Op Ed: 'Denialism' Defined: Why and How Used By Revanchists

(EUGENE, Ore.) - In the 90’s, a popular “comic strip” was “Frank and Ernest”. I keep some sets framed over computer here. One shows these two colleagues seated on park bench, with caption: “My psychiatrist put me in touch with reality, and I’ve been confused ever since.”

In a nutshell (cogent “comic strip” conflated) the caption concentrates and completely conceptualizes the malign, massive and manipulative progress of >i>Denialism ever since the early Twenties --affecting every area of modern life, now damaging our democratic governance.

Once seen as a time of tremendous impact from our early history which shaped --and continues to shape, our American mores and methods; those decades produced our potent near-democracy still reflected in D.C. today.

The flat fact is that it left behind concentrated debris accumulated from complex public problems, issues, possible solutions and sure failures ever since. For some easily-confused politicians still tied to past principles, now badly outmoded, futile by 21st Century developments-- ANY accurate, rational, and reasonable resume of realities today will achieve only that same comic/strip-reflected status: “Confusion”.

Fact-based and sensible, sensitive review becomes rooting-ground, deeply disintegrative developmental depository, for desperate, democracy-damaging political warfare, applied “in denial” and defense of power-loss.

Inevitably, the result is unreasonable --and entirely unacceptable-- deadly/determined defensive action for some groups. They can never-again accept the first operational principle of democracy: Majority ALWAYS rules. That long-valued, proven-effective principle is seen as best denied, delayed -- sometimes defeated-- via “obstructionism”.

That’s simply “denial-in-depth” for ANY progressive actions achieved by previous democratic consensus. No more radical, irrational, democracy-denying death of representative governance can be conceived. To obscure, obstruct and obviate that principle -- foundation of our Founders’ invention of our form of governance-- is to plunge a political dagger into the heart of our democracy. What constitutes Denialism?

We must understand this looming catastrophe --a dangerous psychological phenomenon-- currently shapes positive and negative sides of political party debate amd decision in our nation. “Denialism is choosing to deny reality to avoid any uncomfortable truth. “It is refusal to accept verifiable reality --an essential irrational action that withholds validation of historical experience or event.”

It is “the rejection of overwhelming evidence and generation of controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists” As in Holocaust denialism; AIDS denialism; Climate Change denialism; and other erroneously determined derelictions from the reasonable and rational, fact-based, often “scientific”, facts of reality seen by millions. (See Internet’s Wikipedia, now world’s largest encyclopedia !) Flatly put, as activated now in D.C., it is the GOPster cabal's refusal to recognize reality discovered and well recognized by rational, reasonable people --who happen to be of the other party.

The fact of fact-and-data/based defining/details, supporting sensible, sensitive, social and economic 21st Century essentials, is purposely distorted, obscured, hidden, undermined and hurt in any way possible -- simply and solely on source-by-other/side criteria. Refusing recognition to a democratically empowered group, lawfully-elected to carry on Constitutionally-endowed governance as their recognized right, has a certain deadly resonance. Its undoubted emergence absolutely demands our concentrated examination, for full exposure and rapid remediation --by Constitutional and democratic means, to avoid sure, certain and surely violent opposition later.

Flatly put, this radical cabal of GOPster party capturers refuse to acknowledge anyone -- other than their cabal-- as “chosen by the people to act in leadership for the people” of our continuing “experiment in democracy.” The unforgettable, unchallengeable, well-mandated demand for massive major change, reflected in the legal and unavoidable results of representative voting in 2008, has been reduced to pathetic rubble and patent, potent refusal.

A radically revanchinist GOPster cabal in D.C. is doing precisely that every day, with rapidly accelerating damage and increasingly devastating danger to our democracy.

Their repeated actions demonstrate determination to defy, delay and defeat anything and everything our lawfully-elected President undertakes for Congressional approval and particularly for funding. They declare that determination openly, defiantly, aggressively, and with no regard whatsoever for American political practices.

Their losing Presidential candidate has just, again, declared: “There will be no cooperation.”; their longtime House leader, some years ago, actually shut down the functions of government (briefly) to make the same point.

