GOP selective memory: Maryland Republican women prove ignorance is bliss

First appearance of GOP elephant; Don't elephants have good memories? (Wiki commons)

In yesterday’s column, I noted that it is paramount to keep the name George Bush and his laundry list of harmful activities in public view lest we forget who caused the troubles Mr. Obama is now seeking mightily (although admittedly with a few missteps and hesitations) to address.

The GOP women of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, a wealthy, waterfront community close to Washington DC, have managed to acquire instant Alzheimer’s, apparently, judging by a recent membership letter published on Huffington Post today. The letter HuffPo ran said:

Obama and Hitler have a great deal in common in my view. Obama and Hitler use the ‘blitzkrieg’ method to overwhelm their enemies. FAST, CARPET BOMBING intent on destruction. Hitler's blitzkrieg bombing destroyed many European cities - quickly and effectively. Obama is systematically destroying the American economy and with it AMERICA. First the banking/investment industry, next private enterprise (GM and Chrysler) and now HEALTH CARE. (Emphasis theirs.)

Reader comment gets it right

On Huffington Post, among hundreds of comments about this note, was this:

Bush and Cheney's invasion of Iraq had far more in common with the German blitzkrieg invasion of Poland than Obama's attempts to push legislation. "Shock and Awe", "Lightening War", hmmm. Invading a country because you claim it's a threat to you, hmmm.

These silly old birds are offensive to equate Obama's political actions with military aggression in Europe that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, including civilian executions by death squads, and ended the sovereignty of multiple nations.

Again, they need to be reminded what Dubya did, and how they most likely rallied behind him as Iraqis died by the thousands."

That reader made some good points, but there's more.

The author of the Republican Women’s note is hopelessly ignorant and completely unable to recall facts, as welI as being unable to make cogent comparisons. So, here’s a refresher course for the other erroneous aspects of her misleading (to be kind) message:

First, Mr. Obama is not destroying the American economy. In a mere six months, even Hitler couldn’t have done that. Indeed, Mr. Bush did do that, but it took him eight years.

Mr. Bush -- and his ideological forebears Poppy Bush and “trickle down” economics expert Ronald Reagan -- set up the laws that permitted the financial rape of the American middle class and the financial meltdown (with some help from Bill Clinton, although Clinton was fighting a Republican Congress at the time).

Second, the automobile companies have no one to blame but themselves. I wonder how many of Anne Arundel’s Republican women drive U.S.-made cars. I would bet there are an awful lot of Subarus and Volvos in that very yacht-owning neck of the woods. No matter. Mr. Obama is hardly to blame for decades of U.S. automakers failing to serve the consumer with reliable, desirable cars. Contending that he is to blame is either insane, or just plain stupid. Or, it is part and parcel of the Republican approach to linguistics: misuse words long enough that their meanings become confused and you can build illogical arguments upon them that seem (only seem) to hold water. It’s cagey, of course, but completely unethical. It’s what totalitarian governments do, in fact. I refer the reader to Aldous Huxley’s 1984, in which the Ministry of Truth told nothing but lies.

Iconic Republicans; no memory, no math skills

The Republican Women of Anne Arundel County cannot add, either. According to campaignmoney.com, their expenditures last year reached $84,934; however, they received only $35,295 in contributions. That’s a neat trick; could they be running in the red? Could they have overspent, like their hero Mr. Bush? Could they be tarred with the very brush Republicans so like to use against Democrats, deficit spending?

If you would like to take these issues up directly with the Republican Women of Anne Arundel County, you can find all the contact information you need here.

And then -- again -- there’s the ethics of using language to confuse.

The problem the Republican Women have with accuracy is a lot more than skin deep. The same hand that penned the above (“Joyce”) also penned this gem:

I’m PROUD TO BE A REPUBLICAN! Our Party doesn’t bow low to the monarch of a nation that would cheerfully ELIMINATE us as a nation! Our Party doesn’t apologize for our nation while visiting foreign countries – many of whom hate everything about the United States – EXCEPT OUR FOREIGN AID AND MONEY!" (Emphasis theirs)

Let’s look at that paragraph from an ethics viewpoint.

