Communism

Artemio Cruz is just a character in a book. Gen. Obregon was real!

When his students find reality more compelling than fiction, this teacher, a former anarchist, finds it hard to play the authority card.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Artemio Cruz is just a character in a book. Gen. Obregon was real!

I got double-teamed in my “World Culture” class last semester by two women who provided me with the new rules for student intellectual conduct. We had just completed discussing Carlos Fuentes’ novel “The Death of Artemio Cruz” when Beverly turned in her paper, ostensibly on the novel. It started with a short history of Gen. Obregon, who was president of Mexico from 1920 to 1925. She listed Obregon’s achievements, concluding that he was the most progressive president in Mexico’s modern history next to Cardenas. The only mention of Fuentes’ novel was a remark that “Artemio Cruz lived during the time of Obregon’s presidency.” The thing went on for about five pages.

I wrote Beverly a short note: “Beverly, please see me. Your paper is about Gen. Obregon, not Fuentes’ novel. David.” Beverly appeared about a month later, after ignoring at least four reminders. She said, “What’s wrong with it? I did the assignment.”

“The assignment was to write something about the Fuentes novel,” I said. “You barely mention the novel in your paper. There is only a bunch of stuff about Gen. Obregon.”

Then she pulled out her notes from the day I gave the assignment and pointed to No. 14, which said, “Consider the historical context for the novel.” She declared, “I did that.”

I stared at No. 14 for a minute to make sure that the loophole wasn’t big enough for her to drive her particular truck through. “The historical context was meant to be discussed in terms of the novel,” I said finally. “You’ve turned in a paper that is only about Gen. Obregon. There’s no novel there. Hold the tuna; just bring the toast.”

She looked at me.

Then she said, “Gen. Obregon supported Madero in the revolution against Diaz. He was from the state of Sonora.”

I said, “What do you do in chemistry, turn in the calcium content of Gen. Obregon? And in ancient history, Greece according to Gen. Obregon?”

She was staring at me.

“Gen. Obregon’s most significant achievement was in the field of education.”

“You’ve gotta keep a guy like Gen. Obregon handy,” I said. “Never know when you’re going to need a little information, know what I mean?”

“Gen. Obregon had a long battle with the Catholic Church and was assassinated by a fanatical Catholic,” she said.

I decided to switch tactics. I asked her if Artemio Cruz would have liked Gen. Obregon. She said that Gen. Obregon never knew anybody named “Artemio Cruz.” I asked her if Gen. Obregon would have approved of the values of men like Artemio Cruz. She said that Gen. Obregon was too far above things like that.

I was getting tired. So I asked her if she had read, “The Death of Artemio Cruz.”

“I read about a third of it and it was too confusing. I couldn’t figure it out so I got bored with it. I thought I ought to learn something, so I read about Gen. Obregon.”

She had me there. Suddenly I wasn’t sure whether it was more important to know about Gen. Obregon or about Artemio Cruz. What the hell. Her bit of historical research was actually pretty damned good.

So I started to ask her, “Who do you think is more important to know about …” but stopped hurriedly. That’s ridiculous, I thought. She’s going to say, “Gen. Obregon, silly. Artemio Cruz is just a character in a book. Gen. Obregon really happened!”

I was insulted by her affront to my authority, her refusal to submit to it, but playing the authority card is always difficult for an old anarchist anyway. Before I could formulate my next tactic, she was out of her seat, looking at her watch.

“Hey, ” she said, “you figure it out. I’ve gotta get to my English class.”

“Don’t forget the poem about Gen. Obregon,” I said to the back of her T-shirt.

About three weeks later, Beverly’s best friend, Helen, whose only previous work in the class had been a C bit of deadliness, turned in an essay Lionel Trilling could have written. The subject was Cristina Garcia’s novel “Dreaming in Cuban,” and Helen reached a peak of eloquence somewhere in the middle of the essay when she dissected the “hagiography” of a “mendacious Stalinist,” among other things. I called her in.

“Helen, would you mind explaining to me what you mean in the second paragraph on Page 3, the part where you speak of the ‘hagiography’ of a ‘mendacious Stalinist’? I don’t understand that paragraph very well.” I was not lying. I had had to look up “hagiography.”

She was tough; she looked me right in the eye.