One effective, efficient tool for “Three-D”ing” obstructionism (“deny, delay, defeat”) has always been “Disinformation”: The intentional application of distortion to disarm, derail, and destroy known realities by radical reduction of their impacts and meanings. It operates through controlled channels by constant repetition and repeated perversion of perception.

Albeit notorious via its deadly usage by Nazi and other imperialist power-seekers, it has long been a favorite tool for revanchists. In warfare, political or other pursuit-of-power, this demands heavy deliveries of “propaganda”, applied at every level, in every available channel, by every and any means possible.

The revanchists put propaganda into full pursuit of political power --with no reference whatsoever to any level or brand of morality, and with total disregard for massive damage to democracy itself.

The public record already teems with tons of tough stuff so manipulated and “managed” into massive pages of publication, and many hours of audio-and-television broadcasts, belittling and bewailing ANY progressive step, across the nation, for the past decade and more.

ANY observer, however UN-astute, UN-informed or otherwise handicapped by economic, social and/or class barrier, can “see with own eyes”, clearly, and hear with own ears, what has been happening and still continues. What has been obviously manipulated for malign disinformation principles by these revanchists clearly at work in D.C., using every possible media form and social channel, is revealingly right on the public record.

Purpose is potently revealed by powerful action, and powerful action in pursuit of more power thus becomes potently revealing in itself. Revanchism has clearly returned as a realistic political-war weapon long recognized in D.C, but sedulously avoided, kept in abeyance until recently as the largest remnant of political immorality --a lesson learned most painfully in past historic occasions.

As applied in key-decades, for precisely the same potentially potent particulars --and producing precisely the same impotent, impractical and impossible political results-- it has always failed: That’s WHY it has most recently been avoided, until this same group again, in desperation, has resorted to it as if it were “the final weapon”. Given the past fate of too many once-powerful nations, it may well become so for us, too. Its repeated failures when applied accomplished little-or-nothing, while forcing further --always futile-- reversal of that “wit, wisdom and will of the people” at the heart of “American exceptionalism”.

Our deeply-detailed American history demonstrates over many decades those attributes, continually still proven by vote. --as in 2008, with the heavy-mandate for change and electing our first black President.

“The Twenties” was a time of confrontation and strife; of worker-corporate war; of immigrant arrival and struggle; and of class, social, economic, and race confrontation --on every conceivable face and front. It was never the peaceful and sunny set of simple socialized steps we find in some simplistic pages still purchasable --even once used as textbooks in our emerging educational system, inevitably shaped to fill the changing needs of the nation over those decades.

So also, we now know, have been the following decades --each period with its own crowded quota of controversy and confrontation-- always pivoting fully and finally around the same principles of democratic governance. And always leaving behind, at the end of each era, a very considerable debris of discards and debacles, all driven by continued political deceits and inevitable social and economic dissonances.

Given the desperate State of the Union so clearly inherited from the defaulted Bush II-Cheney-Rove cabal, progressive steps of any kind and at any level faced near-impossible barriers --completely clear of added hampering, destructive and people-defiant revanchist radicalism.

Yet we now see, at the end of President Obama’s first year, the unmistakable signals of newly-applied effectiveness, and some successes in setting out new horizon harbingers -- like the historic framework to fashion long-demanded federal healthcare and health cost/ crisis reforms.

“Patience, Perseverance and People Power” have now proven to be the principles on which our first black President has long operated and continues so to do. They were the tools for that recent resounding and now-respected turn-around vote-topper on healthcare.

SO still arises the perverted, politicized power pandering conflicts and deliberately-contrary views -- and their inevitable contrived convolutions --leading inescapably to head-on denial of the desperate realities we must now comprehend for the 21st Century.

Whether we arrive at that point of demanded understandings by personal perseverance in pursuit of fact, rather than political fantasies, with-or-without the help of a psychologist (as for Frank OR Ernest!), remains as always our personal democratic choice.

The power of honestly-principled political dialog, debate and decision, leading on to that strong, serious, sensitive consensus --known as the heart of real democracy-- may even yet save us all from the dark, dangerous, desperate and demeaning consequences of continued and even further-concentrated confrontation.

