The Washington Post editorial board criticized the Republican Party for pushing "fear-mongering and raw xenophobia" into the mainstream during the GOP presidential debates.
With the help of conservative media, Republican candidates have started to push fringe rhetoric and ideas into the mainstream. For example, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) changed his position on comprehensive immigration reform, due to backlash from right-wing media. Presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has touted a hoax about refugees from the Middle East, which was brought up in a conversation with Fox News' Sean Hannity. Radio host Rush Limbaugh claimed that Trump has changed the debate over immigration, because of his radio show. Following the attacks in Paris, right-wing media figures echoed calls from several GOP candidates to accept Christian refugees only, claiming that it would prevent potential terrorists from entering the U.S.
As the December 16 editorial points out, these ideas, "once the hallmarks of fringe candidates" have gone "unremarked on by the Republican contestants." In addition, any attempts to steer the debate with "constitutional, legal and practical questions" are "contemptuously dismissed as 'political correctness,'" hereby making "bigotry, hatred and magical thinking the new normal":
THE REPUBLICAN Party, once small government's champion, is now the party that breeds presidential contenders who would monitor schools and mosques, shut down parts of the Internet and exclude certain immigrants for no reason beyond the faith they profess. In the GOP debate Tuesday, those ideas -- along with can-you-top-this rhetorical barrages aimed at illegal immigrants and Syrian refugees -- received a generally polite reception, with constitutional, legal and practical questions contemptuously dismissed as "political correctness."
True, the extremism that now passes for mainstream Republican thought, robbed of its shock value by the unfiltered ravings of Donald Trump, was punctured from time to time with expressions of dismay, incredulity and doubt.
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) skewered Mr. Trump's plans for the United States to ban all Muslim immigrants or murder the families of terrorists, and Mr. Paul, along with Ohio Gov. John Kasich, rightly dismissed Mr. Trump's blithe suggestion that he could somehow censor the Internet in parts of the world where jihadist sentiment runs deep.
By and large, though, these ludicrous proposals went unremarked on by the Republican contestants, for whom bigotry, hatred and magical thinking are the new normal.
The GOP's ideological sands are shifting with whiplash-inducing speed. Just a week after House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) denounced Mr. Trump's callto bar entry to any Muslim immigrant, Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Tex.) both said they could "understand" the impulse behind the patently un-American idea, although each politely disagreed. As for Mr. Trump's four other main rivals, who flanked him on the stage in Las Vegas, none bothered even to address what surely counts as one of the most incendiary proposals ever made by a candidate seeking a major party's presidential nomination.
It could be that the candidates quail at contending with the question of banning Muslims because polls suggest that about 60 percent of GOP primary voters like the idea. (A roughly equal proportion of all Americans don't.) However, lunacy has always had a constituency in this country -- plenty of people think the moon landing was a hoax and that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were an inside job. A litmus test for presidential candidates is whether they have the spine to speak truth to the fringe. By that standard, most of the current crop of Republican hopefuls fail.
The candidates were no more courageous on the question of admitting Syrian refugees victimized by a dictatorial regime and the Islamic State's death cult. Despite the fact that neither the San Bernardino, Calif., assailants nor any of the known Paris attackers appears to have been Syrian -- most in Paris were French nationals -- virtually all the GOP contestants jockeyed to vilify Syrian refugees, with Mr. Trump raising the fact-free specter of "tens of thousands of [refugees] having cellphones with ISIS [Islamic State] flags on them."
Fear-mongering and raw xenophobia were once the hallmarks of fringe candidates. Today the fringe candidates have stormed center stage, brandishing their zeal and hyperbole and, disturbingly, dragging the mainstream along with them.
In a front page story today the Washington Post claims that "Obama's focus on visiting clean-tech companies raises questions." The problem is that the people raising questions are clean tech's competitors in the oil industry.
The article explains that President Obama who is on the record as a supporter of clean energy technology, has "fulfill[ed] a campaign pledge to push clean tech, from solar energy and wind power to electric vehicles," in part by visiting "22 clean-tech projects on 19 separate trips."
What's the problem? The Post answers:
The oil and gas industry, for example, has invested billions in energy innovation and job creation and could benefit from similar presidential attention, said Martin J. Durbin, executive vice president of the American Petroleum Institute.
"He's missing an incredible opportunity he has to join with us to make a difference in economic growth, job creation, national security and clean technology," Durbin said. "If you went and added up the number of jobs at these clean-tech companies he visited, in all honesty, I think you're going to find a very modest number of jobs."
So the trade association of the oil and gas industry -- the American Petroleum Institute -- raises a concern about their competitors, and the Post gives them a front page article? Even the hook doesn't make sense: How is it news that a President who ran a campaign in which he supported clean energy still supports it?
This story does create an interesting precedent. Can rivals now just order up news stories that are critical of their competitors? Can Yankees fans "raise questions" about the Red Sox, and vice versa?
In the latter portions of Monday night's Republican presidential debate, the candidates were asked how they would "prevent illegal immigrants from using our health care, educational, or welfare systems." The topic quickly veered into a discussion of citizenship, as debate moderator and CNN anchor John King asked: "If there are two illegal immigrants, two adults who came into this country illegally, and they have a child, should that child be considered a citizen of the United States?"
Herman Cain answered "I don't believe so." He elaborated on his answer after the debate, telling ThinkProgress that the "14th Amendment doesn't talk about people that were here illegally." Tim Pawlenty, who has previously endorsed revoking the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, said that birthright citizenship came about "because a U.S. Supreme Court determined that that right exists, notwithstanding language in the Constitution."
This is a big deal. At least two people running for the presidency want to change the fundamental notion of American citizenship as it has been understood since Reconstruction. Indeed, they want to change the Constitution to achieve that end. But their position is not getting much in the way of media attention.
Several media outlets have reported on a letter sent by House Speaker John Boehner to President Obama signed by "150 economists" who support Boehner's spending cut proposal. But these media outlets have ignored that many of the economists who signed the letter have made baseless predictions in the past, some have endorsed dubious theories, and others have used extreme rhetoric to attack Obama and other Democrats.
The right-wing media have reacted to President Obama's speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) by complaining either he "flip-flop[ped]" or "double[d] down" on his previous comments or both. However, in his speech to AIPAC, Obama simply reiterated his earlier call that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians should be "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps."
Conservative media figures continue to claim that the National Labor Relations Board is attacking states with lax labor laws and engaging in "unprecedented" actions by filing a complaint alleging that Boeing violated federal labor laws in connection with its decision to move the production line for its new 787 Dreamliner to South Carolina. In fact, labor law experts say that if the allegations against Boeing are true, the NLRB has presented a "classic" case of labor law violations.