One assumes "Jpyce" was talking about Mr. Obama’s slight bow to the Saudi king on his visit there. Bowing is an acceptable form of respect in the Islamic nations, nothing more, nothing less. Should the Saudi king visit here, one might be certain his protocol team would inform him hand shaking is the norm, which he would then do in order not to insult his host. In Japan, bowing low is customary (not in Saudi Arabia, where an incline of the head -- as Mr. Obama did -- is sufficient. (He did not "bow low.") In Japan, I have every reason to believe that Mr. Obama would "bow low", as in all likelihood would the Saudi king. So, ethically, “Joyce” (the signature on these letters) is clueless about international protocol. Ethically, it is incumbent upon those who operate globally, such as a United States president, to know and follow local custom. In addition, considering the immense rift between the U.S. and the Arab world caused by Mr. Bush’s ham-fisted handling of every situation up to, including and after 9/11, a little bow would be a bit of balm on those turgid waters, ethically -- and strategically -- not a bad thing.

Mr. Obama apologized for anything we may have done that was hurtful to an ally. And, despite what so many think because of their irrational, gut-level hatred of all Arabs, Saudi Arabia has been a strategic ally for the United States for a long time, despite our cultural differences. There has been some recent evidence that Saudis supported some non-profits that supported extremists.* Some evidence; no proof. That’s not to say it never happened; perhaps it did, but we don’t yet know. So, to use that as a battering ram against Mr. Obama’s attempts to make peace in the world is both xenophobic and delusional. The same people tarring the Saudis before the proof is available need to ask: How many U.S. senators have accepted money from tobacco companies when smoking is just as provably killing Americans as extremist bombs do? How many U.S. senators have accepted money from industries that are polluting our air, and our neighbor’s air, and causing global warming? When U.S. senators can be proven as pure as the driven snow, then perhaps we will have the right to demand equal ideological and operational purity from our allies and enemies.

All of this proves Joyce’s simplistic reactions to complex situations. But her final sentence proves her ignorance of fact, her inability to look at an object and determine what it actually is. (Perhaps this is because of the wingnut misuse of language; it would be difficult to purposely misuse it and maintain one’s own knowledge of true meanings of words.)

Here’s the fact: Saudi Arabia doesn’t need our aid money. It has oil. Repeat: Saudi Arabia doesn’t need our aid money. It has oil. A third time, so even Joyce will be able to follow: Saudi Arabia doesn’t need our aid money. It has oil.

Was it unethical of “Joyce” to write that line? Certainly; she was attempting to cast Saudi Arabia, illicitly, as a beggar nation. She was misusing language, at the very least, to sway others. Like the pro-fetus crowd. Like the “intelligent design” crowd. Like the “Mission Accomplished” sign in Iraq, erected by Bush when nothing could have been further from the truth (unless the mission he meant was destabilizing the entire Middle East and bankrupting the U.S.) “Joyce” may think she was referring to other nations, but the entirety was grammatically linked to bowing to monarchs. Either she was manipulating speech for propaganda, or she’s too ignorant to be in charge of written communications for her group.

Perhaps all of this is why the Republican Party is regarded as no more than a bunch of ignorant wingnuts by so many so often. They do disdain learning, and “Joyce” makes that abundantly clear in her writing (you can find more of it, if you like, here.)

“Joyce” also expends a lot of breath claiming that the Republican Party is not dead, usually in caps, which, on the Internet, is shouting. The last resort of those who have no rational or logical arguments to make is to shout. Look at Limbaugh, Hannity or Cramer.

Spiritually, it is probably best to simply turn and walk away. Ethically, the proper course of action is less well defined. If one walks away without engaging this lunacy, is one then tacitly permitting it to infect others? If one engages, on the other hand, is one giving more credence to the natterings of fools than common sense would suggest is wise?

Make up your own mind. This column, however, is about engaging on ethical issues. Permitting untruths and slanderous claims such as appear all over the website of the Republican Women of Anne Arundel County to go unremarked would seem to be unethical.

* According to the NYTimes, “The documents provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of Sept. 11, 2001. And the broader links rely at times on a circumstantial, connect-the-dots approach to tie together Saudi princes, Middle Eastern charities, suspicious transactions and terrorist groups.”