Reader Note: This is the fourth and final part of “Denialism” Op Eds in our new Seaside Series. See others by access via STAFF “Written by...”-line. Among some 30 references used for this Op Ed, these two books --now become classics in their own areas-- were particularly relevant: AMERICA: A Narrative History;George B. Tindall, David E. Shi;Norton,1997;ISBN: 0-393-97063-9. THE AMERICAN CENTURY:Varieties of Culture in Modern Times;Norman F. Cantor;Harper Collins 1997; ISBN:0-06-017451-X.

At 21, Henry Clay Ruark was Aroostook Editor for the Bangor, Maine DAILY NEWS, covering the upper 1/4 of the state. In the ‘40s, he was Staff Correspondent, then New England Wires Editor at United Press-Boston; later Editor for the Burlington, Vermont 3-daily group owned by Wm. Loeb, later notorious at Manchester, New Hampshire UNION LEADER for attacks on Democratic Presidential candidates.

Hank returned to Oregon to complete M. Ed. degree at OSU, went on to Indiana University for Ed.D. (abd) and special other course-work; was selected as first Information Director for NAVA in Washington, D.C.; helped write sections of NDEA, first Act to supply math, science, foreign language consultants to state depts. of education; joined Oregon Dept. of Education, where he served as NDEA administrator/Learning Media Consultant for ten years.

He joined Dr. Amo DeBernardis at PCC, helping establish, extend programs, facilities, Oregon/national public relations; moved to Chicago as Editor/Publisher of oldest educational-AV journal, reformed as AV GUIDE Magazine; then established and operated Learning Media Associates as general communications consultant group. Due to wife’s illness, he returned to Oregon in 1981, semi-retired, and has continued writing intermittently ever since, joining S-N in 2004. His Op Eds now total over 560 written since then.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Hank Ruark April 22, 2010 10:13 am (Pacific time)

Roger et al: You overlook the decades of deep, dirty-dollars to GOPster cabal ever since '50s, sir. Enron was UN-alone: Can list some 50-similar, with heavy list to Right on monies so manipulated. Denialism works on both sides, as rest of yours so well demonstrates.

Hank Ruark April 21, 2010 1:50 pm (Pacific time)

B.H. et al:
TIME's Mar/1 issue contains a whole set ofcover stories detailing and documenting precisely the points made in my Op Ed.

Roger April 21, 2010 1:56 pm (Pacific time)

I found the link to opensecrets quite interesting. I recall very clearly how the media and pundits were making a big stink about Enron and the political donations they made to republicans, small change compared to what the democrats got today from Wall Street. Now we have something to compare, and Enron was dwarfed by Goldman Sacks and many of the other major banks. The media is pretty silent about it except for a few outfits like this site where at least it's being discussed. I wonder if Obama will give back the money? Seems unseemly to take that kind of money then go after them for fiscal mismanagement. It's unfortuane more congressional energy is not focused on jobs and the national economy. Today it was reported that the state of Washington is entertaining the idea of a state income tax. They already have sky high taxes and fees in other areas, so now they'll go the way of California. Have you seen their unenployment rate? Bumping up taxes during a downed economy is how some people in power see as a solution. Bet they never owned a profitable business.

Hank Ruark April 21, 2010 9:05 am (Pacific time)

B.H.:

Your comments insightful and deserve detailed examination, sir --even though based only on very unlikely and complex actions and events, supported only by your own confused, complex assumptions.

But this is not the way nor the place nor the time to even begin to dissect for detailed discussion the very slight possibility of such very unlikely events.

You are free to contribute an answering Op Ed if you wish, albeit space to examine very minor points here is at high premium.

Flat-fact supports superbly what the Op Ed illuminates.

Million-word opposing detail won't change existing well- known debacles and documented details of horrors and huge deficits committed by Bush- Cheney-Rove ravaging cabal-- purposely pushing public sector in overwhelming and continued deep-debt as design to save nation by destruction of Democrats.

Deception and distortion of economic, social, cultural and even religious areas now seen as highly evident area-actions meant to make radical changes by un-Constitutional methods.

Denialism can only deepen that desperately damaging debacle after 2008 rejection by wit,wisdom,will of voters.

Meanwhile most massive measuring methods for nation's progress from economic depths towards more-normal times show slow but sure return and real progress,despite "defy,deny, delay, work to defeat" attack by GOPster-gangsters capturing Grand Old Party of prior days.

