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 left-wing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label left-wing. Show all posts
More Reality With That?
There are still a lot of folks who aren unwilling to accept the reality presented by the loss of the Wisconsin recall effort. I know it is a lot of reality to accept, and it isn't the reality that was thought to exist before the polls closed. But you can take your medicine now and start figuring out how to do things differently, or you can hold fast and keep losing.
Here are six things the Wisconsin votes showed us, the most important of which is that unions, under their current SOP, are finished as a major political force in this country.
As I've been telling people, union-busting, defund public education Republicans hold the government of Wisconsin. They took them in general elections, and survived a mulligan set of special recall elections in which the full force of union political power and money was brought to bear. Again, in Wisconsin.
You don't get more game-set-match than that.
Time to reinvent the wheel.
(HT: Andrew Sullivan)
.
Here are six things the Wisconsin votes showed us, the most important of which is that unions, under their current SOP, are finished as a major political force in this country.
As I've been telling people, union-busting, defund public education Republicans hold the government of Wisconsin. They took them in general elections, and survived a mulligan set of special recall elections in which the full force of union political power and money was brought to bear. Again, in Wisconsin.
You don't get more game-set-match than that.
Time to reinvent the wheel.
(HT: Andrew Sullivan)
.
Another Left-Wing Narrative
"Poor and Working People make up one politically homogeneous demographic." Another can be added to this: "The Democratic Party represents poor and working people."
Right-wing narratives are easy to spot, and are marketed better. All you have to do is listen to a Republican, a Tea Partier, or Fox News for five minutes, and you'll hear no less than three repetitions of some assumed and politically marketed false choice or oversimplification sold with all the truth of accepted common wisdom.
On the left, they're a little more difficult to spot. One reason is because "the left" is really a loose, bickering coalition of competing interests that can hardly agree on any issue. They usually have to cut deals to achieve policy goals, and can't often get everything they want at once because so many varied stakeholders have to be in on the deal. That's one structural reason why the right-wing is usually the group setting the terms of every political conversation.
Luckily, every once in a while, I'm reminded that a few overarching left-wing narratives do exist that tie a huge majority of "the left" together. In this case, it is a narrative often used in dismay or disgruntlement by someone on the left, who is frustrated that politics are hard, and that the Democratic, Liberal, and Progressive coalition that makes up "the left" must usually factor into their governing philosophies the political priorities of the Libertarian, Conservative, Tea Party, and Republican coalition that makes up "the right."
This is especially true when "the right" has some sort of political power or capital that they are willing to cash in to get policy concessions from "the left." Such policy concessions are not seen as a necessary part of the governing process, they are considered wholesale surrender of all progressive political priorities everywhere and for all time, that will throw us immediately back into the 3rd World poverty and vassalism of the Dark Ages.
Since the Democratic Party so obviously has broken with the Liberals and Progressives in their coalition, the only answer is a third party that really represents poor and working people.
Just like the Tea Party is waiting on a 3rd party ready to represent the wishes of Real Americans (tm).
.
Right-wing narratives are easy to spot, and are marketed better. All you have to do is listen to a Republican, a Tea Partier, or Fox News for five minutes, and you'll hear no less than three repetitions of some assumed and politically marketed false choice or oversimplification sold with all the truth of accepted common wisdom.
On the left, they're a little more difficult to spot. One reason is because "the left" is really a loose, bickering coalition of competing interests that can hardly agree on any issue. They usually have to cut deals to achieve policy goals, and can't often get everything they want at once because so many varied stakeholders have to be in on the deal. That's one structural reason why the right-wing is usually the group setting the terms of every political conversation.
Luckily, every once in a while, I'm reminded that a few overarching left-wing narratives do exist that tie a huge majority of "the left" together. In this case, it is a narrative often used in dismay or disgruntlement by someone on the left, who is frustrated that politics are hard, and that the Democratic, Liberal, and Progressive coalition that makes up "the left" must usually factor into their governing philosophies the political priorities of the Libertarian, Conservative, Tea Party, and Republican coalition that makes up "the right."
This is especially true when "the right" has some sort of political power or capital that they are willing to cash in to get policy concessions from "the left." Such policy concessions are not seen as a necessary part of the governing process, they are considered wholesale surrender of all progressive political priorities everywhere and for all time, that will throw us immediately back into the 3rd World poverty and vassalism of the Dark Ages.
