First of all, you'll have to forgive me for taking another look at what Van Jones is doing. The hit job against this young man came about back when the right was still creating narratives on cheaply bought credibility, back before all the fabrications about ACORN, the academic cover of Kenyan anti-colonialism, and the absolute fantasy of the Ground Zero Mosque.
And as "pro-slavery" Republican Presidential candidates discovered, it isn't difficult to put your name on a petition without realizing what's in it.
Not that I think Jones is out there creating a left-wing response to the Tea Party. That's nearly impossible in the first place. Organizations have been trying to unify the left at a grassroots level for generations without much success; or maybe I should say too much success - many of these organizations already exist, and compete for the progressive activist for funding and involvement.
Secondly, is that really such a good idea? The Tea Party has terrible approval numbers nationwide because A) their unifying message is simply a hatred of all things liberal, B) their marketing has burned through a tremendous number of empty platitudes, and C) they have very little long-term credibility outside their core supporters. Hell, even their charges about Van Jones have probably been forgotten as the outrage machine has found new false emergencies to rant about.
Pardon me if I don't think "the left" ever needs an organization that fits that billing. Hopefully, it sounds like Jones is actually working on something different, and the Tea Party comparisons are going to come mainly from a media standpoint.
.
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
All Hat & Fake Cattle
If Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives had two ounces of sense to rub together, they'd make Rick "Miracle Man with a Silver Bullet" Perry's campaign for President the poster child for both the policies that got America into all our current messes and the politics of right-wing cognitive dissonance.
In fact, they could go after Perry for not being a fiscal conservative and only playing one when the cameras are rolling. That would, of course, make the "Perry is the Next Bush" politics far more credible than the crap they are likely thinking of running.
Such a focus will be far more credible than the coming campaign against the Confederate States of America some of those never-squander-an-opportunity-to-lose-the-South professional bloggers and activists are doubtlessly planning on running. It would also allow the DLP to actively challenge the very right-wing narratives and political marketing that have been so effective since 1994.
HT: Andrew Sullivan.
Perry is going to be the nominee. He is the embodiment of the current Right-Wing, GOP, Tea Party alliance. He displays all their strengths and weaknesses, and could give President Obama and what Democrats remain an actual foil to run against and turn their own numbers around.
And they don't even have to make stuff up to do it.
.
In fact, they could go after Perry for not being a fiscal conservative and only playing one when the cameras are rolling. That would, of course, make the "Perry is the Next Bush" politics far more credible than the crap they are likely thinking of running.
Such a focus will be far more credible than the coming campaign against the Confederate States of America some of those never-squander-an-opportunity-to-lose-the-South professional bloggers and activists are doubtlessly planning on running. It would also allow the DLP to actively challenge the very right-wing narratives and political marketing that have been so effective since 1994.
HT: Andrew Sullivan.
Perry is going to be the nominee. He is the embodiment of the current Right-Wing, GOP, Tea Party alliance. He displays all their strengths and weaknesses, and could give President Obama and what Democrats remain an actual foil to run against and turn their own numbers around.
And they don't even have to make stuff up to do it.
.
Labels:
Democrats,
Obama,
President,
republicans,
Rick Perry,
right wing,
Tea Party,
Texas
The Trickle
In a Tea Party Economy, Washington does not attempt to land the unusustainable house of cards economy fall softly, it just lets the collapse trickle down. By the time it gets to the local level:
Truth hurts.
But don't worry, I'm sure the folks who play conservative on television will find some way to blame all this on Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives.
.
State and local officials face tough hurdles for the foreseeable future as service needs will not diminish, but assistance formerly received from higher levels of government are likely to be cut. These same elected officials will have to face an electorate who feels “taxed enough already”, and aren’t likely to want to hear that the services they have been receiving have at least partially been financed by deficits in Washington D.C.
Truth hurts.
But don't worry, I'm sure the folks who play conservative on television will find some way to blame all this on Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives.
.
Know Truth: The Perry Presidency
The general election for President of the United States of America began last Wednesday night, when Texas Governor Rick Perry "slipped" some information about Texas A&M joining the SEC, and dominating the millions-strong college football fan news cycle for 24 hours. That was followed up on Thursday night, when a staffer "let slip" that Perry would be announcing his assumed candidacy for the Presidency on Saturday. Governor Perry will be speaking in South Carolina on Saturday, and will sew up the Republican nomination for President of the United States of America before he's finished. That contest is all over but the shouting - everyone else is now vying for second place, and a favorable speaking time at the Republican National Convention.
As I've said before, not only is Perry the most likely candidate to win the GOP nomination, he is the most likely Republican to win the White House in 2012.
And the biggest "political liability" he has - or that his opponents think he has - is the "neo Confederate" ties that really aren't. While opponents will portray this as much more than it is, all that does is play to the crowd that already agrees with them, and build his supporters up. He'll be able to counter that with The Dukes of Hazzard and Smokey and the Bandit imagery, and his apologists will note that such "liberal" stalwarts as the late Senator Robert Byrd were actual Klan members and were still welcome as part of the caucus. And who looks more un-American, those folks, or the Kenyan anti-colonialist?
If his opponents were very smart, they'd link him with the Tea Party (which has lower ratings than even the CSA) and remind everyone that Perry = Bush III. And keep reminding people that these are not scare tactics, they are the stated beliefs of the Republican-NeoCon-Tea Party Caucus. This is how they want to "govern" our nation:
1. We'll be at war with Iran and Syria in his first term, while gearing up for war against Venezuela in his second. If they use anything like Bush's strategy, the USA will be at war until 2036. Run charts showing how much all that will cost, especially because we won't be out of Iraq and Afghanistan first.
2. The inability to cut defense spending, and the promise not to "raise taxes" or "end subsidies" or "close loopholes" means deep Social Security and Medicare cuts. Far from being changed and made solvent, they could actually be closed down as "unaffordable" entitlement programs. And if Social Security and Medicare are doomed, so much for any social welfare or shelter the homeless or feed the hungry programs. Those will be exported to charitable organizations first thing.
3. Banks and Financial Institutions will be able to do whatever the hell they want with your money and investments, leading to the next bubble, the next bust, and the next Panic. That's the Tea Party economy!
4. A lame duck Obama might be able to end the Bush Tax Cuts for three months until President Perry, a GOP Senate Supermajority, and a Tea Party House of Representatives delivers even bigger and deeper tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans: "job creators" who aren't creating jobs, despite the lowest tax rates, biggest loopholes, and most luxurious subsidies in in the post WWII era. Hell, they may finally be able to end the income tax this time, and take us back to 1829 instead of 1929.
5. You thought unions were in trouble before? Hah.
6. So much for all the gay marriage legislation at the state level. Instead of going after corrupt police departments and civil rights violations, the Perry Justice Department will go after those states with gay marriage and any state proposing a civil union, and probably stop enforcing hate crimes laws. DADT will be back with a vengeance, and no company that allows partner benefits will receive any government subsidy at any level. Equal Rights advocates will get hammered so hard, they'll start fondly remembering Clinton and the Defense of Marriage Act.
7. Drill, baby, drill. It doesn't matter that gasoline prices won't go down relative to the economy. It doesn't matter how dangerous this policy is. It doesn't matter how many subsidies this policy already showers on fossil fuel industries. It doesn't matter.
8. The Environment? Global Warming? Have fun with that, fellas. As natural disasters continue to overwhelm our infrastructure that we won't be paying for (pork), droughts and floods continue to make economic waves of instability for those not affected by disaster even as insurance companies lobbyists make sure no one is held accountable for screwing over disaster victims regardless of coverage. Rick Perry will pray for you, though, while your house washes away in the flood, your crops whither in the drought, and the earthquakes level your city.
9. And you can forget suing the chemical or fossil fuel companies when they poison the food and water and air your children eat, drink, and breathe. Tort reform, baby! Your kid's health is frivolous.
10. And when people take to the streets to protest all this stuff, they'll just be labeled the enemy. And what do you think the Perry administration will do with all those folks who can be called:
My guess is, the reaction will not be kind.
Obama better get his game in gear, and Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives need to figure out what exactly is at stake in 2012 and start telling people what politicians like Perry really stand for. The Rebel Battle Flag is the least of your worries.
.
