And Now, Your Latest Nut Job (Guest Voice)
And Now, Your Latest Nut Job
by Eugene Robinson
Washington Post Columnist
WASHINGTON — If there’s been a more clinically insane political phenomenon in my lifetime than the “birthers,” I’ve missed it. Is this what our national discourse has come to? Sheer paranoid fantasy?
I’m talking about the people who have convinced themselves that Barack Obama was not really born in the United States, and thus is ineligible to be president. Even some commentators who usually are among Obama’s most rabid critics have acknowledged that this idea is simply nuts. Yet it persists, out there on the farthest fringes of the right-wing blogosphere. Oh, and also on CNN, which is usually a little closer to reality.
It has been definitively shown that there is not a scintilla of truth, or even the slightest ambiguity, in the whole “birther” idea. Officials in Hawaii have attested again and again that Obama was, in fact, born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. When the “birthers” demanded to see his birth certificate, state officials produced it. Journalists have looked at this complete non-story from every angle and concluded that it is, in fact, a complete non-story.
To believe otherwise, it’s necessary to explain the fact that birth announcements heralding the arrival of baby boy Barack Obama ran in two Honolulu newspapers in August 1961.
So to be a card-carrying “birther,” you have to believe not only that Hawaiian officials conspired to fabricate records, but also that “they” — not state officials, necessarily, but the generic malevolent “they” who inevitably lurk behind the deepest, darkest conspiracies — somehow managed to alter or replace clippings in yellowing newspaper archives.
That’s what the less crazy birthers have to contend. The alternative scenario — for those who really ought to put their tinfoil hats back on — is that somehow this was all planned back in 1961: “They” diabolically planted these birth announcements 48 years ago, establishing a false record, so that a chosen infant who was actually born in some foreign land — Kenya? Indonesia? Manchuria? — could be groomed, perhaps programmed, and someday installed in the Oval Office. Cue evil-genius laughter.
These would be people who also believe that Stanley Kubrick’s comic masterpiece, “Dr. Strangelove,” was actually a documentary — and that Obama’s ultimate aim, as cleverly deduced by Gen. Jack D. Ripper, is to “sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”
There are probably people out there who think the world is flat, and they’re not worth writing about. The “birthers” wouldn’t be either unless you believe a poll released last week by Research 2000 revealing that an astounding 28 percent of Republicans actually think that Obama was not born in the United States and another 30 percent are “not sure.” GOP officials need to order more tinfoil.
The survey, commissioned by the liberal Web site Daily Kos, found that 93 percent of Democrats and 83 percent of independents have no doubt — duh — that Obama was born in the United States. That only 42 percent of Republicans are similarly convinced is a fascinating indicator of just how far the Republican Party has drifted from the mainstream.
Also beyond the Outer Limits of sanity is CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, who has been giving prime-time exposure to the “birther” lunacy — even while denying that he believes in it. Dobbs’ obsession with the “story” has become an embarrassment to the network, which has tried to position itself as untainted by political bias. CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein has pronounced the story “dead,” but insists that it’s legitimate for Dobbs to examine the alleged controversy, though in fact no controversy exists.
The “birther” thing is only Dobbs’ latest detour from objective reality. For years, he has crusaded against illegal immigration by citing facts and figures that often turn out to be wrong. Television can confer a kind of pseudo-reality on any manner of nonsense.
Is this an orchestrated campaign to somehow delegitimize Obama’s presidency? Is the fact that he is the first African-American president a factor? Is it that some people can’t or won’t accept that he won the election and serves as commander in chief?
Maybe, maybe not. Trying to analyze the “birther” phenomenon would mean taking it seriously, and taking it seriously would be like arguing about the color of unicorns. About all that can be said is that a bunch of lost, confused and frightened people have decided to seek refuge in conspiratorial make-believe. I hope they’re harmless. And I hope they seek help.