“It can mean a whole lot of things,” she said. “It’s about Castro, the Cuban Revolution, all that stuff.”

“OK,” I said. “What about Castro? What is a ‘hagiography’?”

“Well, ” she said, not even looking down at the ground like I expected, “it’s, you know, the sort of thing that they always say about guys like that.”

“What sort of things, what are you really saying in that paragraph?” I was beginning to feel a little like a child abuser. She didn’t help. Turning directly toward me, Helen said, “Hey, what are you trying to do to me? What’s all this about, huh?”

“Look, I’m just trying to get to the bottom of your paper.” Oh man, why couldn’t I just plain accuse her of plagiarizing the thing?

But she was up and leaving, enough already.

I spent two or three hours trying to track down the source of the essay in book review digests, on the Internet, the whole bit. Nothing showed up. I started to call her, but hung up before dialing her number.

Instead, I called the vice president for instruction to ask her advice.

“What’s a ‘hagiography’?” she said.

“It’s like, oh, making a mountain out of a molehill, ” I replied.

Sometime later I discussed the Beverly and Helen phenomenon with an old buddy on the faculty.

“Ask them to write a personal essay describing their feelings in response to the novel,” he said. I imagined Beverly writing three or four pages about how Artemio Cruz “makes me feel bad, you know, just to know that things like that happened in the time of Gen. Obregon.” I imagined Helen writing about having had a dream, “you know, with Jungian archetypes personified by Pilar and Celia in their struggles with the personal unconscious.” Bev could turn anything into historical research and Helen probably could plagiarize the back of her hand.

“Look,” I said to my friend sarcastically, “I’m going back to the old method. Question 1: Locate Mexico on a map of the world. Question 2: How old was Artemio Cruz when the federales hanged his girlfriend? Beverly and Helen wouldn’t have any trouble with questions like that. They would both be ‘A’ students, and I wouldn’t feel so oppressed.”

My friend looked at me for a moment, and said, “Come on, you’re not oppressed. Why don’t you admit that you were entertained by the whole thing. Besides, give me the name of a novel you read when you were a sophomore in college, something you were required to read,” he said.

“OK, ‘The Plague,’ Camus, in French, mind you.”

“Name a character.”

I couldn’t remember any.

“One of them was a doctor, I think,” my friend said.

“Yeah, one of them was a doctor,” I said.

Then he threw me the curve.

“OK, tell me the name of the French general who was the leading spokesman for the colonials in Algeria?”

Shit. I remembered it. “Jacques Soustelle,” I mumbled.

“See,” he said. “She was right. Forget about Fuentes. Forget the whole thing. Gen. Obregon is where it’s at.”

Ah, the elusive nature of human knowing. Novels and poems live in a nether world that seems so remote from the facticity of modern life; they are so easy to dismiss as irrelevant, their voices like haunting songs. Beverly and Helen did not want to venture into that mysterious place, not now, not yet, maybe never. Perhaps “Artemio Cruz” was too difficult for them. I don’t know. I still don’t know if I did the right thing. Somehow I had begun seeing students like Beverly and Helen as characters in a novel themselves, entitled to their own ambiguity.

And, my friend was right. I was entertained. Maybe I will end this career having lost the capacity for righteous indignation.

David Alford lives and works on a ranch in the Sierras, near the town of Avery, CA.

Joseph McCarthy reborn

GOP Rep. Allen West told supporters that 78 to 81 Democrats in Congress are "members of the Communist Party"

  • more
    • All Share Services

Joseph McCarthy reborn Rep. Allen West, R-Fla. (Credit: Gage Skidmore / CC BY-SA 2.0)

We’ve talked at times about George Orwell’s classic novel “1984,” and the amnesia that sets in when we flush events down the memory hole, leaving us at the mercy of only what we know today. Sometimes, though, the past comes back to haunt, like a ghost. It happened recently when we saw U.S. Rep. Allen West of Florida on the news.

A Republican and Tea Party favorite, he was asked at a local gathering how many of his fellow members of Congress are “card-carrying Marxists or International Socialists.”