As I've said before, not only is Perry the most likely candidate to win the GOP nomination, he is the most likely Republican to win the White House in 2012.
And the biggest "political liability" he has - or that his opponents think he has - is the "neo Confederate" ties that really aren't. While opponents will portray this as much more than it is, all that does is play to the crowd that already agrees with them, and build his supporters up. He'll be able to counter that with The Dukes of Hazzard and Smokey and the Bandit imagery, and his apologists will note that such "liberal" stalwarts as the late Senator Robert Byrd were actual Klan members and were still welcome as part of the caucus. And who looks more un-American, those folks, or the Kenyan anti-colonialist?
If his opponents were very smart, they'd link him with the Tea Party (which has lower ratings than even the CSA) and remind everyone that Perry = Bush III. And keep reminding people that these are not scare tactics, they are the stated beliefs of the Republican-NeoCon-Tea Party Caucus. This is how they want to "govern" our nation:
1. We'll be at war with Iran and Syria in his first term, while gearing up for war against Venezuela in his second. If they use anything like Bush's strategy, the USA will be at war until 2036. Run charts showing how much all that will cost, especially because we won't be out of Iraq and Afghanistan first.
2. The inability to cut defense spending, and the promise not to "raise taxes" or "end subsidies" or "close loopholes" means deep Social Security and Medicare cuts. Far from being changed and made solvent, they could actually be closed down as "unaffordable" entitlement programs. And if Social Security and Medicare are doomed, so much for any social welfare or shelter the homeless or feed the hungry programs. Those will be exported to charitable organizations first thing.
3. Banks and Financial Institutions will be able to do whatever the hell they want with your money and investments, leading to the next bubble, the next bust, and the next Panic. That's the Tea Party economy!
4. A lame duck Obama might be able to end the Bush Tax Cuts for three months until President Perry, a GOP Senate Supermajority, and a Tea Party House of Representatives delivers even bigger and deeper tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans: "job creators" who aren't creating jobs, despite the lowest tax rates, biggest loopholes, and most luxurious subsidies in in the post WWII era. Hell, they may finally be able to end the income tax this time, and take us back to 1829 instead of 1929.
5. You thought unions were in trouble before? Hah.
6. So much for all the gay marriage legislation at the state level. Instead of going after corrupt police departments and civil rights violations, the Perry Justice Department will go after those states with gay marriage and any state proposing a civil union, and probably stop enforcing hate crimes laws. DADT will be back with a vengeance, and no company that allows partner benefits will receive any government subsidy at any level. Equal Rights advocates will get hammered so hard, they'll start fondly remembering Clinton and the Defense of Marriage Act.
7. Drill, baby, drill. It doesn't matter that gasoline prices won't go down relative to the economy. It doesn't matter how dangerous this policy is. It doesn't matter how many subsidies this policy already showers on fossil fuel industries. It doesn't matter.
8. The Environment? Global Warming? Have fun with that, fellas. As natural disasters continue to overwhelm our infrastructure that we won't be paying for (pork), droughts and floods continue to make economic waves of instability for those not affected by disaster even as insurance companies lobbyists make sure no one is held accountable for screwing over disaster victims regardless of coverage. Rick Perry will pray for you, though, while your house washes away in the flood, your crops whither in the drought, and the earthquakes level your city.
9. And you can forget suing the chemical or fossil fuel companies when they poison the food and water and air your children eat, drink, and breathe. Tort reform, baby! Your kid's health is frivolous.
10. And when people take to the streets to protest all this stuff, they'll just be labeled the enemy. And what do you think the Perry administration will do with all those folks who can be called:
America-hating, baby-killing, terrorist-sympathizer who, with help from my illegal immigrant friends and union thugs, will follow our illegitimately elected Kenyan anti-colonialist President to turn this nation into a communist economy with a sharia legal code that follows the homosexual agenda.
My guess is, the reaction will not be kind.
Obama better get his game in gear, and Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives need to figure out what exactly is at stake in 2012 and start telling people what politicians like Perry really stand for. The Rebel Battle Flag is the least of your worries.
.
Labels:
politics,
President,
republicans,
right wing,
Tea Party,
United States
Dispatches from the Tea Party Economy
Remember how the fake issue of John Kerry's boat was considered newsworthy some years ago because it brought into question the taxes he owed on it?
Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives across the nation should make Georgia Tea Party Congressman Tom Graves' business transactions a mater of national media attention, stat. And, here's a hint to the DLP - don't wait for the mainstream media to do it for you because they won't talk about it until someone else makes it an issue.
And there are a lot of issues to choose from, here:
Banks colluding with politicians to offer millions of dollars in loans the banks knew couldn't be paid back. Loans made based on shaky grounds anyway. Non-payment of taxes and fees accrued over the course of the litigation. Real estate falling into disrepair and contributing to blight.
And of course the "do as I say but not as I do" problem. These guys are Tea Party Republicans, after all, who make it their business to decry spending money and accruing debt as well as those 'free-spending, irresponsible liberals.' I mean, if your main political position is that the other side acts irresponsibly, you open yourself up to serious criticism when you yourself are anything less than above board in your business affairs.
.
Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives across the nation should make Georgia Tea Party Congressman Tom Graves' business transactions a mater of national media attention, stat. And, here's a hint to the DLP - don't wait for the mainstream media to do it for you because they won't talk about it until someone else makes it an issue.
And there are a lot of issues to choose from, here:
Banks colluding with politicians to offer millions of dollars in loans the banks knew couldn't be paid back. Loans made based on shaky grounds anyway. Non-payment of taxes and fees accrued over the course of the litigation. Real estate falling into disrepair and contributing to blight.
And of course the "do as I say but not as I do" problem. These guys are Tea Party Republicans, after all, who make it their business to decry spending money and accruing debt as well as those 'free-spending, irresponsible liberals.' I mean, if your main political position is that the other side acts irresponsibly, you open yourself up to serious criticism when you yourself are anything less than above board in your business affairs.
.
Labels:
economy,
Georgia,
republicans,
Tea Party,
we really suck at this
On the Other Foot
What would the national reaction be if there was a liberal version of the Tea Party? Though the craziest thing about this is that nothing would change. They already say all the worst things they can about liberals in this country.
Hell, half the time, they ain't even talking about liberals when they say those things: they're talking about pragmatists, moderates, centrists, and even really real conservatives. There's only one thing anyone has to do to enter the "Enemy of America" club in the eyes of these radical right-wingers: disagree with radical right-wingery. The only acceptable version of America, to them, is their own version, no matter how make-believe or utopian that version is.
HT: To the Dish where we are also reminded about the peaceful, non-violent nature of America's internet "Christian" population. < / sarcasm >
.
Hell, half the time, they ain't even talking about liberals when they say those things: they're talking about pragmatists, moderates, centrists, and even really real conservatives. There's only one thing anyone has to do to enter the "Enemy of America" club in the eyes of these radical right-wingers: disagree with radical right-wingery. The only acceptable version of America, to them, is their own version, no matter how make-believe or utopian that version is.
HT: To the Dish where we are also reminded about the peaceful, non-violent nature of America's internet "Christian" population. < / sarcasm >
.
Labels:
liberals,
narratives,
politics,
religion,
right wing,
Tea Party,
United States,
we really suck at this
House of Cards
You play with fire long enough, you're liable to get burned.
If your object is to get back to the pre-1929 world economy, we're well on our way and it looks like the whole world is coming with us. Of course, all of this should have been expected, because what else do you think happens when the American government - maybe the one entity with the ability to spending enough money to land the economy safely - says they're going to stop spending money? Business leaders and stock brokers know that there is no one left to spend the money. Companies aren't spending money, despite massive tax breaks, subsidies, and loopholes. Individual people aren't spending money, because they're too busy trying to make ends meet. People in other nations aren't spending money, because their economies are based of the USA spending money.
Not only that, but if you borrow money from the USA, there is the very real possibility that a completely untrustworthy political group is going to put the brakes on you getting paid back so they can further curb the spending ability of the one organization left that can still spend money.
Thanks, Tea Party! Y'all own this economy, now. While all the kids may have pushed on the antique vase that ended up broken, the kid holding the baseball bat should recieve the most scrutiny. This isn't just the Tea Party Economy, y'all, this is the exactly stated results of their policies.