Brian Hoyt April 20, 2010 6:44 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. Ruark you wrote: "Federal powers" cannot at any time order a financial insitution, in the privat sector, to DO anything. They can PREVENT it and REGULATE it, but NOT FORCE initiation. You may wish to clarify this statement.": The SEC has considerable power as did the Sec. of the Treasury, Mr. Rubin, who acknowledged his discussions with Fannie May and Freddie Mac about providing back-up support for subprime loans as well as seeing that the banking and mortgage industry were made aware that this would be a good idea, that is, to go against long standing business principles and make loans to those with poor credit. Current proposed legislation would empower the federal government over all financial organizations. By the way Rahm Emannuel, the current Whitehouse Chief of Staff sat on the board of Directors of a leading Wall Street institution as well as did many current whitehouse personnel. Sir may I suggest a scenario to you? If the goverment takes control of the financial industry, then through "Cap and Trade", takes over the utilities and for all practical purposes the manufacturing and other businesses of the country, which they would do simply by controlling credit and energy costs, then what would you thinK the Founding Fathers would think about that situation? Also by controlling credit and energy, they would also control agricultural production and distribution, healthcare, and I guess most everything else people would need to survive. So when people debate these issues and project these possibilities as illustrated above, there are models where this has happened in the past, and things did not, and are not going well for the people in these countries. When the majority of Americans do not trust this Whitehouse, it is because they see what is happening, and the party in power is ignoring the majority will of the people, and that is their constitutional mandate. Now, not in the next election, now.

Brian Hoyt April 20, 2010 1:39 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. Ruark, I just reviewed some more data on "opensecrets.org" and came across some astonishing data that is fully documented, as all cash political contributions are lawfully required to be. Campaign cash from Goldman Sachs employees to President Obama are nearly seven times as much as President Bush received from Enron workers, according to numbers on OpenSecrets.org. President Bush's connections to Enron were well-hyped during the company's accounting debacle that rippled through the economy. Time magazine even had an article called, "Bush's Enron Problem." The Associated Press ran with the headline, "Bush-backing Enron makes big money off crisis." David Callaway wrote that Enron for Bush was worse than Whitewater for Clinton. But the mere $151,722.42 (inflation adjusted) in contributions from Enron-affiliated executives, employees, and PACs to Bush hardly add up to Obama's $1,007,370.85 (inflation adjusted) from Goldman-affiliated executives and employees. That's also not taking into account how much Goldman contributed to Obama cabinet member Hillary Clinton ($415,595.63 inflation adjusted), which was itself almost three times as much as Bush received as well. You have a comment on this info sir?http://www.opensecrets.org/

Hank Ruark April 20, 2010 1:10 pm (Pacific time)

B.H. You wrote: "...when the federal powers ordered financial institutions to engage in risky loans in regards to pushing residential "sub-prime loans" which began in the late 1990's." "Federal powers" cannot at any time order a financial insitution, in the privat sector, to DO anything. They can PREVENT it and REGULATE it, but NOT FORCE initiation. You may wish to clarify this statement. Re WHO got HOW MUCH in total corporate dollars, again, in perhaps naivete, you accept link totals as if those on record are only ones made, and by those means alone. Anyone who has covered the undercover work occurring in any legislative situation can inform you as to many other means-involved for transfer, some legal, and some ethical but many far from that on both counts --which is why, today, with deep slashes in any/all investigative reporting, we have little to no information on pragmatic practices now known to be underway. Again, sir, your information and mine depends on source and both competence and bias/ no bias of source(s) involved. You send me your list and I will send you mine, with links to reach them, if you show yours. OpEd statements stand untouched via any solid other information, except personal interpretation. Determined damaging open attack by revanchists on the Ohama administration is the painful reality, demanding strong remedial action via anyone truly defending what's left of our democracy per the Founders' plans.

Hank Ruark April 20, 2010 9:25 am (Pacific time)

"Anon":
Check again, sir, vs total $$$$ from corporate interests, including "undisclosed" items if you can find their traces.

Revanchist-GOPsters have made bonanza from all sources for many decades -if you know where to seek out such transfers not always done via cash, check or otherwise visible, as national-sources surely still do...what's yours re this unsavory tidbit ? We here must all depend on solid and credible sources since we cannot "work the street" for our own comments.

