Remember years ago, when Hillary Clinton said a vast right-wing conspiracy was out to destroy the Clintons?
The usual suspects, i.e., surrogates for that vast right-wing conspiracy, mocked her. Like many people, though, I’d read enough from credible journalists to know that she was right then and she is right now.
There is a vast conspiracy and it has been working for more than half a century to destroy not simply the Clintons but American democracy.
The Koch Bros have become the avatars, the contemporary faces of this radical revolution, as Nancy MacLean describes in her deeply researched history, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan For America, mostly because their efforts to keep their conclaves secret have been thwarted by precisely what they’re trying to kill: a curious and investigative free press in a democratic society.
I’m reading Democracy In Chains now. I probably shouldn’t be reading it at night; it’s scary enough in full daylight. It pulls together all of the elements–which a lot of us figured were disparate–into one huge force. Ergo, the word “conspiracy.”
The only thing I don’t particularly like about the book is its title, with its whiff of melodrama, which itself can draw attacks, no matter how unsubstantial and Orwellian. But I suppose in an age when best sellers sport hair-on-fire titles, MacLean’s editors figured this book better have one, too.
When I finish it, I’m going to quote from it, as well as quoting from the remarkably hysterical attack on it coming from the “libertarian” Volokh Conspiracy blog.
In fact, I’ve been clipping and pasting a complete collection of Volokh assaults on MacLean and her book over the past several weeks. When I tweeted something about how this attack was “male ‘libertarian’ hysteria,” I in turn got attacked on Twitter by some, well, hysterical males, presumably “libertarians.”
One Randy Barat tweeted succinctly, “Systematic dismantling is not hysterical attack.” I responded that since I can systematically dismantle the attacks, I’ll stick with calling them hysterical. (I never studied logic and suspect there is a term for Barat’s statement. The word “tautology” cropped up in my mind. I looked it up. Wrong. So today I’m thinking “logical fallacy.” Is that right? Help!)
I suspect men, especially “libertarians,” don’t like being called hysterical, can’t figure out why. If you can, let me know.
Anyway, until I finish the book and digest what MacLean is telling us, please read this, from BillMoyers.com: The Ideologues Who Want to Destroy Democracy to Save Capitalism
Especially you’ll want to read the entire George Monbiot article from The Guardian. His summary of the ideology of this so-called revolution will chill your soul.
Then we, the majority–and never forget we are the majority–must figure out how to enter this war using fact and intelligence to save our civilization.