For a little while, it looked like we might get let down easy. The unsustainable economy America has been building over the last two generations was finally being exposed for the fraud it was. The panic of 2007-08 evaporated trillions of dollars in Monopoly Money from the economy, to the shock of many. The nation was bleeding jobs even as real estate oversupply sent house values tumbling below what owners and developers borrowed from the banks to pay for the land. Those are the types of jobs that aren't coming back, so not only are people going to need to find new jobs, they have to discover new ways to live within their means or create new jobs on their own. The whole time, the cost of health care continues to rise, along with prices of food and energy.
Of course, few politicians were willing to say in public how screwed the country is, lest they be called out for "making the situation worse" with a dose of reality. Out of our political caste, President Obama comes the closest to the truth the most often with the most consistentcy. And while that reality might draw derision from the Professional American Left, their national influence wanes the further away you get from the New York Times editorial pages.
On the other hand, talking about reality only draws howls and hatred from the fanatic and ideologically pure Right-Wing, content to sell cultural panic for the political capital necessary to win elections. At this point, the Right-Wing's stated policy goals include returning this country to a mythical utopia of stars-and-stripes-colored unicorns and business-friendly faeries where the government is based only on the parts of the Constitution they agree with. After all, the theory goes, how bad could things have been back in the days when the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery after Paul Revere raised his guns and bells to warn the British of an insane and armed American population?
And if you think incredible historical misconceptions are very different from the historical buffoonery of Bachmann and Palin, you're just kidding yourself.
Anyone mildly versed in United States history knows that pre-1929 economics would take us back to the boom and bust cycles of pre-1929 America, where the economy didn't experience "recessions" as often as it experienced "panics." Sound good? Try this: those economic panics happened so often they had to be labeled by the year instead of the decade, and often evaporated entire regions of national economic health.
The Right-Wing political sales pitch is more American Pie than Jim Crow, Segregation, and the legacy of slavery; more Strict Constructionist than Louisiana Purchase; more "right to work" than children in the coal mines; more seperate but equal vouchers instead of public education; and more Whistlin' Dixie than the Battle Cry of Freedom that eventually mtobilized the Union for total war.
Bobby Lee might have been revered by his soldiers and, later, an America that adores tragic heroes, but Grant and Sherman came after him with more men, more guns, more ammunition, more food, railcars to move all of those things and shoes on their soldiers' feet. I think of that any time a Tea Partier from the eleven states of the Old Confederacy talk to me about government being the problem.
These howlers aren't interested in the reality of the situation with the American economy, it only matters what they can sell the loudest to the 24 hour cable news consuming public. Discussing the real problems and real solutions would be difficult professionally and would make for boring television, after all.
Well, I doubt pre-1929 America was a boring place to live, based off the history I have read. Thanks to the Tea Party Economy and the right-wing, I think we're about to get a taste of just how "exciting" that kind of life would be.
(NOTE: This was scheduled to post Monday around lunch, and then I saw that Dante had posted Monday around breakfast, so I pushed it back.)
.
If your object is to get back to the pre-1929 world economy, we're well on our way and it looks like the whole world is coming with us. Of course, all of this should have been expected, because what else do you think happens when the American government - maybe the one entity with the ability to spending enough money to land the economy safely - says they're going to stop spending money? Business leaders and stock brokers know that there is no one left to spend the money. Companies aren't spending money, despite massive tax breaks, subsidies, and loopholes. Individual people aren't spending money, because they're too busy trying to make ends meet. People in other nations aren't spending money, because their economies are based of the USA spending money.
Not only that, but if you borrow money from the USA, there is the very real possibility that a completely untrustworthy political group is going to put the brakes on you getting paid back so they can further curb the spending ability of the one organization left that can still spend money.
Thanks, Tea Party! Y'all own this economy, now. While all the kids may have pushed on the antique vase that ended up broken, the kid holding the baseball bat should recieve the most scrutiny. This isn't just the Tea Party Economy, y'all, this is the exactly stated results of their policies.
For a little while, it looked like we might get let down easy. The unsustainable economy America has been building over the last two generations was finally being exposed for the fraud it was. The panic of 2007-08 evaporated trillions of dollars in Monopoly Money from the economy, to the shock of many. The nation was bleeding jobs even as real estate oversupply sent house values tumbling below what owners and developers borrowed from the banks to pay for the land. Those are the types of jobs that aren't coming back, so not only are people going to need to find new jobs, they have to discover new ways to live within their means or create new jobs on their own. The whole time, the cost of health care continues to rise, along with prices of food and energy.
Of course, few politicians were willing to say in public how screwed the country is, lest they be called out for "making the situation worse" with a dose of reality. Out of our political caste, President Obama comes the closest to the truth the most often with the most consistentcy. And while that reality might draw derision from the Professional American Left, their national influence wanes the further away you get from the New York Times editorial pages.
On the other hand, talking about reality only draws howls and hatred from the fanatic and ideologically pure Right-Wing, content to sell cultural panic for the political capital necessary to win elections. At this point, the Right-Wing's stated policy goals include returning this country to a mythical utopia of stars-and-stripes-colored unicorns and business-friendly faeries where the government is based only on the parts of the Constitution they agree with. After all, the theory goes, how bad could things have been back in the days when the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery after Paul Revere raised his guns and bells to warn the British of an insane and armed American population?
And if you think incredible historical misconceptions are very different from the historical buffoonery of Bachmann and Palin, you're just kidding yourself.
Anyone mildly versed in United States history knows that pre-1929 economics would take us back to the boom and bust cycles of pre-1929 America, where the economy didn't experience "recessions" as often as it experienced "panics." Sound good? Try this: those economic panics happened so often they had to be labeled by the year instead of the decade, and often evaporated entire regions of national economic health.
The Right-Wing political sales pitch is more American Pie than Jim Crow, Segregation, and the legacy of slavery; more Strict Constructionist than Louisiana Purchase; more "right to work" than children in the coal mines; more seperate but equal vouchers instead of public education; and more Whistlin' Dixie than the Battle Cry of Freedom that eventually mtobilized the Union for total war.
Bobby Lee might have been revered by his soldiers and, later, an America that adores tragic heroes, but Grant and Sherman came after him with more men, more guns, more ammunition, more food, railcars to move all of those things and shoes on their soldiers' feet. I think of that any time a Tea Partier from the eleven states of the Old Confederacy talk to me about government being the problem.
These howlers aren't interested in the reality of the situation with the American economy, it only matters what they can sell the loudest to the 24 hour cable news consuming public. Discussing the real problems and real solutions would be difficult professionally and would make for boring television, after all.
Well, I doubt pre-1929 America was a boring place to live, based off the history I have read. Thanks to the Tea Party Economy and the right-wing, I think we're about to get a taste of just how "exciting" that kind of life would be.
(NOTE: This was scheduled to post Monday around lunch, and then I saw that Dante had posted Monday around breakfast, so I pushed it back.)
.
Angry Liberals
Incapable of trying to contain a political loss, some House Democrats are now falling over themselves to multiply the Debt Deal fallout by using hyperbole to make themselves objects of ridicule.
Folks, the Debt Deal was an issue that was 1 part policy to 9 parts politics. This was so much theatre that I now think Washington has more to fear from a writers' strike than Hollywood. "Issues" like this only become issues because the GOP is good at playing politics and making mountains out of molehills, and the Democrats often lose at "king of the (imaginary) hill."
Think about this: after months (if not years) of Tea Party and GOP whining, pouting, getting an inch and taking a mile, victimization mythology, hyperbolic rhetoric, and marketing the snake oil of cultural and economic panic, the Democrats are the ones getting laughed at.
.
Folks, the Debt Deal was an issue that was 1 part policy to 9 parts politics. This was so much theatre that I now think Washington has more to fear from a writers' strike than Hollywood. "Issues" like this only become issues because the GOP is good at playing politics and making mountains out of molehills, and the Democrats often lose at "king of the (imaginary) hill."
Think about this: after months (if not years) of Tea Party and GOP whining, pouting, getting an inch and taking a mile, victimization mythology, hyperbolic rhetoric, and marketing the snake oil of cultural and economic panic, the Democrats are the ones getting laughed at.
.
The "Message"
At what point do you start disregarding facts entirely and start arguing about made up stuff? The farcical national conversation about the Stimulus could be "Exhibit A."