This column is copyrighted and licensed to run on TMV in full. (c) 2009, Washington Post Writers Group.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
32 Responses to “And Now, Your Latest Nut Job (Guest Voice)”
There is an overall obsession with this story by blogs and the media. The problem is, that only keeps it alive.
You will never, ever convince a conspiracy believer with facts and logic, and all that happens by keeping this story in the limelight is even more people start saying to themselves, “Hmm. This story just won't go away. Maybe there IS something to it.”
Ignore it, stop responding to it, stop feeding it, and eventually it will pull back to just the core of conspiracy whack-jobs that think aliens in Area 51 secretly run the One World Government, and the white tanks of the UN will be rolling through our streets any day now.
If by keeping this story alive, the birthers are shamed and embarrassed into not only shutting up, but also being more reluctant next time to jump on board whatever cockamamie paranoid fantasy shows up on their doorstep, then the publicity will have had some worthwhile value.
It won't be ignored because the so called news networks are really about entertainment and what could be more entertaining than Orly Taitz. The Republican politicians can't say anthing against the birthers because they will offend a large chunk of their base. The birthers, deathers and teabaggers are the only thing the Democrats have going for them now. No matter how badly the Democrats screw things up as long as there is a perception that the Republican party is made up of a mob of lunatics the Democrats can win.
My take is the veracity/significance of the issue ultimately weighs less than the credibility question raised.
Look at what drives Sil’s political convictions.
While Daily Kos trumpeted the R/D and regional breakdown of their poll results, they predictably ignored the fact that 17% of independents have doubts.
No point worrying about people whose vote will never change come hell or high water.
So, let’s see where that independent number lands next time around.
A truer summary of the current Democratic strategy has not been spoken or written, Ron.
And isn't that rather sad? The party has gained majorities in both houses and won back the WH, and rather than promote good legislation and sell it to the public on its merits they have to keep demonizing and marginalizing their opponents.
personally, i think it's politically advantageous for the democrats at large, and the president specifically, for this story not to die. it's as good, if not better, than sarah palin's nomination.
but i definitely think bigotry has a LOT to do with it. maybe racism for some, but bigotry in general: yo betcha. perhaps a little xenophobia for the kid that lived in indonesia for a while. a guy who may or may not have some scary “muslim” ties! but bigotry, for sure.
oh hey, maybe a new theory will come up that lou dobbs is actually a brilliant democratic operative keeping the story in the headlines!
Ron – you didn't think elections were decided by the voters' careful evaluation of the candidates, their histories and their platforms, did you?
Well in essence I agree with you, but….this….this…..this….
[The “birther” thing is only Dobbs’ latest detour from objective reality. For years, he has crusaded against illegal immigration by citing facts and figures that often turn out to be wrong. Television can confer a kind of pseudo-reality on any manner of nonsense.]
This is a cheap shot because the overwhelming majority of his facts on the subject is indeed fact. This and the multitude of other subjects Mr. Dobbs has commented on were absolute reality.
Illegal aliens need to removed from this country and since most illegal “immigrants” enter the U.S. via airline ticket, severe restrictions on visas should be granted to those offending nationalities until we can get the problem under control.
CStanley–
What's really rather sad is that elected Republicans are pushing legislation about birth certificates.
Funny. The same people who make up the ranks of the birthers are the same folks who had zero problem nominating a white man born in Panama [John McCain].
I think instead of birthers we should call them “racists”, reflecting what they truly are. Maybe the talking heads should bring up John McCain's foreign birth a little more often than they do. That might help simmer down the nonsense.
George, both the parties are in a pretty sad state, and that's why I think we voters should stop falling for their 'Let's you and him fight' distractions. It's time we started asking them all to actually start focusing on governing instead of getting their voters riled up to hate and/or ridicule their opponents.
Silhouette, I don't think you are aware that many of the 'birthers' use that as an example of how the question of Obama's eligibility should have been handled. I don't agree with their continued protestations, as I do believe that sufficient proof has been given- but it's not as though those people are unaware of the questions that were raised about McCain. If anything, the irony works the other way since some of the people who were pushing the “McCain's not eligible” story are now the ones ridiculing the people who even dared to ask about Obama at all.