Long history of GOP itself places it firmly on side of corporate/business vs "the people",starting from history
of early party genesis, of which you are obviously fully unfamiliar.(Booklist for free on your request !)

IF you sure of source and fact,sir, why not sign your stuff;then share link for us to "seewithowneyes".

If you wish documentation for mine come to Editor with ID and working phone for direct contact. Small fee: $25
since as professional I do not give away worktime...

Brian Hoyt April 20, 2010 8:30 am (Pacific time)

The Law of Unintended Consequences" may come into play if we allow the federal government to not only over-regulate the financial industry, which may cause some financial institutions to relocate offshore, beyond government oversight, but even more importantly, to cause these financial institutions to engage in even more risky behavior because, "hey what the heck, we will get bailed out by the taxpayers!" We are currently experiencing what happened when the federal powers ordered financial institutions to engage in risky loans in regards to pushing residential "sub-prime loans" which began in the late 1990's. For those interested here is a link that shows the financial industry contributions made to the top recipient, and guess who that is? http://images.opensecrets.org/obama_top_contribs.htm?cycle=2008andcid=N00009638 There is also other links available that shows complete breakdowns of all elected members of congress. By far and away, the top recipients of financial industry cash donations are the democrats. In regards to the Stimulus Bill being successful, I would like to see that evidence, as would the millions of growing unemployed and underemployed.

Anonymous April 19, 2010 6:14 pm (Pacific time)

Hank Ruark do you know who received the most campaign contributions from the financial industry in 2008? That would sure go a long ways in seeing whose being open, honest and straight forward with the American people, don't you think?

Hank Ruark April 19, 2010 10:23 am (Pacific time)

Another current example ? Here it is:
4/16/10 OP-ED NYTimes excerpt.
The Fire Next Time
By PAUL KRUGMAN
"On Tuesday, Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, called for the abolition of municipal fire departments. Firefighters, he declared, “won’t solve the problems that led to recent fires. They will make them worse.”
The existence of fire departments, he went on, “not only allows for taxpayer-funded bailouts of burning buildings; it institutionalizes them.” He concluded, “The way to solve this problem is to let the people who make the mistakes that lead to fires pay for them. We won’t solve this problem until the biggest buildings are allowed to burn.”

===============================

O.K., I fibbed a bit. Mr. McConnell said almost everything I attributed to him, but he was talking about financial reform, not fire reform. In particular, he was objecting not to the existence of fire departments, but to legislation that would give the government the power to seize and restructure failing financial institutions. But it amounts to the same thing.
Now, Mr. McConnell surely isn’t sincere; while pretending to oppose bank bailouts, he’s actually doing the bankers’ bidding."

Must add, for the record here: * GOP filibustered more in '09 than in '50s and '60s combined - two decades-worth in one year ! * Twenty GOP-Senators voting AGAINST critical stimulus bill now take personal credit for the success of that program. * Seven GOP-Senators voted AGAINST debt-relief they had themselves SPONSORED --solely to oppose President Obama. * 41 GOP-Senators from 21 smalest states can block any bill proposed by Pres. Obama. Deialism works via motor of obstructionism, run radically at any and all levels, with no semblance of commonwealth care and complete disregard for the impact on democratic form of governance established by our Founding Fathers.

Hank Ruark April 18, 2010 4:50 pm (Pacific time)

T.C.:
You wrote: "Actually in the entire history of our country there has never been major legislation passed that was not bi-partisan."

Can you document that somewhat over-confident assertion, sir ?
It seems highly improbable to me, and from recall I can find a number of incidents to challenge it.

Obviously your statement may be meant to point out that there are undeniably and often some votes making it "bipartisan" only by courtesy, since heavy opposition may be evident, too.

SO your statement is either meaningless or in some question as to accuracy; your clarification will aid us here to understand the realities a bit better, and avoid the fate that caught up with one or the other of thos two cartoon colleagues Frank and Ernest !