He replied, “I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party. It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”

By now, little of what Allen West says ever surprises. He has called President Obama “a low-level socialist agitator,” said anyone with an Obama bumper sticker on their car is “a threat to the gene pool,” and told liberals like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to “get the hell out of the United States of America.” Apparently, he gets his talking points from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or the discredited right-wing rocker Ted Nugent.

But this time, we shook our heads in disbelief: “78 to 81 Democrats … members of the Communist Party?” That’s the moment the memory hole opened up and a ghost slithered into the room. The specter stood there, watching the screen, a snickering smile on its stubbled face. Sure enough, it was the ghost of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin farm boy who grew up to become one of the most contemptible thugs in American politics.

Back in the early 1950s, the Cold War had begun and Americans were troubled by the Soviet Union’s rise as an atomic superpower. Looking for a campaign issue, McCarthy seized on fear and ignorance to announce his discovery of a conspiracy within: Communist subversives who had infiltrated the government.

In speech after speech, McCarthy would hold up a list of names of members of the Communist Party he said had burrowed their way into government agencies and colleges and universities. The number he claimed would vary from day to day, and when pressed to make his list public, McCarthy would stall or claim he accidentally had thrown it away.

His failure to produce much proof to back his claims never gave him pause, as he employed lies and innuendo with swaggering bravado. McCarthy, wrote historian William Manchester, “realized that he had stumbled upon a brilliant demagogic technique … others deplored treachery, McCarthy would speak of traitors.”

And so he did, in a fearsome, reckless crusade that terrorized Washington, destroyed lives, and made a shambles of due process.

Millions of Americans lapped it up, but in the end, Joe McCarthy would be done in by the medium that he had used so effectively to spread his poison: television. In 1954, the legendary broadcaster Edward R. Murrow bravely exposed McCarthy’s tactics on the CBS program “See It Now.”

“This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent,” Murrow declared. “We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities.”

Later that same year, for 36 days on live TV, during Senate hearings on charges McCarthy had made questioning the loyalty of the U.S. Army, we saw the man raw, exposed for the lout and cowardly scoundrel he was. The climactic moment came as the Boston lawyer Joseph Welch, defending the Army, reacted with outrage when McCarthy accused Welch’s young associate Fred Fisher of communism. “Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator,” Welch said as he shook his head in anger and sadness. “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? … If there is a God in heaven it will do neither you nor your cause any good.”

McCarthy never recovered. His tactics had been opposed from the outset by a handful of courageous Republican senators. Now they pressed their case with renewed vigor. One of them, Sen. Ralph Flanders of Vermont, introduced a motion to censure Joseph McCarthy. When it eventually passed 67 to 22, McCarthy was finished. He soon disappeared from the front pages. Three years later, he was dead.

All of this came rushing back as West summoned his foul spirits from the vast deep. The ghost stepped out of the past.

Like McCarthy, the more Allen West is challenged about his comments, the more he doubles down on them. Now he’s blaming the “corrupt liberal media” for stirring the pot against him – a trick for which McCarthy taught the master class. And the congressman’s latest fusillades continue to distort the beliefs and policies of those he smears – no surprise there, either.

To help him continue his fight for “the heart and soul” of America he’s asking his supporters for a contribution of $10 or more. There could even be a super PAC in this – with McCarthy’s ghost as its honorary chairman.

Plenty of kindred spirits are there to sign on. Like the author of the book “The Grand Jihad,” who wrote that whether Obama is Christian or not, “the faith to which Obama actually clings is neocommunism.” Or the blogger who claims Obama is running the country into the ground “by way of the same type of race-baiting and class warfare Communism cannot exist without,” and that his policies are “unbecoming to an American president.”

From there it’s only a short hop to the kind of column that popped up on the right wing website Newsmax hinting of a possible coup “as a last resort to resolve the ‘Obama problem.’” Military intervention, the author wrote, “is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for ‘fundamental change’ toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America.” The column was quickly withdrawn but not before the website Talking Points Memo exposed it.

So beware, Rep. West, beware: In the flammable pool of toxic paranoia that passes these days as patriotism in America, a single careless match can light an inferno. You would serve your country well to withdraw your remarks and apologize for them. But if not, perhaps there are members of your own party, as possessed of conscience and as courageous as that handful of Republicans who took on Joseph McCarthy, who will now abandon fear and throw cold water on your incendiary remarks.