“unless you believe a poll released last week by Research 2000 revealing that an astounding 28 percent of Republicans actually think that Obama was not born in the United States and another 30 percent are “not sure.”
And that folks, is why the GOP is in the doghouse now. NOT because of immigrants or demographics, but because the people who call the shots in that party are authoritarians who will believe any idea you put in front of them as long as it fits in with what they think the world should be like.
As has been observed (by Dalitso Njolinjo among others), to the large extent that republicans are delegitimizing themselves by allowing and encouraging the “birther” phenomenon, why exactly would the democrats want to see the movement end? The main reason I can think of is that some of those “believers” might wish to do the president actual harm and the phenomenon (along with other demonizing) encourages them.
What elected officials are encouraging the birther movement? I've seen lots of Dem operatives trying to embarrass the GOP officials, putting them on the spot to either denounce the birthers or risk looking foolish for not doing so. I've seen one GOP congressman nervously trying to quiet down an uproar at a townhall meeting, which resulted from his lack of concern over Obama's birth certificate. I've also seen the Dems in Congress put forth a resolution regarding Obama's Hawaiin birth, to also try to put their GOP colleagues on the spot. It passed unanimously. (I'm not sure why GS, who keeps mentioning how sad it is that the GOP put forth a bill to try to clarify future procedure on the citizenship eligibility requirement, didn't similarly think it was frivolous for the Dems to spend time on the “Obama was born in Hawaii” resolution.)
Regardless, even loony Bachman (perhaps the closest we have to someone who probably agrees with the birthers or would like to encourage them) didn't cast a no vote on that one.
Question for all of you who seem so concerned about what this is doing to the GOP- what would the party need to do to quash this movement, in order for you to believe that they aren't taking it seriously or encouraging it?
And a follow up- why did you not think it was necessary for the Dems to publicly denounce all the 9/11 truthers, given that roughly the same number of Dems still think that Bush may have had prior knowledge of the attacks and failed to stop them, as the number of GOP who are doubting Obama's birth eligibility? How come those conspiracists didn't hamper the Dems ability to govern, but you are so concerned that the right wing ones will do so to their party?
“what would the party need to do to quash this movement”
Nothing Cstan. My point is this is the people the GOP is catering to. You can vanish the birther movement tomorrow, but you've still got 28 percent of the party who is that willing to believe total BS in order to justify their preconceived beliefs that make them feel good, regardless of facts to the contrary. These are not people I want calling the shots on any decision that affect me, and the majority of the nation feels the same way. The politicians still in power are a reflection of that base, except for a handful that want to be more moderate who are then castigated for being RINO's.
But no one seems to be able to tell me what you mean by “catering to” these people. What elected official has discredited him or herself by catering to birthers? Bachman, as I mentioned, might be one- but she had her counterparts on the left like Cynthia McKinney (and yes, I do hope that Bachman gets purged like McKinney did.) But then, as now, you had Dem elected officials who tried to duck the questions from truthers as much as they could- that's not the same as catering to them though. Why is it that the current narrative says that this movement is going to derail the party, when that movement was similar in many aspects (including the numbers of people who believed or at least sympathized with it) wasn't considered a huge problem for the Dems?
Instantly, a more insane party is easily identified: those obscessed with and filled with psychotic hatred for those “birthers.” The expression of their insanity confirms this.
CStanley – Your point, and your question, are well taken. The answer lies not in the facts, but in the PR and messaging. In recent years, the Dems have done a very effective job of portraying the Reps as a party dominated by screwballs and extremists, including, for example, the religious right, the teabaggers, the secessionists and the birthers. The “truthers” actually got relatively little play, except when someone of note splashed it out there.
A few decades ago, the Reps did the same to the Dems around hippies, drugs and anti-war extremists, rendering “liberal” a dirty word in American voters' minds for a generation and equating Dems with lawlessness and anti-Americanism.
