a growing electoral base that did not think or look like them — their Reaganist conservative philosophy might be shut out of power for good.”
2. “The electronic media” — including the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and local talk radio imitators, as well as social networking forces like Facebook and Twitter— which have enabled “like-minded Obama naysayers” to come together “without actual journalists intervening to filter out untrue information like the canard about the president’s birth certificate.”
3. “The ever-circling capitalists — the policy pushers who saw a new grass-roots movement as a back-door way to revive the big-business agenda” that had thrived from the 1980s through the George W. Bush era, along with “the pure-profit hucksters” eager to cash in on voter anger.
Mr. Bunch seems to have spent a lot of energy looking into Reason No. 3: He writes at length about the marketing of items like gold coins, solar generators and seed bank kits to survivalist-minded, apocalypse-fearing consumers; and Glenn Beck’s sprawling TV-radio-book-merchandise empire. Other sections of “The Backlash” — a title that consciously or unconsciously recalls “Backlash,” Susan Faludi’s 1991 book about antifeminist reaction to the women’s movement — feature the author’s visits to events like the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot and the first national convention of Tea Party activists held in Nashville earlier this year.
Although Mr. Bunch — a senior writer at The Philadelphia Daily News and a senior fellow at the left-leaning research group Media Matters for America — tries hard in many of his interviews with various Tea Party-affiliated individuals to understand where they are coming from, he occasionally lapses into snarky put-downs that undercut the mostly reasoned tone of his book and his many persuasive observations. For instance, he writes of the numerous retirees and Glenn Beck fans at one event: “Not only did it turn out that the revolution was televised after all, but it also needed assistance out to its car.” By far the most compelling, if not terribly original, arguments in “The Backlash” concern the current media environment, which has amplified the loudest and most partisan voices, and helped spread fact-free theories about President Obama’s not being born in the United States or wanting to take away people’s guns. Mr. Bunch invokes Neil Postman — who argued in his seminal 1985 book, “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” that the entertainment values promoted by television are subverting public discourse — to explore the phenomenon of Mr. Beck and his shameless emotional appeals to his audience’s deepest fears about change and the threat of the Other (be it a black president, Mexican immigrants or East Coast liberals).
Mr. Bunch also builds upon the insights of Cass Sunstein (the author of prescient books like “Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide”) to look at how the echo chamber of partisan Web sites can ratify radical, even dangerous, views, and how group polarization, especially at a time of high employment and economic anxiety, fuels anger and irrational rumors about government conspiracies (like FEMA-run concentration camps and black helicopters). Echoing other reporters and commentators before him, Mr. Bunch uses the writings of Richard Hofstadter — most notably “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life” and “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” — to try to explicate the roots of populist rage that animate many Tea Party gatherings. And he goes on to suggest, not always convincingly, that psychological or personal reasons drive many Americans to seek “rebirth from the raw energy of the Tea Parties.”
As for the consequences of the so-called backlash movement, Mr. Bunch reviews well-known cases like the Republican Scott Brown’s ascension to Edward M. Kennedy’s Senate seat in liberal Massachusetts and the Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio’s capture of the Republican nomination in the Florida Senate race. But he argues that the “Tea Party’s true success in 2010 was not in electing their own people but moving incumbents” like SenatorJohn McCain, Republican of Arizona, to the right.
Mr. Bunch adds that conservative insurgents have tilted the entire national conversation to the right, with Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigration rocking “any hopes for a realistic federal immigration policy” and “Second Amendment paranoia” driving “lawmakers to take actions that would make it harder for authorities to keep tabs on guns and possibly increase the supply even further.”
For many decades, Mr. Bunch observes, “there were grown-ups involved in the conservative movement who tamped down the flames of extremism rather than fanning them.”
“Ironically,” he continues, “the main reason that the John Birch Society” — which went so far as to suggest that President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a Communist sympathizer — “failed to gain much traction in the early 1960s was because mainstream Republican politicians turned against them, even though the party was at low ebb in the Kennedy-Johnson years. Barry Goldwater, the leader of the so-called New Right movement who won the G.O.P. presidential nomination in 1964, did have considerable support from the Birchers, yet not only did he not embrace them but secretly authorized the intellectual leader of 1960s conservatism, William F. Buckley Jr., and his National Review to go after the organization, successfully marginalizing it and helping to keep its Richard Hofstadter-described paranoid style in the shadows, even as that decade grew more tumultuous.”