Continue Reading Close

Bill Moyers is managing editor of the new weekly public affairs program, "Moyers & Company," airing on public television. Check local airtimes or comment at www.BillMoyers.com.

Michael Winship is senior writing fellow at Demos and a senior writer of the new series, Moyers & Company, airing on public television.

Falling in love as the USSR crumbled

Twenty years ago, we were caught up in the throes of history. And the throes of passion

  • more
    • All Share Services

Falling in love as the USSR crumbled

“I saw you in my dream last night,” my ex-wife said, touching my arm when we happened upon each other in downtown Manhattan the other day. She spoke as if continuing a conversation only recently interrupted. In fact, the last time we’d talked intimately was two decades ago, back when the Soviet Union had crumbled to dust.

“Mm hmm, yes, I saw you in my dream,” she repeated, her Russian accent faded now to a passable American. “Very clearly I saw you. And you were dead.”

Like many intelligent Russians who came of age during the closing act of the USSR, my ex-wife was a kind of stand-up comedian in reverse. Just as the talented comic artfully sets up a punch line, so too could she expertly build toward a release of sorts. But the punch line was never a joke. It was instead an opening up of a psychic trap door, showing foolish Americans that beneath their feet was not the security of a prosperous and powerful nation, but rather the void of the impending destruction that awaits us all. When your superpower homeland has been blown apart into 15 compromised statelets it’s comforting to keep in your pocket that great transnational equalizer: death.

And yet, once upon a time I found all her moody blueness charming. We had met at a university dormitory in 1990, the final year of Soviet power. I had registered temporarily at the dorm as part of the many bureaucratic sleights-of-hand the Westerner had to execute to stay in the country. Technically I was supposed to leave the USSR when my study abroad program ended. But while I was desperate to leave I also had a hankering to stay. And so through the machinations of the many machinators of the Perestroika era, I arranged it so that I would register in the Leningrad University dorm, pay some functionary a nominal $150 and then relocate to an old lady’s flat, far out on the Prospekt Prosveshchenie where for $7 a month I would have a room of my own. All I would have to do beyond these trifling payments was to stay a single night at the dorm. A bargain it seemed, until the future ex-Mrs. Greenberg walked in.

There was much talk and a lot of weak tea during that one legally necessitated sleepover. My East German bunkie who spoke much better Russian than I seemed in full control of the evening, artfully throwing out pogovorki — proverbs that seem particularly embedded into Russian and that irritatingly keep the poor student of the language in the dark. “The peasant doesn’t cross himself until the thunder sounds,” “chicken and girls are seized with the hands.” That kind of thing. But when her visit was over, the East German found himself oddly rebuffed and it was I who was slipped a phone number and an appointment that led eventually to a foldout bed pressed up against the thin wall adjoining her parents’ room. Half-understood, rolling under cool embroidered sheets, struggling to communicate things that should have come out as easy praises, I was only able to mutter blunt, minor words: “beautiful,” “interesting,” “very.” And in the end she took a breath and arranged herself and then turned to me and asked with yet another tricky Russian idiom:

“Did you finish?”

“Finish?” I said.

“Yes, did you finish? Are you satisfied?”

“Yes, I, um, finished.”

“Nu, nu,” she said, “then it’s time to go.”

I did go. Not only out of the room and out onto the empty dawn streets of Leningrad but eventually back to New York where I brooded, alone, in the broke and semi-employed way today’s shiftless post-boom 20-somethings would likely find familiar. It was the walloping recession of the early ’90s. There was very little to do or to hope for. And so I found my thoughts drifting to the stoic, vaguely sad woman I’d left in Russia. But if she was on the sad side, “tending toward depression” as a psychiatrist like my father might say, well, that was OK with me. I liked her melancholy abruptness. I liked the whole direct-but-gentle sadness of the Soviet Union. I liked how nobody went to a shrink and how people stayed away from shrink words like “depressed,” “depressive” and “depression.” Russians somehow seemed to understand that depression was just sadness and that sadness was just a mood. One of many lenses through which you can take in life’s light. Moods colored life, sometimes darkly, but they also gave life immediacy and freshness, allowing you to react sincerely to every new thing that came your way.