Since the Democratic Party so obviously has broken with the Liberals and Progressives in their coalition, the only answer is a third party that really represents poor and working people.
Just like the Tea Party is waiting on a 3rd party ready to represent the wishes of Real Americans (tm).
.
Labels:
Democrats,
left-wing,
narratives,
Obama,
politics,
President,
we really suck at this
Historic Truths
Right now, a bunch of Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives are whining loudly about the Debt Deal, a political battle they lost to a group of opponents whose every policy and political priority was exposed as either a failure or a fraud between 2000 and 2008, and from 2008 to 2010. So, of course, the most important thing they want to do today is remind people about how terrible they are at politics, and expect people to reelect them so they can continue losing to occupants from the clown car.
The excuses are plentiful, but the "American people are just a bunch of racist, ignorant, Bible-thumping rednecks biding their time until the South Rises Ag'in" train is never late. (HT: Jeffrey) Yeah, I know that article makes a lot of very good points, but the macro topic is the old DLP abdication of political agency at the hands of Americans who "just don't get it."
The article discusses symptoms while ignoring the actual illness. Yes, the far right will never accept policy victories delivered to them from Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives any more than from Centrists or Pragmatists. To those true believers, anyone to their left is a baby-killing, terrorist-sympathizing, America-hating, Godless, Kenyan anti-colonialist, fascist, communist, Marxist, homosexual-agenda-following illegitimate, and no amount of giving them what they want is going to change their mind. Seriously, everyone to their left could vote unanimously for their entire platform tomorrow, and we'd still be trying to destroy America in their eyes.
That is a fundamentally ridiculous set of beliefs for a party to hold, and they strain the bounds of credibility. So what is the larger illness that keeps the Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives from winning political victories against these individuals? Very easily stated: the right wing chooses what political issue to fight over, makes an issue out of it, makes a bunch of stuff up about it and then dares members of the DLP to address their make believe claims and come and knock them off their hill. That is not a winning proposition, because you can't meet crazy with crazy. The right knows how the DLP is going to respond before the DLP even knows what they're going to be talking about. The DLP responds by repeating right-wing talking points, disputing right-wing talking points, and generally giving more credibility and attention to right wing talking points than they are due.
Here's the rub: they sacrifice their own momentum to do so. If we're discussing right-wing issues, we are not discussing progress-prone issues. By the time the right has won a political battle, like the Debt Deal, the DLP's only recourse is to try and figure out what is to blame. The blame usually lands on the people in the "red states" who are "voting against their personal interests" because they are "dumb." That way, anyone who was even considering giving ear to DLP priorities is turned off or written off. Nowhere do I see critiques of DLP's own political marketing strategois.
As a Southern Liberal who has watched the professional political class hand the South over to the GOP, the Tea Party, and the Fire-Eaters Born Anew, this drives me crazy.
For example, there is a way the DLP could spool up a huge progress-prone political campaign right this instant that reminds people that the right wing has zero credibility and is in fact attempting to re-write American history to replace it with bullshit, reminds people the progress our nation has made when it comes to our social justice history - advances owed to unabashed small-l liberalism, comes down on the side of family values, legitimizes African-Americans as part of the American society, and exposes the mythology of the "good ole days" as nothing more than unvarnished feudalism that we are happy to be rid of. And it teaches a little bit about real American history and how our nation has overcome nearly insurmountable obstacles in the past to become a better, more exceptional place. Not only is that something we should all be very proud of, it celebrates America with regard to this nation's unique story.
I am, of course, discussing the Antebellum Myth About Slave Families and the Right Wingers Who Tell Such Lies to the American People. Every Democrat, every Liberal, every Progressive should be on the news right now talking about this issue.
Stop whining about losing the Debt Deal politics, start talking real American values, start pointing out the foes to those values, and start winning the next round of Debt Deal politics. That's how this stuff works, y'all.
.
The excuses are plentiful, but the "American people are just a bunch of racist, ignorant, Bible-thumping rednecks biding their time until the South Rises Ag'in" train is never late. (HT: Jeffrey) Yeah, I know that article makes a lot of very good points, but the macro topic is the old DLP abdication of political agency at the hands of Americans who "just don't get it."
