Rightwingus Whackosus in the wild: A case study

If you read this column with any regularity then you already know how much I enjoy, from time to pertinent time, venturing off into anthropological expeditions in search of that increasingly endangered species, rightwingus whackosus.

This week was such a time, in fact an ideal time, in that President Obama's enormously well-received Cairo speech seemed to tragically disturb the natural and normal workings of their variously scattered cyberhabitats, thus affording the scientifically inquisitive an opportunity to observe their mysterious sociopolitical cultural order in a time of severe distress. This I have done, having collected evidence since approximately noon, Thursday, the immediate aftermath of the aforementioned speech.

My working hypothesis: Caught unawares, even the customarily goofiest of right-wing pedigrees are susceptible to momentary flights of rationality -- until, that is, re-grooming and re-education sessions, as well as what they probably sense as intellectual peer pressure (cute, isn't it?), haul them back into the hysterically irrational fold.

As for the proof of this tentative hypothesis, or at least as much as I had time to gather?

Well now take, for instance, Rory Cooper -- please -- the Heritage Foundation's director of strategic communications. Having had a few hours to ponder the president's speech and develop an appreciate sense of what both his keepers and spectators would expect from him, by Friday he was positively livid about all of it. Guest-writing and grading in the Politico's "Arena," amid a sea of A-'s, straight A's and even A+'s from fellow contributors, Rory issued to Obama an "F Minus."

His lead criticism? Get this: "At Five Guys restaurant last week, the President revealed he didn’t know what the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency was when he met an employee." Shocking. On the other hand I certainly didn't know what it was, and I'd bet no one else, except other employees of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, has ever had a clue, either -- not even its appropriators in Congress. Anyway, from that, Rory determined (from other predeterminations) that Obama "should be better briefed on the world before speaking again."

From there, and in only two relatively brief paragraphs, Rory then really unloaded in a flourish of ultraconservative whacko umbrage. Obama, he wrote, had in Cairo been "callous," "naive," "naive" again, then thrice "naive," also "apologetic," "apologetic" again, "objectionable," "insulting," yet again "naïve" (this time with that nice umlauted or whatever it's called touch), "apologetic" thrice here too, and, in a concluding but not, I'm sure, final reference of characterization: "Shameful."

And this -- the guts of Rory's writing assignment -- had by Friday become the standard right-wing interpretation. It was everywhere, all over the media, on air, in print, and naturally blanketing the right-wing blogs.

That isn't to say, of course, that among some of the usual suspects Rory's "analysis" wasn't also the insta-analysis that we've come to expect from those who hone the paranoid style. Before the ink had even dried on Obama's speech, Michelle Malkin, for example, was raving that "He attempted to obfuscate his explicit anti-American apologism with a mixture of disingenuousness and naivete totally untethered to reality."

You've got to admire that sort of economy: All in one sentence Michelle assessed Obama as failed, elliptical, unAmerican, apologetic, deceptive, naive and delusional. Take notes, Rory. See? It doesn't even require two paragraphs. Just read Michelle, which I suspect he in fact did before launching his own "assessment."

But here's the curious thing, the real anthropological import of my early Thursday afternoon findings: Before the definitive rightward winds were known and before the right-wing clans' grooming functions kicked in, more than a few community-member blogs were complimentary to Obama, even gracious.

Power Line, for instance, noted it was "a rather good speech." There was some obligatory nitpicking, but even that was admitted as such and in general Obama was praised for "[speaking] with pride and at times eloquence about our country" in his "thoughtful, mostly non-controversial address, with a lot to like in it -- a speech that Americans of nearly all persuasions can be reasonably happy with."

Over at Hot Air, its appraisal was titled "Surprisingly Good." RedState urged "Credit where credit is due.... This was one of President Obama’s more important speeches and he rose to the occasion and delivered a fine speech," and even Right Wing News -- which, interestingly, had taken a couple hours to react with Malkinesque "alarms" of "naivete": think maybe the site was merely waiting for the official party line? -- squeezed in some "credit" to Obama "for doing the speech. It's nice to see the effort to reach out to the Muslim world." It was steeply downhill from there, of course, but still.

So there you have it -- the latest, scientifically updated anthropological field research on the naturalistic, clannish habits of rightwingus whackosus in the untutored wild.

The essential finding, or, as we publishing scientists say, the abstract: Evidence indicates some potential for independent thought, indeed, even powers of unassisted reasoning, among the species rightwingus whackosus; but, inevitably, and, sadly, the old traditional ways and brutally disciplinary redback elders invariably suppress this potential.