For what it is worth, the Stimulus was a disaster - a political disaster, especially for Democrats and Keynesians. Facing a looming economic catastrophe as our nation's people collectively maxed out their personal debt financed by banks who were maxing out theirs, the government had to spend money it didn't have to avoid getting us into a depression. That money combined with the vaporization of several trillion dollars in Monopoly-money wealth our nation didn't actually have to create some pretty gnarly budget deficits and government debt.
But, instead of hammering home each stimulus need individually (we need $200 billion for infrastructure - who doesn't like planes, trains, and automobiles?; we need $100 billion for schools - who doesn't think children should read?; we need $2 billion for alternative energy sources - who doesn't want cheap, renewable energy? etc.) the brainiacs in charge decided to completely ignore political reality, lump everything together and not talk about it.
Opponents were suddenly free to parade the words "omnibus" and "stimulus" around while waving the total price tag aloft, declaring we were getting this money from "our children." They found endless anecdotes and examples of "pork." Some were real, some were made up, and some were actually valuable government programs that monitor things like floods. It didn't matter what it was, there was so much in the bill it forced most Americans to rely on the lazy media to tell them. We all know how that turns out.
Now, a media-savvy Democratic Congress could have owned the news cycles and won political victories for two straight years just passing parts of the whole. They probably could have got more money for the big stuff, too. All those folks who later argued "the stimulus didn't work because it wasn't big enough," political problems in their own right, simply didn't understand how to gain political support to justify those additional expenditures.
But, noooo, Nancy Pelosi had a chance to destroy the GOP opposition on a host of issues the majority of Americans already agreed with her about and decided instead to do it in a way that actually turned Americans against the program, the party, and drove them into the waiting arms of a "Tea Party" ready to capitalize off the cultural and economic panic being felt across the country. GOP governors across the land decried the bill while taking the cash, and never paid a political price for it. Why would they? They were counting millions while the "Stimulus Ins't Big Enough" crowd took to the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times and got busy telling Americans the stimulus didn't work and that they needed more money.
That moment of decision, when the Democrats decided they didn't need to convince the American voters to agree with them, was when they lost the national argument over how to do something about the economic collapse. That was the moment they decided they would never get another chance to use Keynesian theories to save this economy, and that they'd never get a political chance to recover until the GOP allowed them to have one. That was the moment they assumed blame for the "stimulus didn't work" narrative, and they are still paying for it today.
.
For what it is worth, the Stimulus was a disaster - a political disaster, especially for Democrats and Keynesians. Facing a looming economic catastrophe as our nation's people collectively maxed out their personal debt financed by banks who were maxing out theirs, the government had to spend money it didn't have to avoid getting us into a depression. That money combined with the vaporization of several trillion dollars in Monopoly-money wealth our nation didn't actually have to create some pretty gnarly budget deficits and government debt.
But, instead of hammering home each stimulus need individually (we need $200 billion for infrastructure - who doesn't like planes, trains, and automobiles?; we need $100 billion for schools - who doesn't think children should read?; we need $2 billion for alternative energy sources - who doesn't want cheap, renewable energy? etc.) the brainiacs in charge decided to completely ignore political reality, lump everything together and not talk about it.
Opponents were suddenly free to parade the words "omnibus" and "stimulus" around while waving the total price tag aloft, declaring we were getting this money from "our children." They found endless anecdotes and examples of "pork." Some were real, some were made up, and some were actually valuable government programs that monitor things like floods. It didn't matter what it was, there was so much in the bill it forced most Americans to rely on the lazy media to tell them. We all know how that turns out.
Now, a media-savvy Democratic Congress could have owned the news cycles and won political victories for two straight years just passing parts of the whole. They probably could have got more money for the big stuff, too. All those folks who later argued "the stimulus didn't work because it wasn't big enough," political problems in their own right, simply didn't understand how to gain political support to justify those additional expenditures.
But, noooo, Nancy Pelosi had a chance to destroy the GOP opposition on a host of issues the majority of Americans already agreed with her about and decided instead to do it in a way that actually turned Americans against the program, the party, and drove them into the waiting arms of a "Tea Party" ready to capitalize off the cultural and economic panic being felt across the country. GOP governors across the land decried the bill while taking the cash, and never paid a political price for it. Why would they? They were counting millions while the "Stimulus Ins't Big Enough" crowd took to the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times and got busy telling Americans the stimulus didn't work and that they needed more money.
That moment of decision, when the Democrats decided they didn't need to convince the American voters to agree with them, was when they lost the national argument over how to do something about the economic collapse. That was the moment they decided they would never get another chance to use Keynesian theories to save this economy, and that they'd never get a political chance to recover until the GOP allowed them to have one. That was the moment they assumed blame for the "stimulus didn't work" narrative, and they are still paying for it today.
.
Moar Thuggery Please!
Those union thugs in Wisconsin are now accused of attacking Tea Party fists with their faces.
Really, though, I'm sure this episode will show up all over right-wingistan as TP types getting "attacked" by union folks. But as a flag owner myself, stringing a flag between two people to cover up someone already standing there is picking a fight behavior. You do not behave that way.
I'm sure we'll hear more. It will be amazing to see what Andrew Breitbart does with any video.
.
Really, though, I'm sure this episode will show up all over right-wingistan as TP types getting "attacked" by union folks. But as a flag owner myself, stringing a flag between two people to cover up someone already standing there is picking a fight behavior. You do not behave that way.
I'm sure we'll hear more. It will be amazing to see what Andrew Breitbart does with any video.
.
Labels:
Breakin' the Law,
right wing,
Tea Party,
unions,
Wisconsin
I'mma Do Me
More GOP elected officials sounding like gangsta rappers.
What happens in the Paul Ryan End Medicare Plan when your private employer does not offer retirees medical benefits? Here's what GOP Representative Rob Woodall of Georgia's 7th Congressional District had to say:
As if the woman hadn't been paying into Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid through her years of work at a private company. Someone needs to explain to these fools that the woman did take care of herself by working and paying into the program. A program enacted through popular legislation, executive signature, and supported over judicial challenges since the 1930's.
And that GOP representative has the temerity to call her a freeloader in front of a town hall meeting. Because that's what he did. And the "handout" narrative is so deep at this point, he gets applause for saying it. As if Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all programs forced upon the middle class by a government controlled by a bunch of laughing, lazy, good for nothing layabouts in their Welfare Cadillacs.
Every place I have worked professionally has employed some measure of custodial staff (mostly through contractors) that show up to work at crappy times, work long hours on their feet, pitch in to help other members of their working families, and still have to recieve some sort of food stamp benefit to make ends meet. I can guaran-damn-tee you that the "private company" they work for doesn't offer them retirement benefits. And they're going to be shit out of luck and a burden on their families once they aren't able to work anymore - because they're going to work until their health gives out. They have no real recourse for retirement or medical care once retired, after all.
Somebody needs to explain to me how, exactly, they haven't been taking care of themselves after paying into their Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits their whole working lives. Somebody needs to explain to me how the Ryan plan deals with those people. Because I haven't heard a good explanation so far.
I've been trying not to drink too deeply of the "Ending Medicare Forever to Pay for Our Newly Minted Feudal System of Subsidizing the Already Uber Wealthy" Demagougery flavored Kool-Aid, but at what point should I start taking this more seriously? At what point do I have to listen to the very words of the GOP Congressmen themselves when they say "Ending Medicare Forever" and question the morality or philosophy or work ethics of people who are depending on the system they've paid into like they were supposed to.
At what point can I begin to accept that Ending Medicare Forever to pay for tax breaks is not a demogouging fear tactic to win elections, but the GOP's stated philosophical and legislative goal.
.
What happens in the Paul Ryan End Medicare Plan when your private employer does not offer retirees medical benefits? Here's what GOP Representative Rob Woodall of Georgia's 7th Congressional District had to say:
"You want the government to take care of you, because your employer decided not to take care of you. My question is, 'When do I decide I'm going to take care of me?'"
As if the woman hadn't been paying into Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid through her years of work at a private company. Someone needs to explain to these fools that the woman did take care of herself by working and paying into the program. A program enacted through popular legislation, executive signature, and supported over judicial challenges since the 1930's.