The article discusses symptoms while ignoring the actual illness. Yes, the far right will never accept policy victories delivered to them from Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives any more than from Centrists or Pragmatists. To those true believers, anyone to their left is a baby-killing, terrorist-sympathizing, America-hating, Godless, Kenyan anti-colonialist, fascist, communist, Marxist, homosexual-agenda-following illegitimate, and no amount of giving them what they want is going to change their mind. Seriously, everyone to their left could vote unanimously for their entire platform tomorrow, and we'd still be trying to destroy America in their eyes.
That is a fundamentally ridiculous set of beliefs for a party to hold, and they strain the bounds of credibility. So what is the larger illness that keeps the Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives from winning political victories against these individuals? Very easily stated: the right wing chooses what political issue to fight over, makes an issue out of it, makes a bunch of stuff up about it and then dares members of the DLP to address their make believe claims and come and knock them off their hill. That is not a winning proposition, because you can't meet crazy with crazy. The right knows how the DLP is going to respond before the DLP even knows what they're going to be talking about. The DLP responds by repeating right-wing talking points, disputing right-wing talking points, and generally giving more credibility and attention to right wing talking points than they are due.
Here's the rub: they sacrifice their own momentum to do so. If we're discussing right-wing issues, we are not discussing progress-prone issues. By the time the right has won a political battle, like the Debt Deal, the DLP's only recourse is to try and figure out what is to blame. The blame usually lands on the people in the "red states" who are "voting against their personal interests" because they are "dumb." That way, anyone who was even considering giving ear to DLP priorities is turned off or written off. Nowhere do I see critiques of DLP's own political marketing strategois.
As a Southern Liberal who has watched the professional political class hand the South over to the GOP, the Tea Party, and the Fire-Eaters Born Anew, this drives me crazy.
For example, there is a way the DLP could spool up a huge progress-prone political campaign right this instant that reminds people that the right wing has zero credibility and is in fact attempting to re-write American history to replace it with bullshit, reminds people the progress our nation has made when it comes to our social justice history - advances owed to unabashed small-l liberalism, comes down on the side of family values, legitimizes African-Americans as part of the American society, and exposes the mythology of the "good ole days" as nothing more than unvarnished feudalism that we are happy to be rid of. And it teaches a little bit about real American history and how our nation has overcome nearly insurmountable obstacles in the past to become a better, more exceptional place. Not only is that something we should all be very proud of, it celebrates America with regard to this nation's unique story.
I am, of course, discussing the Antebellum Myth About Slave Families and the Right Wingers Who Tell Such Lies to the American People. Every Democrat, every Liberal, every Progressive should be on the news right now talking about this issue.
Stop whining about losing the Debt Deal politics, start talking real American values, start pointing out the foes to those values, and start winning the next round of Debt Deal politics. That's how this stuff works, y'all.
.
Labels:
civil rights,
History,
left-wing,
Media,
narratives,
politics,
right wing,
South,
we really suck at this
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.
.
Revisionism Kills
Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast explains one right-wing tactic that's importance always seems to escape the progressives, liberals and Democrats: the revisionism complete and utter re-engineering of common American History.
Why is acceptance of a common history important? I'll use the example of the libertarian fantasies surrounding the Civil Rights Act.
It isn't just the left that gets snowed by this sort of thing. When Rand Paul got into a mess about the Civil Rights Act, a lot of older conservatives I spoke to (like my Dad) thought he was a kook who would never win that election. There was simply a refusal on their part to believe me when I told them that, far from losing that election, by getting involved in that "controversey" he had ensured his evenutal win. When the media got involved and talked about those views for a few days, they must have been shocked to find out how uncontroversial many viewers found Paul's position. They kept trying to play Maddow's gotcha moment into something beyond the left wing internets. They failed. They failed badly. And they've never seemed to understand why.
Now Paul's father Ron has been able to discuss his position about the law at length with hardly a notice, and every time this issue is brought up it is discussed in terms of government intrusion into business.
In the larger context, a fair number of voters start to question whether government intervention was necessary at all in the decisions of private business owners, based on the incredible historical inaccuracy that private businesses would have integrated peacefully without being coerced by government intrusion or the howling mad historical "theory" that private businesses would have integrated peacefully if governments hadn't specifically required them to discriminate.