As luck would have it, I was given another chance to go back to that way of thinking. A few months after my return to the United States a small-time Siberian hustler posing as a documentary maker arrived in New York and cobbled together a film crew that consisted of a Dutch producer, an American camerawoman and, for reasons I don’t understand to this day, me. All of us were flown to Moscow, put on a four-day train ride to Lake Baikal, and then told to film a documentary about, well, I really have no idea. Vague pieces of Michael Moore-esque intervention were staged where we would storm into the offices of a Soviet bureaucrat, insult him, film him and then leave. We would gather random crowds on the streets of Irkutsk and make them sing the Lake Baikal ode “Slavnoe Morye” — Glorious Sea. We slaughtered and ate a sheep. And then toward the end of our stay, just as I was trying to figure out a way to get back to that captivating woman in Leningrad, our driver walked into our hotel room, told us breakfast was ready and, also, by the way, “Snyali Gorbacheva.” They took Gorbachev.

It was the infamous hard-liner military coup attempt of August 1991, although, of course, we at the time didn’t know it would turn out to be only an attempt. For three days we drove the back roads of Siberia debating whether we should turn south and head out through Mongolia. All of our hotel reservations were mysteriously canceled as the single thread of Soviet power gathered itself together and drew tight on a million different knots. At one point on a narrow muddy road our van pulled over and two taut-tummied Russian boys with a guitar jumped in. Apparently they were known to the Russians in the group. Once they were seated, the guitar came out and one of the boys spat out a fast-paced Visotsky-style ballad that ended (for my benefit?) with an English refrain “goodbye America, hello Siberia.”

It was during these three days of political vertigo that I found I thought of her the most. At one little outpost I sent (how quaint to remember!) a telegram. “Are you all right?” I scribbled on the toilet-paper quality telegraph form (though it should be noted that the coarseness of Soviet toilet paper and the flimsiness of Soviet writing paper were a good deal closer together on the spectrum of “paper” than the American variants). But it may as well have been toilet paper. Passing it through the telegraph window to the bored, platinum blond operator seemed akin to a flush.

But, alas, it wasn’t. Miraculously the coup ended. Boris Yeltsin emerged and stood on a tank. The hard-liners were imprisoned. One shot himself. The phones worked again. I called her and the creaky Siberian lines issued forth her voice. “I got your telegram,” she said. “Very sweet.” I flew to Leningrad, which now everybody was suddenly calling St. Petersburg, and we made love again and again in a tiny apartment I’d rented for another $7. We made love on an overnight train to Moscow. We made love again in the apartment of her pioneer camp counselor. On my final day in Russia we necked on the steps of Patriarch’s Pond until a young Soviet malcontent yelled a phrase at us that must be known the world over: “Get a room!”

And of course she came to New York. And of course we were married. And of course we were divorced. And of course all of it faded away as most passions tend to. Only our most intense moments of togetherness — unlike the world-stopping moments others feel when they launch a romantic connection — occurred when the world actually stopped. When two of the greatest powers ever to occupy the globe shrugged off their mutual enmity for a fleeting moment and actually paused to look one another in the eye.

All of this came rushing back to me as she pulled her hand away from my arm on Seventh Avenue and we retreated back into the small talk that is my national tradition and that she had seemed to have mastered in the last two decades. Children (me yes, she no)? Work (not so interesting). Travel (now and again). She had seen me in her dream and I was dead. And given that I had firmly closed the Soviet chapter of my life, the chapter in which I was young and impetuous, when the thought of intense, inexplicable coupling could fill my whole mind, the chapter in which I was open to the world and where she had come to know me most intimately, I guess you could say that her dream was right on the money.

Continue Reading Close

Paul Greenberg is the author of the James Beard Award-winning "Four Fish, the Future of the Last Wild Food." He is on Twitter @4fishgreenberg and on the web at fourfish.org.

Introducing the new “Red Menace”: Debt

It's the latest GOP talking point: China's ownership of U.S. Treasuries is the 21st century's evil empire

  • more
    • All Share Services

Introducing the new A PLA soldier instructing the citizen militia to defend against nuclear, chemical and biological attack.