And that GOP representative has the temerity to call her a freeloader in front of a town hall meeting. Because that's what he did. And the "handout" narrative is so deep at this point, he gets applause for saying it. As if Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all programs forced upon the middle class by a government controlled by a bunch of laughing, lazy, good for nothing layabouts in their Welfare Cadillacs.
Every place I have worked professionally has employed some measure of custodial staff (mostly through contractors) that show up to work at crappy times, work long hours on their feet, pitch in to help other members of their working families, and still have to recieve some sort of food stamp benefit to make ends meet. I can guaran-damn-tee you that the "private company" they work for doesn't offer them retirement benefits. And they're going to be shit out of luck and a burden on their families once they aren't able to work anymore - because they're going to work until their health gives out. They have no real recourse for retirement or medical care once retired, after all.
Somebody needs to explain to me how, exactly, they haven't been taking care of themselves after paying into their Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits their whole working lives. Somebody needs to explain to me how the Ryan plan deals with those people. Because I haven't heard a good explanation so far.
I've been trying not to drink too deeply of the "Ending Medicare Forever to Pay for Our Newly Minted Feudal System of Subsidizing the Already Uber Wealthy" Demagougery flavored Kool-Aid, but at what point should I start taking this more seriously? At what point do I have to listen to the very words of the GOP Congressmen themselves when they say "Ending Medicare Forever" and question the morality or philosophy or work ethics of people who are depending on the system they've paid into like they were supposed to.
At what point can I begin to accept that Ending Medicare Forever to pay for tax breaks is not a demogouging fear tactic to win elections, but the GOP's stated philosophical and legislative goal.
.
The Great Divide
More studies on the difference between really real conservatives, and people who play conservatives on radio and television.
Our nation has truly entered a phase where a significant number of the people who think of themselves as "conservatives" are not actually conservative. The dilution of the term is what allows the Republicans and the Tea Party (and, in truth, the Democrats) to say whatever they like about politics without fear of being held accountable.
.
Our nation has truly entered a phase where a significant number of the people who think of themselves as "conservatives" are not actually conservative. The dilution of the term is what allows the Republicans and the Tea Party (and, in truth, the Democrats) to say whatever they like about politics without fear of being held accountable.
.
Perpetual War
Up until the Libyan bombing campaign started, there were hosts of right-wingers, neoconservatives, and Republicans using the situation to call out President Obama for "dithering" while people died.
As soon as the bombs started to fall, and especially because France was involved, we've heard nothing but outrage from many of those same people. I try to keep up with the talking points by listening to local right-wing radio, and what I heard yesterday ran like a laundry list of arguements that were previously dismissed in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
Of course, one of the most absurd of these arguments can be found coming out of the mouth of Newt Gingrich, who argues to go to war before he argues against it.
Our topic of discussion here is not the Libyan war itself, but how our politics and culture talk about and respond to it. Mainstream Republicans have a foreign policy elite, and they are the folks who have never met a war they didn't want to start. They have an outsized place at the political table, despite their advocated policies falling flat on their face for the last decade. That's who the GOP Representatives listen to, that's who the next GOP President will listen to, and when they turn the volume up loud enough for long enough (as with Iraq) most of the Democrats go right along with them.
The Democrats. I got an email yesterday from Democracy for America asking me to fill out a survey on how that group should react to the war in Libya. Because they don't already have a position.
The Tea Party is showing its true colors when it comes to interventionism and foreign policy. They will listen to the neocons every single time, and search the world for monsters to destroy. That's not good, considering how many monsters they already see at home.
The hatred for this President is so deep and all-encompassing that these individuals continue to find fault even when Obama is pursuing the policies they themselves propose. If he isn't attacking, he's dithering. If he is attacking, he's doing it wrong. If the UN is involved, he's abandoning American leadership in the world. If the UN isn't involved, he's not able to rally the allies.
And yet, for the 8 years of Bush Wars, we heard that anyone who questioned the "Decider's" decisions were unpatriotic and didn't support the troops. I guess that's why all the pundits on the right, even as they excoriate the President fornot going to war sooner going to war whatever the day's critique is, they make sure to mention that they are 100% "behind the troops."
Because saying it is what is important.
.
As soon as the bombs started to fall, and especially because France was involved, we've heard nothing but outrage from many of those same people. I try to keep up with the talking points by listening to local right-wing radio, and what I heard yesterday ran like a laundry list of arguements that were previously dismissed in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
Of course, one of the most absurd of these arguments can be found coming out of the mouth of Newt Gingrich, who argues to go to war before he argues against it.
Our topic of discussion here is not the Libyan war itself, but how our politics and culture talk about and respond to it. Mainstream Republicans have a foreign policy elite, and they are the folks who have never met a war they didn't want to start. They have an outsized place at the political table, despite their advocated policies falling flat on their face for the last decade. That's who the GOP Representatives listen to, that's who the next GOP President will listen to, and when they turn the volume up loud enough for long enough (as with Iraq) most of the Democrats go right along with them.
The Democrats. I got an email yesterday from Democracy for America asking me to fill out a survey on how that group should react to the war in Libya. Because they don't already have a position.
The Tea Party is showing its true colors when it comes to interventionism and foreign policy. They will listen to the neocons every single time, and search the world for monsters to destroy. That's not good, considering how many monsters they already see at home.
The hatred for this President is so deep and all-encompassing that these individuals continue to find fault even when Obama is pursuing the policies they themselves propose. If he isn't attacking, he's dithering. If he is attacking, he's doing it wrong. If the UN is involved, he's abandoning American leadership in the world. If the UN isn't involved, he's not able to rally the allies.
And yet, for the 8 years of Bush Wars, we heard that anyone who questioned the "Decider's" decisions were unpatriotic and didn't support the troops. I guess that's why all the pundits on the right, even as they excoriate the President for
Because saying it is what is important.
.
Labels:
Democrats,
Iraq,
Libya,
narratives,
politics,
republicans,
Tea Party,
the war,
United States,
we really suck at this
Picking a Fight with the Christian Right
I wonder what my real conservative readers think of the Mitch Daniels' "truce" on social issues until financial issues are addressed.
Because, as Andrew Sullivan points out, there is a very significant portion of the Republican base that wants to focus on the culture war above all things. Because people who disagree with certain religious or moral beliefs are the ones who are bankrupting the country. We can get ourselves out of debt ON FAITH!!
Someone will have to explain how that opinion is in any way conservative, because what I read there was a culture warrior cloaking his theocracy in fiscal conservative marketing.
Though I'm glad that he admits the Tea Party is just what I thought they were.
Luckily, there appears to be some pushback to the theocratic right.
But will it be enough? Can a real conservative like Mitch Daniels, who acts like a rational, thinking human being (with some ideas I disagree with) win the GOP Presidential nomination? Or will the base, more interested in Mau-Mau-ing opponents, warning America about the coming Sharia onslaught, and James O'Keefe's video splices of outgoing NPR executives, again prove they are more about cultural panic than substance?
.
Because, as Andrew Sullivan points out, there is a very significant portion of the Republican base that wants to focus on the culture war above all things. Because people who disagree with certain religious or moral beliefs are the ones who are bankrupting the country. We can get ourselves out of debt ON FAITH!!
Someone will have to explain how that opinion is in any way conservative, because what I read there was a culture warrior cloaking his theocracy in fiscal conservative marketing.
Though I'm glad that he admits the Tea Party is just what I thought they were.
Luckily, there appears to be some pushback to the theocratic right.
But will it be enough? Can a real conservative like Mitch Daniels, who acts like a rational, thinking human being (with some ideas I disagree with) win the GOP Presidential nomination? Or will the base, more interested in Mau-Mau-ing opponents, warning America about the coming Sharia onslaught, and James O'Keefe's video splices of outgoing NPR executives, again prove they are more about cultural panic than substance?
.
Labels:
politics,
religion,
republicans,
right wing,
Tea Party
Balance
More on the comparisons and contrasts examination of balance for the sake of balance, false equivalencies, and non-comparisons.
According to Ross Douhat at the New York Times, "getting out into the streets and getting a little bloody" is equivalent to "second amenment remedies."
Which I guess gives us the equation:
Umm, I'm not a big fan of violence advocates on either side and I have grown to despise violent rhetoric in politics and consider inappropriate military metaphors childish.