TC April 18, 2010 6:23 pm (Pacific time)

Regarding the obstruction via filibuster (and other methods) during LBJ's administration, this was not about Vietnam, in fact most everyone in congress was on the same page on that matter during that time period. Maybe you were referring to the 1970's when a democratic congress cut-off funding to Vietnam. I'm talking about his civil rights legislation when "Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcame Democrat attempts to block the 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans voted for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats opposed. Please recall the obstruction of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted in favor. Also recall before the above in June 1964 Republicans condemned the 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate. [June 10, 1964] – Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticized a Democrat filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed." Ideally we can all work in a bi-partisan fashion, and knowing congressional history is of paramount importance for not just the voters, but those in congress. Maybe even reading a "Bill" before voting "aye" on it. Regarding recess appointments and obstructing them, if you recall during the last adminstration the senate stayed is session 24/7 taking daily turns for a senator to come in once a day to pound the gavel while in fact the senators were back home in their states. This prevented recess appointments as per the rules of the senate. Recall that obstruction? Of course going back in time and seeing how many each past president made recess appointments may be an eyeopener for some.

Hank Ruark April 18, 2010 3:22 pm (Pacific time)

T.C.: You, sir, are sadly, badly misinformed. Perhaps naivete masks your lack of understanding, but denialism as done by use of obstructionism operates at many diverse levels and points of both dialog and decision, in any legislative surround. The Obama agenda has been under constant attack at every one of those levels, in every commitee and commission and other bureaucratic "action" (!) area. Example: Two dozen "stalled, obstructed, delayed" seps on desperately needed new legislation or changes on old; list available on request, too long for use here...and that's only a small portion of what potent obstructionism does do. 2nd Example: Massive delay and obstruction vs O's routine appointments totalling over 200, arbitrarily delayed and forcing his to use "recess appointment" as remedy to run some agencies whose policy and operation damaged/delayed by arbitrary action vs appointees with no possible fault. Re change in majority by Mass. vote-result, that merely massaged, endorsed, inevitable denial already determined in face of Obama Constitutional attempt to seek cooperative action, per longtime ethical practice. Per LBJ vs demo/vote,you are in error since HE was DEMO too,with strong Congressional support; or you referring to Vietnam,a very special tragic case. Re Demo-NO on Obama-acts, we are cursed by southern-planter types seeking revenge for fact of skin-color involved,per own personal statements and past actions via Nixon-distorted "Southern strategy"; and fact of So.political life lived by pay-off route from Colonial days. This "added-note" detailed as example of factual analysis demanded to offset uninformed comment even when made in good faith...documentation in depth via ID to Editor with working phone. Did NOT use allathose refs/referred for naught ! How many can you cite in response? Thank you for participation opening door for explanations in some depth---apology to all for length thus demanded !!

TC April 18, 2010 12:58 pm (Pacific time)

It seems as per last count prior to the Massachusetts senate election, the democratic congress by sheer majority could pass anything they wanted by an up and down vote. So any reference to obstructionism was not relevant until the voters of Massachusettes spoke as Sen. Brown was elected, and let's be clear that during his campaign he exclaimed that he would be the 41st senator for having a working filibuster, which both parties have used, especially the democrats during the 1960's when they were doing all they could to stop some of LBJ's policies. I forgot, but didn't quite a few democratic members of congress vote against the healthcare bill? So that would be a bi-partisan vote that actually reflected the voter's will. Actually in the entire history of our country there has never been major legislation passed that was not bi-partisan. So who really is in denial here?

Hank Ruark April 18, 2010 11:41 am (Pacific time)

The Economist is world-famed English magazine noted for its insightful understandings of world politics. Excerpt from 3/26: "Bush hared eventually spred from a molten core of leftists to set the cultural tone of the country. "But Obama-hatred could just as easily do the opposite and brand all conservatives as a bunch of Obama-hating cranks." That's solid substantiation for mine re "Denialism" as a strong definitive danger for real essential conservatism.

Hank Ruark April 18, 2010 9:07 am (Pacific time)

Somehow I miswrote "fourth" referring to this Op Ed-place in this series; it is the third and final-one. Please note the plentitude of tv-pundit panels with major reliance by GOPsters on the same tired, torn, tattered and now thoroughly-tested/and/failed points per the private-sector reliance on "the magic of the market", Reagan-slang for what framed and facilitated what we now must face consequentially.

[Return to Top]

Op Ed: 'Denialism' Defined: Why and How Used By Revanchists

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News