To paraphrase (and vastly abbreviate) Arlo Guthrie’s “Alice Restaurant,” if just one prominent Republican politician calls the national debt a new “Red Menace” we can just dismiss him as crazy and go on about our normal business. But if two GOP rising stars do it, then it’s a movement and we’d better pay serious attention. Because before you know it, the House Un-American Activities Committee will be accusing every card-holding-Keynesian advocate of fiscal stimulus of committing foul treason, and that could get messy.

On February 11, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference that the growing national debt was as serious as the Cold War. “It is the new Red Menace, this time consisting of [red] ink,” he said.

On March 24, reports The Hill, House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling picked up the theme, but added an extra special Commie-baiting twist by bringing China directly into the conversation.

“The red menace for the 21st century is our public debt.”

Keeping with his communism theme, Hensarling implied that interest payments the U.S. is making to China alone could pose a national security threat.

“The interest we pay to China on our debt, they can essentially afford to buy a [Joint] Strike Fighter every other day,” he said, according to the Daily Progress. “Our greatest competitor in the world … we are building their armed forces with the interest we pay them on the national debt.”

Gosh, if I was a Chinese Politburo member, that kind of rhetoric would probably have me doubling-down on my military expansion plans, because everyone knows all too well what happened to the last aspiring evil empire that conservative Americans feared as the “Red Menace.” But to bring it all back home, it seems tombe that the Hensarling and Daniels have painted their party into a corner. Because if debt is the greatest threat to freedom, and China is leveraging itself up into superpower status on the back of American profligacy, then it should be every red-blooded American’s patriotic duty to bring down deficits as fast as possible. And I will further submit that the most sensible way to do that would be to cut a longterm budget deal that matches spending cuts with revenue increases.

I just think that if the richest Americans were asked nicely to pay a little more in taxes, because it would help us defeat the Red Menace, there’d really be no decent way for them to say no.

Continue Reading Close
Andrew Leonard

Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, @koxinga21.

Bill O’Reilly doesn’t even believe Glenn Beck’s theory about the Middle East

Two Fox News hosts face off over the future of extremism and anarchy in the wake of Egypt's revolution

  • more
    • All Share Services

Bill O'Reilly doesn't even believe Glenn Beck's theory about the Middle EastBill O'Reilly tries to reason with Glenn Beck on Friday night's show.

On Friday night’s “O’Reilly Factor” Glenn Beck tried his best to talk Bill into how the communists and the extremists were about to take over the Middle East.

Adam Clark Estes blogs the news for Salon. Email him at ace@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @adamclarkestes

This guy really hated the State of the Union

Republican Rep. Paul Broun sat in his office calling the president a Marxist on Twitter, like a common blogger

  • more
    • All Share Services

This guy really hated the State of the UnionPaul Broun

While many members of Congress elected to watch last night’s State of the Union address while seated next to a member of the opposite party, in an awkward display of bipartisanship and civility, one House member was brave enough to watch the whole thing from his office, Tweeting fevered nonsense the whole time. That hero is Rep. Paul Broun, of Georgia.

Broun previously warned that the president was showing “signs of being Marxist,” as well as doing “exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany,” so really no one should be surprised that this guy was not impressed by the president’s vision of “winning the future.”

And that’s why he wrote, as the speech wrapped up, “Mr. President, you don’t believe in the Constitution. You believe in socialism.”

While there’s not really anything in the Constitution that precludes a little light Scandinavian-style socialism, Broun is a modern-day Republican moron, and so for him the “s-word” means some scary combination of the Third Reich and the Great Purge. (If you can find the passage in Obama’s relentlessly centrist address that sounds like a proposal for a Great Leap Forward, please let me know, because all I remember is the bit about cutting corporate taxes and something about smoked salmon.)

Broun is a crafty fellow — he knew that the “sit with someone from the other party” proposal was an elaborate ruse designed to oppress the opposition.

“I already believe very firmly that it is a trap and a ruse that Democrats are proposing,” Broun said. “They don’t want civility. They want silence from the Republicans. And the sitting together being kissy-kissy is just another way to try to silence Republicans, and also to show — to keep the American people from seeing how few of them there are in the U.S. House now.”

Broun says he chose to avoid the chamber and liveblog from his office “out of respect.” Respect for whichever unlucky member was assigned to sit next to one of the dumbest members of the Republican caucus, I imagine.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Page 1 of 12 in Communism