As has always been true, politics moves in cycles, and right now the Dems have the message and the means to put it to the Reps. The “birthers” simply add to the pile of extremist/screwball messaging being laid on the Reps…it's the icing on the cake if you will. And, that is why “birthers” will hurt the Reps, while the “truthers” had little impact on the Dems.
tidbits, I think that's a pretty good response. You're right that the conservatives controlled that message in the past, and now the Dems have hold of the narrative.
It still remains though that there's little that the party in either case can do about it until the cycle plays out. It would be nice though if moderate websites didn't join in the chorus and instead recognized the political gamemanship that the partisans on each side engage in (which hurts all of us in the end because we take our focus off of the real issues of the day and leaves the elected officials without any real oversight.)
“But no one seems to be able to tell me what you mean by “catering to” these people. “
CStanely — HR 1503 flagrantly panders to the birthers. It has 10 Republican cosponsors. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR…
Comment from Representative Blunt: “What I don't know is why the president can't produce a birth certificate,” Blunt said. “I don't know anybody else that can't produce one. And I think that that's a legitimate question — no health records, no birth certificate.” Is that not catering to the birthers?
roro- I hadn't heard those comments from Blunt, and I don't think he should have made them.
I disagree about the bill pandering to birthers. I see it more as an attempt by those congressmen to try to take the issue off the table in the future, and since the issue of birth and eligibility came up with BOTH parties' candidates this cycle, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that we should look at the process (personally I think we should also find a way to define 'natural born', since its meaning is not at all clear.)
None of the cosponsors of the bill have expressed any doubt that Obama would meet the test that they are suggesting for future candidates, as far as I know (I think most or all of them have done the opposite- asserted that they do not question it in Obama's case.) And they all voted 'yes' (as did every other R) to that attempt at a gotcha from the Dems, the bill asserting Obama's birth in Hawaii.
Main stream Repugs could try to end this with a nonbinding resolution stating that Obama is a US citizen. The Dems did this when some nutroots and wingnuts tried the same tack.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/show
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/22…
“I see it more as an attempt by those congressmen to try to take the issue off the table in the future” and “At most I'd say that they're timing is bad with that bill”
If this were the case, why aren't there any Democrat cosponsors?
Your question is answered in the statement you quoted from me as well, roro-timing. Do you really think any Dems are currently going to sign on to this? Dems are getting a lot more mileage out of the birther movement and want to portray anyone who is anywhere near it as unhinged loons- it's much better political strategy for them to also let those GOP Congressmen twist in the wind.
CStanley–
Are you actually saying the birth certificate bill is not in response to the people who've been complaining about Obama's birth certificate?
CStanley — So we shouldn't question the motivations of Texas Republicans (7 of the 10 cosponsors are from Texas, where the birther movement is quite popular), but we should question those of the Democrats not jumping on? I mean, sure, I suppose it's totally fair to question why Dems wouldn't support it, but I think the group who actually came up with this legislation has the onus here.
CS – I have to disagree. Of course this is aimed at Obama 2012.
I didn't say it wasn't a response, in fact I stated that it is a logical response to an election where both candidates' eligibility was questioned.
To me it seems that this is they're response (and quite possibly because they do have constituents hounding them about it) but not in the sense of legitimizing the birther's allegations. My guess is that the Congressmen know that if they put in place a verification process and then Obama passes the 'test', they will have cover to tell those constituents that it's already been addressed so they need to pipe down about it.
CStanley–
So, by sponsoring this birth certificate legislation, Republicans are trying to quell the controversy?
And by declining to co-sponsor it, Democrats are fanning the flames of the controversy?
I think that's quite possible, GS, although I try not to assume that I really know people's motivations.
CStanley–
Oh my.
I'm reminded of how often Republicans seems to think their own problems are the fault of Democrats.
GS- knowing that each side strategizes to try to keep public opinion in their favor isn't exactly paranoia. It would be naive to think that Dems DIDN'T want to fan the flames, and in fact several liberal commenters here have admitted as much and cheered them on.