That being said, those two items are in no way equivalent in terms of scale, and I am shocked that more reasonable members of our media caste are so invested in "balance" that they will willingly ignore this fact.
HT: Daily Dish
.
According to Ross Douhat at the New York Times, "getting out into the streets and getting a little bloody" is equivalent to "second amenment remedies."
Which I guess gives us the equation:
street fighting = armed insurrection
Umm, I'm not a big fan of violence advocates on either side and I have grown to despise violent rhetoric in politics and consider inappropriate military metaphors childish.
That being said, those two items are in no way equivalent in terms of scale, and I am shocked that more reasonable members of our media caste are so invested in "balance" that they will willingly ignore this fact.
HT: Daily Dish
.
Labels:
Culture of Fear,
left-wing,
Media,
politics,
right wing,
Tea Party,
unions
High Contrast
Back when I was in high school, I was often given writing assignments instructing me to "compare AND contrast," which meant you should find the similarities and the unique difference between two things. How many ways do we have to compare the union protests with the Tea Party? I can think of a few. But I don't think the main problem lies in the pathologies present in all populism:
While there's a lot of truth to be read there, I think that's too easy a write off, too easily a dismissal. It doesn't take into account what the Tea Party was when it started, what it became, and what it is now. It doesn't take into account what the Madison Sit-Ins currently represent. What it does fit is the oversimplification, the compartmentalization, and the furious pursuit of "balance" that currently pervades Western progress-resistant pathology that Americans have perfected in the past decade.
Thus the false equivalency of aloof analysis:
"Conservatives" + Inchoate Rage + Demonstrations = Tea Parties
"Liberals" + Inchoate Rage + Demonstrations = Union Demonstrations
.
My point is that when folks get angry, they get stupid, and stupidity knows no party or clique. Progressives should not meet this truism so defensively. I know we want to believe the best of our comrades. And I know that loudly congratulating one's team for its superior intellect and virtue is a critical part of keeping a bubble of enthusiasm aloft and rising. So we adults can speak in whispers, if we must. But it's a plain fact that the fuel-mixture of potent populism includes generous helpings of stupidity and self-regard. Democrats got flattened last fall by a fired-up, pie-eyed right. They should welcome an equivalent efflorescence of inchoate rage from the left. The naked, monkey-minded tribalism of an "engaged" political faction is not lovely to behold, but then smash-mouth politics is not brunch at the club.
While there's a lot of truth to be read there, I think that's too easy a write off, too easily a dismissal. It doesn't take into account what the Tea Party was when it started, what it became, and what it is now. It doesn't take into account what the Madison Sit-Ins currently represent. What it does fit is the oversimplification, the compartmentalization, and the furious pursuit of "balance" that currently pervades Western progress-resistant pathology that Americans have perfected in the past decade.
Thus the false equivalency of aloof analysis:
"Conservatives" + Inchoate Rage + Demonstrations = Tea Parties
"Liberals" + Inchoate Rage + Demonstrations = Union Demonstrations
.
Labels:
culture,
Media,
narratives,
Tea Party,
unions,
United States
Republican Voters on TV
In the comments section of a previous post, Dante wondered why I lump Glenn Beck in with the rest of the allegedly-conservative "right-wingers," such as Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh.
Maybe because these are the kinds of folks who explicitly stand with Beck? (HT: Daily Dish)
Now I wonder why I didn't lump Beck in with right-wingery of Iowa Republican Caucus-goers.
Here's what the President says that starts this discussion:
Here is where I wonder where any truly conservative individual, outside the general red vs. blue team politics of a situation, will have any problem with this. Right now, in Egypt, we don't have many options. The President of the United States can't tell the demonstrators in Tahrir Square to go home. He can't demand that citizens of Egypt not participate in self-government if they don't reflect our interests.
The President can express the opinions and interests of the United States to whatever government is currently sovereign in Egypt; he can use his influence with the current regime to decrease violent repression in the hope that the demonstrations do not turn anti-American; he can make sure the State Department is looking after US interests, and those of our allies, in that country while these demonstrations continue - which are all things he is doing.
Criticisms of the President, from a conservative standpoint, would wonder if there was anything more that could have been done to use US influence earlier, to move Egypt to a more representative government before people went into the streets in demonstrations that threatened stability. Another could look forward to other autocratic client-states of the US, and how we should begin using our influence there to promote democracy without the same instability (and the anti-American sentiment that might come with it) from happening elsewhere.
You'd think the responses of a real conservative would reflect something like that. I've read about a few, and I've posted a few. I sure hope conservatives who read this will add a few truly conservative thoughts to the Egypt situation.
But what we see in this video is the exact opposite. The responses from the "conservative" Republicans read like a litany of all that has been said by Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Palin, Levin and O'Reilly over these last two years. Let's see how fast this "policy" conversation goes off the rails.
That didn't take long at all. As a matter of fact, on video, that took exactly 36 seconds. Once that happens, you can see the affirmation of that thought process in the assembly. And before anyone says anything about this being a "liberal media setup," this was on Hannity.
The majority of individuals gathered for this panel think the President of the United States is a Muslim, that being Muslim is a problem, that the interests of Muslims run counter to that of the United States as a matter of foreign policy, and specifically as it relates to the Egyptian people demonstrating against a tyrant.
They also think they will be chided by "the media" for these beliefs. Not that some of these beliefs might be wrong, not that some of these beliefs may be erroneously held, but that they may be complained about by the media. This is what complete epistemological closure looks like: reality has no bearing here, and is seen as a conspiratorial boogeyman.
Who does that sound like?
Now, to be fair, there are some real conservatives who are surprised by this reaction on the part of Republican voters, or do not take this belief on the part of Republican voters seriously. Conor Friedersdorf explains this. On the other hand, I'm not surprised at all. If all people hear from their choice of "populist" media personalities is that the President is a Muslim, that Muslims are bad, and no one but "teh ebil liberals and medai" refute any of those ascertations, what do you think these people are going to think? What did you think they'd say on television?
Let's unpack this.
1. Taking the situation seriously? What we want or need as a country? This country has supported Egyptian autocrats for decades. This runs right up against the later comments in the video that claim President Obama:
What our country "wants" is stability and peace so that our goods and capital can flow to and from foreign markets, and we can access the natural resources we need and new markets for our goods. What our country claims to promote around the world is the dignity of human liberty, individual freedom and human rights. What our country actually does is attempt to reconcile those two things, and the result ain't always pretty.
But don't tell these people. They aren't real conservatives, because real conservatives would understand that foreign policy is an ugly mixture of realpolitik and idealism. For these people, this isn't a complicated issue - the United States does only good around the world, and anyone who thinks we do anything bad hates and blames the United States, isn't a patriotic American and is most likely a liberal (the most intolerant religion).
If our country supports autocrats and tyrants it is because their people can't be trusted with representative or democratic government and hate the United States because of Marxism or Sharia. After all, just look at what happened in Cuba, Iran, Lebanon, the West Bank and Iraq! Why, as soon as those people got out from under their dictators, they started hating the United States for no reason whatsoever. All they do is sit around hating the USA, and being ungrateful for all the wonderful things we did for them under Batista, the Shah, the Israeli occupation or by bringing Saddam Hussein to justice. All these intolerant liberals want to do is encourage that sort of behavior because they hate America.
As far as being prepared for unexpected crises, that's why they're called crises. You can try and be prepared all you want, but sometimes you're not going to be in control of a situation. Real conservatives would realize that.
2. Doesn't understand the difference between Republic and Democracy? Both are governments where the people hold real elections and are not ruled by autocrats.
3. No coherent policy, doesn't know what he's doing? Hell, I told you that earlier in this post. I'll repeat it here for simplicity's sake.
I'm quite unclear as to what else our President should or is able to be doing at this time from a policy standpoint. Perhaps one of my conservative readers can clue me in on this as well.
From what I read and hear from the right-wing, however, the basic idea appears as "be outraged" and "blame Obama" and "no, you don't need actual reasons."
And, of course,
4. President Barack Obama is a Muslim. Which pretty much tells you everything you need to know about these people Fox News and Sean Hannity put on television to talk about politics. It tells you everything you need to know about what these people think of Barack Obama, Muslims, liberalism, politics and religion all in one. It tells you instantly what these people really think about the United States of America and our laws, our policies and our place in the world. And if I keep hearing Republican voters talk about this, I'm going to start ascribing this erroneous belief to the whole of the GOP and the Tea Party.