Make no mistake, this demonstrates a stunning, jaw-dropping ignorance of historical racial, legal, cultural, and economic conditions that dominated this country from British colonization to around the Reagan administration. We still find pockets of that cancerous economic discrimination, and we are damn sure dealing with the economic, cultural, and social legacy of that discrimination.
Part of it is the understandable forward movement of history - the further you get away from a thing, the less present it is in the national conciousness. Part of it is the shame and rationalization of the mainstream population that benefited from the old status quo; everyone wants to fondly remember the "good ole days" when life was simpler and safer and more stable. But you cannot underestimate the effect blatant historical reengineering has on the national conciousness when combined with those preceeding two factors.
Of course, folks on the left tend to recieve the wrong signals from this type of thing and try to hang the "racist" tag around the necks of anyone who would challenge the CRA. That's because folks on the left accept history as a given, tend to think everyone else does as well, and think they don't need to reiterate why the CRA was needed in the first place because of that. Doing so concedes the historical argument to CRA opponents, allowing the popular narrative to completely dismiss the devastating effect of American racial, economic, cultural, legal conditions in the United States, especially post-Reconstruction.
A lot of folks on the left don't get that these people aren't making racial arguments. Instead, they are undermining the history and calling into question the need to discuss racial issues at all. When the liberals take the bait and go after them on race, they walk right into the "crying-racism" punch because the audience isn't primed to discuss race on those terms. That such factors as racial economics could be eliminated from a conversation about the Civil Rights Act is a mere demonstration of how effective it is to challenge common American history, and cut it off at the knees. Remove or confuse the context, and your policy opponents simply cannot contribute. This, of course, fulfills a completely seperate right-wing narrative that liberals are constantly "playing the race card."
The sports analogy to this would be that CRA defenders on the left constantly show up to play a ice hockey game in soccer uniforms and cleats. Then they spend the game wondering why it is so cold in here; why they are unable to move around the field of play or score goals by kicking the puck; and why the referees won't card their opponents for checking them into the walls.
When the right turns to historical reeingineering, the left needs to get into that game. In many cases, the left already won those arguments, and the right is simply inviting them to revisit those victories. When it comes to the CRA, and "libertarians" start utopianizing their fantastic "government coercion of business" theory of racial economics, here's what liberals need to do:
1. Government was coercive, but it wasn't business on the recieving end. Cue up film of Birminham 1963 when Bull Connor turned loose the dogs and fire hoses on black children. Follow that with film and radio from White Citizen's Councils, the "business" and "white collar" wing of the KKK.
2. Government was only following the will of the voting majority. Cue up the film of those segregationist governors leading their people in rallies. Follow that with images of the white race riots that burned over the South in the 1960's.
3. Show how businesses reacted to the thought of integration. White's Only. Colored entrances. Sharecropping. Businesses closing once Jim Crow laws failed.
4. Show how necessary federal government intervention was to tear down Jim Crow. Little Rock. Ole Miss. Alabama. Truman's decisions. Eisenhower's decisions. LBJ's decisions. Kennedy's speeches.
All that needs to be done is to dust off some old footage and replay the old news feeds. Again. And Again. And Again. And Again. Retake history, don't assume people accept it.
.
The standard, non-crazy history we’ve all been taught is being contested every day by Beck and others. Next time you’re on a long-ish drive, flip over to the AM dial and listen to any of the several Christian news-talk stations you’ll find. You will see what I mean. And I’m not talking about arguably controversial liberal assertions about history—Thomas Scopes was a great man, say, or Charles Beard was dead-on about the Constitution. I’m talking about stuff in the grade-school textbooks. The Civil War was caused largely by slavery? Lib propaganda, all of it.
Why is acceptance of a common history important? I'll use the example of the libertarian fantasies surrounding the Civil Rights Act.
It isn't just the left that gets snowed by this sort of thing. When Rand Paul got into a mess about the Civil Rights Act, a lot of older conservatives I spoke to (like my Dad) thought he was a kook who would never win that election. There was simply a refusal on their part to believe me when I told them that, far from losing that election, by getting involved in that "controversey" he had ensured his evenutal win. When the media got involved and talked about those views for a few days, they must have been shocked to find out how uncontroversial many viewers found Paul's position. They kept trying to play Maddow's gotcha moment into something beyond the left wing internets. They failed. They failed badly. And they've never seemed to understand why.