Today things are different. Republicans are reluctant to speak out against Mr. Limbaugh’s invective. Representative Michele Bachmann, Republican of Minnesota, has suggested that President Obama “may have anti-American views.” And Sharron Angle, a Republican Senate candidate from Nevada, has spoken of citizens arming themselves “against a tyrannical government.”
By “shifting the parameters on what is acceptable political speech in America,” Mr. Bunch says, right-wing insurgents have driven “distrust of government to its highest level in more than a generation” and mapped out “dangerous new territory for our national politics.


   No texto de Eduardo Guimarães toda a revolta contra o preconceito com  que a elite, representada pelo jornal fascista O Estado de São Paulo, dedica ao povo, insinuando que são apenas as facilidades da economia que fazem  com que o "povo de Lula" vote em Dilma, como se não fosse direito de todos os cidadãos, sem exceções, gozar de melhores condições de vida. Essa direita virulenta está com os dias contados.

“O povo? Ora, o povo… Se não tem pão, que coma brioches”
Atribui-se a frase em epígrafe a Marie Antoinette Josèphe Jeanne de Habsbourg-Lorraine, arquiduquesa da Áustria e rainha consorte de França de 1774 até a Revolução Francesa, em 1789. Essa frase entrou para os anais da história como suprema demonstração de desprezo das elites pelas camadas majoritárias e empobrecidas das nações.
Nesta parte do mundo, o conceito fundamental da democracia, o império da vontade majoritária dos povos, sempre foi relativizado. Os estratos superiores da pirâmide social sempre acharam que o povo não sabe o que é melhor para si e sempre se dispuseram a tutelá-lo.
A crença aristocrática na ignorância intrínseca das camadas populares e a conseqüente relativização da vontade de maiorias que jamais se formam sem tais camadas fundamentou por aqui aberrações como uma ditadura militar que estuprou a vontade das urnas e destituiu, sem qualquer processo legal, um governo legitimamente eleito.
Há pouco, em um pequeno país centro-americano a violação da vontade da maioria se deu por meio de um golpe de Estado desfechado na calada da noite, no qual o presidente da República, detentor de inquestionável mandato popular delegado pela maioria dos cidadãos, foi colocado de pijamas em um avião e deportado sumariamente. Por aqui, a direita midiática apoiou o golpe e desandou a verter teorias segundo as quais a vontade da maioria não bastaria para garantir ao eleito o mandato que recebeu.
O discurso da direita midiática tupiniquim, portanto, tal como há mais de cinqüenta anos continua sendo o de relativizar o direito democrático das maiorias de fazer julgamentos políticos e, assim, eleger ou não os que governarão, sempre usando como desculpa supostos pecados das massas que as inabilitariam para tomar tais decisões.
Editorial do jornal O Estado de São Paulo de hoje trata dessa maneira o povo brasileiro. O povo? Ora, o povo se vende por “badulaques” propiciados pela bonança econômica, diz, em outras palavras, texto que representa a versão contemporânea da frase histórica de Maria Antonieta.
São “badulaques” como o de jovens negros e pobres se converterem nos primeiros universitários de famílias que, antes deste governo, jamais haviam sonhado com tanto. Miçangas para brucutus como 14 milhões de brasileiros entrarem para um mercado formal de trabalho que o governo anterior dizia que só seria ampliado com supressão de direitos trabalhistas.
O último parágrafo do editorial do centenário jornal paulista dispensa o leitor da pena da leitura de toda aquela peça de cinismo, de arrogância e de uma certa alienação quanto ao que é o Brasil contemporâneo. Sobre a tendência esmagadora que as pesquisas revelam de que Dilma Rousseff seja eleita presidente em três semanas, diz o texto:
“Está errado o povo? A resposta a essa pergunta será dada em algum momento, no futuro. De pronto, a explicação que ocorre é a de que, talvez, o povo de Lula seja constituído de consumidores, não de cidadãos”.
O “povo de Lula”… Não é a maioria massacrante do povo BRASILEIRO que as pesquisas mostram que elegerá Dilma Rousseff a despeito de todo o bombardeio acusatório – considerado sem provas pela Justiça – que os aliados de José Serra na mídia e o próprio candidato usam sem parar para tentar modelar a vontade da população. É o “povo de Lula”.
Se encontrasse hoje a “Lâmpada de Aladim”, pediria ao gênio que me facultasse ocupar rede nacional de rádio e TV para ler a acusação do jornal paulista ao povo brasileiro. Em seguida, poderia partir em paz desta vida, ciente de que finalmente conseguira revelar ao meu povo quem são esses maníacos que há gerações tentam impor seus delírios a toda uma nação
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...