Because this is exactly the reason I do not identify with mainstream Republican voters. That is exactly why I do not trust many Republican elected officials. Put the "R" after someone's name on a ballot, and these people are who I think of. I try to rise above that, and think instead of the people I know who do not act like this, but the reaction has become a gut one at this point.
This is not conservatism. Conservatism focuses on policy, regardless of religion. What you see here is right-wingery, hackery and demagougery. That's what this is.
.
Maybe because these are the kinds of folks who explicitly stand with Beck? (HT: Daily Dish)
Now I wonder why I didn't lump Beck in with right-wingery of Iowa Republican Caucus-goers.
Here's what the President says that starts this discussion:
The President: "It is important to say that our only two options are not the Muslim Brotherhood or a suppressed Egyptian people" (though O'Reilly interrupts him during the last part).
O'Reilly (interrupting): "But you don't want the Muslim Brotherhood?"
The President: "What I want is a representative government in Egypt."
Here is where I wonder where any truly conservative individual, outside the general red vs. blue team politics of a situation, will have any problem with this. Right now, in Egypt, we don't have many options. The President of the United States can't tell the demonstrators in Tahrir Square to go home. He can't demand that citizens of Egypt not participate in self-government if they don't reflect our interests.
The President can express the opinions and interests of the United States to whatever government is currently sovereign in Egypt; he can use his influence with the current regime to decrease violent repression in the hope that the demonstrations do not turn anti-American; he can make sure the State Department is looking after US interests, and those of our allies, in that country while these demonstrations continue - which are all things he is doing.
Criticisms of the President, from a conservative standpoint, would wonder if there was anything more that could have been done to use US influence earlier, to move Egypt to a more representative government before people went into the streets in demonstrations that threatened stability. Another could look forward to other autocratic client-states of the US, and how we should begin using our influence there to promote democracy without the same instability (and the anti-American sentiment that might come with it) from happening elsewhere.
You'd think the responses of a real conservative would reflect something like that. I've read about a few, and I've posted a few. I sure hope conservatives who read this will add a few truly conservative thoughts to the Egypt situation.
But what we see in this video is the exact opposite. The responses from the "conservative" Republicans read like a litany of all that has been said by Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Palin, Levin and O'Reilly over these last two years. Let's see how fast this "policy" conversation goes off the rails.
- He doesn't have a grasp on how serious this could be, doesn't know what the details are, doesn't know what we want or what we need as a country.
- Doesn't understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy
- No coherent policy/Doesn't know what he's doing.
- Barack Obama is a Muslim, and that's guiding his policies.
That didn't take long at all. As a matter of fact, on video, that took exactly 36 seconds. Once that happens, you can see the affirmation of that thought process in the assembly. And before anyone says anything about this being a "liberal media setup," this was on Hannity.
The majority of individuals gathered for this panel think the President of the United States is a Muslim, that being Muslim is a problem, that the interests of Muslims run counter to that of the United States as a matter of foreign policy, and specifically as it relates to the Egyptian people demonstrating against a tyrant.
They also think they will be chided by "the media" for these beliefs. Not that some of these beliefs might be wrong, not that some of these beliefs may be erroneously held, but that they may be complained about by the media. This is what complete epistemological closure looks like: reality has no bearing here, and is seen as a conspiratorial boogeyman.
Who does that sound like?
Now, to be fair, there are some real conservatives who are surprised by this reaction on the part of Republican voters, or do not take this belief on the part of Republican voters seriously. Conor Friedersdorf explains this. On the other hand, I'm not surprised at all. If all people hear from their choice of "populist" media personalities is that the President is a Muslim, that Muslims are bad, and no one but "teh ebil liberals and medai" refute any of those ascertations, what do you think these people are going to think? What did you think they'd say on television?
Let's unpack this.
1. Taking the situation seriously? What we want or need as a country? This country has supported Egyptian autocrats for decades. This runs right up against the later comments in the video that claim President Obama:
- Feels that the United States is to blame, and doesn't respect all the "good" the United States does in the world.
- Will lead us down a "path of destruction," like Neville Chamberlain, through appeasement.
- Always seems caught unaware in the event of a crisis.
What our country "wants" is stability and peace so that our goods and capital can flow to and from foreign markets, and we can access the natural resources we need and new markets for our goods. What our country claims to promote around the world is the dignity of human liberty, individual freedom and human rights. What our country actually does is attempt to reconcile those two things, and the result ain't always pretty.
But don't tell these people. They aren't real conservatives, because real conservatives would understand that foreign policy is an ugly mixture of realpolitik and idealism. For these people, this isn't a complicated issue - the United States does only good around the world, and anyone who thinks we do anything bad hates and blames the United States, isn't a patriotic American and is most likely a liberal (the most intolerant religion).
If our country supports autocrats and tyrants it is because their people can't be trusted with representative or democratic government and hate the United States because of Marxism or Sharia. After all, just look at what happened in Cuba, Iran, Lebanon, the West Bank and Iraq! Why, as soon as those people got out from under their dictators, they started hating the United States for no reason whatsoever. All they do is sit around hating the USA, and being ungrateful for all the wonderful things we did for them under Batista, the Shah, the Israeli occupation or by bringing Saddam Hussein to justice. All these intolerant liberals want to do is encourage that sort of behavior because they hate America.
As far as being prepared for unexpected crises, that's why they're called crises. You can try and be prepared all you want, but sometimes you're not going to be in control of a situation. Real conservatives would realize that.
2. Doesn't understand the difference between Republic and Democracy? Both are governments where the people hold real elections and are not ruled by autocrats.
3. No coherent policy, doesn't know what he's doing? Hell, I told you that earlier in this post. I'll repeat it here for simplicity's sake.
The President can express the opinions and interests of the United States to whatever government is currently sovereign in Egypt; he can use his influence with the current regime to decrease violent repression in the hope that the demonstrations do not turn anti-American; he can make sure the State Department is looking after US interests, and those of our allies, in that country while these demonstrations continue - which are all things he is doing.
I'm quite unclear as to what else our President should or is able to be doing at this time from a policy standpoint. Perhaps one of my conservative readers can clue me in on this as well.
From what I read and hear from the right-wing, however, the basic idea appears as "be outraged" and "blame Obama" and "no, you don't need actual reasons."
And, of course,
4. President Barack Obama is a Muslim. Which pretty much tells you everything you need to know about these people Fox News and Sean Hannity put on television to talk about politics. It tells you everything you need to know about what these people think of Barack Obama, Muslims, liberalism, politics and religion all in one. It tells you instantly what these people really think about the United States of America and our laws, our policies and our place in the world. And if I keep hearing Republican voters talk about this, I'm going to start ascribing this erroneous belief to the whole of the GOP and the Tea Party.
Because this is exactly the reason I do not identify with mainstream Republican voters. That is exactly why I do not trust many Republican elected officials. Put the "R" after someone's name on a ballot, and these people are who I think of. I try to rise above that, and think instead of the people I know who do not act like this, but the reaction has become a gut one at this point.
This is not conservatism. Conservatism focuses on policy, regardless of religion. What you see here is right-wingery, hackery and demagougery. That's what this is.
.
"Sane People Will Stop Paying Attention"
We can only hope they will. I'm glad I'm not the only individual who noticed that Glenn Beck and the rest of the right-wingers have upped the ante on shark jumping with the Egyptian Revolution (And Why Obama Is To Blame).
I'm literally floored that these people, who spent months to instigate and cash in on the idea of an American Tea Party "Revolution" against a freely and legally elected American government - that peacefully transferred power after the following election - are lining up to denounce pro-democratic, reform-minded Egyptians who are actually facing the batons, water cannons, tear gas, and blades of a tyrant.
Though I've heard Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and O'Reilly - not to mention the blogosphere - tirelessly one-upping one another in hyperbolic warnings of what will come, and why President Obama is to blame for whatever happens, Glenn Beck - "a college sophmore with a big budget" - wins this one going away.
And keep in mind, this is a show that holds a primetime slot on a major "news" network.
(Link HT's to DSB.)
.
I'm literally floored that these people, who spent months to instigate and cash in on the idea of an American Tea Party "Revolution" against a freely and legally elected American government - that peacefully transferred power after the following election - are lining up to denounce pro-democratic, reform-minded Egyptians who are actually facing the batons, water cannons, tear gas, and blades of a tyrant.
Though I've heard Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and O'Reilly - not to mention the blogosphere - tirelessly one-upping one another in hyperbolic warnings of what will come, and why President Obama is to blame for whatever happens, Glenn Beck - "a college sophmore with a big budget" - wins this one going away.
To cut to the chase, a new caliphate will emerge in the Middle East and push further east until China, as Beck puts it, says "Knock it off guys" and takes over India, reaching some way into Pakistan. The caliphate will then push north, which is when it will absorb the UK
...
So there you have it, an "Archduke Ferdinand moment" which will split Europe, the Middle East and Asia into Chinese and radical Islamic zones. In the full Beck, he also introduces Bill Ayers (who Sarah Palin had in mind when she accused Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists"), Hizbullah and Code Pink, a feminist antiwar group. But that's enough for now.
And keep in mind, this is a show that holds a primetime slot on a major "news" network.
(Link HT's to DSB.)
.
Labels:
Egypt,
Europe,
History,
Media,
Middle East,
narratives,
right wing,
Tea Party,
United States,
WTF
Unhinged
Sort of a non-sequitur, this morning I got the opportunity to listen to Glenn Beck's radio program for about 10 minutes.
He was talking about Code Pink (they still exist?) and a protest they held where "several" individuals held up nasty signs against Clarence Thomas and Glenn Beck (he has video on a website). This was important, he said, because Code Pink represents all liberals in this country, like their friends in the Weather Underground and Bill Ayers (and you know who he knows). Anyway, according to Beck, these people are dangerous, and the FBI says so (audio clip) because they went to prestigious "educational centers" called colleges and used to get together back in the 70's when they talked about killing 25 million white babies to prove their revolutionary credibility. This is nothing short of the language of ethnic cleansing, he claims, which they also employ when talking about Israel/the Jews, which explains why Code Pink is working with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood to organize the many demonstrations around this country in support of the Egyptian revolutionaries (?). Beck says this is what communists and socialists and groups like Code Pink and ANSWER and the Weather Underground do whenever and wherever they take over.
Don't believe him? He's going to connect the dots between Code Pink and Hamas and George Soros for you on his show this evening. He's tired of ringing the bell and playing Paul Revere.
And where IS the media on all this, he asks?
Seriously, I've got to find a transcript of all that to prove to myself I'm not making it up.
.
He was talking about Code Pink (they still exist?) and a protest they held where "several" individuals held up nasty signs against Clarence Thomas and Glenn Beck (he has video on a website). This was important, he said, because Code Pink represents all liberals in this country, like their friends in the Weather Underground and Bill Ayers (and you know who he knows). Anyway, according to Beck, these people are dangerous, and the FBI says so (audio clip) because they went to prestigious "educational centers" called colleges and used to get together back in the 70's when they talked about killing 25 million white babies to prove their revolutionary credibility. This is nothing short of the language of ethnic cleansing, he claims, which they also employ when talking about Israel/the Jews, which explains why Code Pink is working with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood to organize the many demonstrations around this country in support of the Egyptian revolutionaries (?). Beck says this is what communists and socialists and groups like Code Pink and ANSWER and the Weather Underground do whenever and wherever they take over.
Don't believe him? He's going to connect the dots between Code Pink and Hamas and George Soros for you on his show this evening. He's tired of ringing the bell and playing Paul Revere.
And where IS the media on all this, he asks?
Seriously, I've got to find a transcript of all that to prove to myself I'm not making it up.
.
Labels:
Culture of Fear,
narratives,
radio,
right wing,
Tea Party,
United States
Fake Ass History
Someday, someone's going to have to explain to me what Michelle Bachmann is talking about when she claims America's founders worked tirelessly to end slavery. (Starting at 1.05 on the video, till about 2.20.) Someone's also going to have to explain to me why the Tea Party operatives cannot seem to explain why she is saying the things she says. Simple question, really.
Did the Founders end slavery? No. They included the ability of already-free people to govern themselves, and built in the mechanisms to expand the idea of freedom to others. But on the slavery question, at that moment? They punted. It does not insult their memory to state the fact that they were men of their time, with weaknesses and sins commonplace at the time.
People who think otherwise are caught up in the romanticism of history, and being fooled by it. Or worse, trying to fool people with it.
Which is why I think that Tea Party spokesman kept trying to change the subject because he didn't want to say that stuff on air from his own mouth. He is committed to the revision of history, from the real dirty messy history we own to the clean, shiny utopia that puts campaign donations in his coffers. Another simple answer, to be sure.
Yeah, Matthews is a fiery interviewer who always swings for the fences, but when he connects (and he absolutely did in this case) he knocks that sucker out of the park.
And, yeah, people are riled up about it. And it ain't just "the left."*
They should be. This latest blatant confusion of actual US History with "shit-that-didn't-happen" is becoming more and more the norm. I'm tired of all these political leaders trying to fool America about some utopian past that never happened.
That's why some folks took notice when these clowns up and read a fake version of the US Constitution, as some sort of Congressional pep rally, ignoring things that actually went on in this country.
You can't write the 3/5's Compromise out of the Constitution. You can't write slavery out of American History. Those who try deserve nothing better than our scorn.
Of course, you could simply assume that the 3/5ths Compromise was the Founders' attempt to end slavery......because I guess they voted for it in order to end it...or something.
(* Unless, of course, "the right" draws a circle around themselves and considers anyone who disagrees with them "left wing.")
.
Did the Founders end slavery? No. They included the ability of already-free people to govern themselves, and built in the mechanisms to expand the idea of freedom to others. But on the slavery question, at that moment? They punted. It does not insult their memory to state the fact that they were men of their time, with weaknesses and sins commonplace at the time.
People who think otherwise are caught up in the romanticism of history, and being fooled by it. Or worse, trying to fool people with it.
Which is why I think that Tea Party spokesman kept trying to change the subject because he didn't want to say that stuff on air from his own mouth. He is committed to the revision of history, from the real dirty messy history we own to the clean, shiny utopia that puts campaign donations in his coffers. Another simple answer, to be sure.
Yeah, Matthews is a fiery interviewer who always swings for the fences, but when he connects (and he absolutely did in this case) he knocks that sucker out of the park.
And, yeah, people are riled up about it. And it ain't just "the left."*
They should be. This latest blatant confusion of actual US History with "shit-that-didn't-happen" is becoming more and more the norm. I'm tired of all these political leaders trying to fool America about some utopian past that never happened.
That's why some folks took notice when these clowns up and read a fake version of the US Constitution, as some sort of Congressional pep rally, ignoring things that actually went on in this country.
You can't write the 3/5's Compromise out of the Constitution. You can't write slavery out of American History. Those who try deserve nothing better than our scorn.
Of course, you could simply assume that the 3/5ths Compromise was the Founders' attempt to end slavery......because I guess they voted for it in order to end it...or something.
(* Unless, of course, "the right" draws a circle around themselves and considers anyone who disagrees with them "left wing.")
.
Labels:
History,
Media,
politics,
Tea Party,
United States
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blog Archive
- August (2)
- August (52)
- July (41)
- June (58)
- May (60)
- April (73)
- March (76)
- February (49)
- January (90)
- December (53)
- November (51)
- October (23)
- September (7)
- August (28)
- July (7)
- June (10)
- May (7)
- April (46)
- March (15)
- February (8)
- January (11)
- December (15)
- November (9)
- October (12)
- September (17)
- August (12)
- July (18)
- June (5)
- May (8)
- April (12)
- March (12)
- February (9)
- January (11)
- December (7)
- November (10)
- October (15)
- September (7)
- August (3)
- July (4)
- June (7)
- May (10)
- April (48)
- March (3)
- February (3)
- December (4)
- November (5)
- October (8)
- September (3)
- August (8)
- July (3)
- June (7)
- May (8)
- April (6)
- March (5)
- February (8)
- January (10)
- December (15)
- November (18)
- October (10)
- September (7)
- August (8)
- July (8)
- June (15)
- May (11)
- April (4)
- March (10)
- February (3)
- January (8)
- December (21)
- November (20)
- October (20)
- September (15)
- August (26)
- July (32)