Now Paul's father Ron has been able to discuss his position about the law at length with hardly a notice, and every time this issue is brought up it is discussed in terms of government intrusion into business.
In the larger context, a fair number of voters start to question whether government intervention was necessary at all in the decisions of private business owners, based on the incredible historical inaccuracy that private businesses would have integrated peacefully without being coerced by government intrusion or the howling mad historical "theory" that private businesses would have integrated peacefully if governments hadn't specifically required them to discriminate.
Make no mistake, this demonstrates a stunning, jaw-dropping ignorance of historical racial, legal, cultural, and economic conditions that dominated this country from British colonization to around the Reagan administration. We still find pockets of that cancerous economic discrimination, and we are damn sure dealing with the economic, cultural, and social legacy of that discrimination.
Part of it is the understandable forward movement of history - the further you get away from a thing, the less present it is in the national conciousness. Part of it is the shame and rationalization of the mainstream population that benefited from the old status quo; everyone wants to fondly remember the "good ole days" when life was simpler and safer and more stable. But you cannot underestimate the effect blatant historical reengineering has on the national conciousness when combined with those preceeding two factors.
Of course, folks on the left tend to recieve the wrong signals from this type of thing and try to hang the "racist" tag around the necks of anyone who would challenge the CRA. That's because folks on the left accept history as a given, tend to think everyone else does as well, and think they don't need to reiterate why the CRA was needed in the first place because of that. Doing so concedes the historical argument to CRA opponents, allowing the popular narrative to completely dismiss the devastating effect of American racial, economic, cultural, legal conditions in the United States, especially post-Reconstruction.
A lot of folks on the left don't get that these people aren't making racial arguments. Instead, they are undermining the history and calling into question the need to discuss racial issues at all. When the liberals take the bait and go after them on race, they walk right into the "crying-racism" punch because the audience isn't primed to discuss race on those terms. That such factors as racial economics could be eliminated from a conversation about the Civil Rights Act is a mere demonstration of how effective it is to challenge common American history, and cut it off at the knees. Remove or confuse the context, and your policy opponents simply cannot contribute. This, of course, fulfills a completely seperate right-wing narrative that liberals are constantly "playing the race card."
The sports analogy to this would be that CRA defenders on the left constantly show up to play a ice hockey game in soccer uniforms and cleats. Then they spend the game wondering why it is so cold in here; why they are unable to move around the field of play or score goals by kicking the puck; and why the referees won't card their opponents for checking them into the walls.
When the right turns to historical reeingineering, the left needs to get into that game. In many cases, the left already won those arguments, and the right is simply inviting them to revisit those victories. When it comes to the CRA, and "libertarians" start utopianizing their fantastic "government coercion of business" theory of racial economics, here's what liberals need to do:
1. Government was coercive, but it wasn't business on the recieving end. Cue up film of Birminham 1963 when Bull Connor turned loose the dogs and fire hoses on black children. Follow that with film and radio from White Citizen's Councils, the "business" and "white collar" wing of the KKK.
2. Government was only following the will of the voting majority. Cue up the film of those segregationist governors leading their people in rallies. Follow that with images of the white race riots that burned over the South in the 1960's.
3. Show how businesses reacted to the thought of integration. White's Only. Colored entrances. Sharecropping. Businesses closing once Jim Crow laws failed.
4. Show how necessary federal government intervention was to tear down Jim Crow. Little Rock. Ole Miss. Alabama. Truman's decisions. Eisenhower's decisions. LBJ's decisions. Kennedy's speeches.
All that needs to be done is to dust off some old footage and replay the old news feeds. Again. And Again. And Again. And Again. Retake history, don't assume people accept it.
.
Labels:
civil rights,
History,
left-wing,
Media,
narratives,
right wing
The Intervention
Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone is absolutely right to bring up the flip-flop of pro-war right wingers, as they're now turning on international interventions they couldn't get enough of when a Republican was in the White House. Though be assured, now that President Obama has declared that Americans will be drawing down troops in Afganistan, even the newly reenergized isolationist wing of the right will hammer him on tactics as if the tactics of the last 10 years didn't exist.
But this is nothing new. The GOP is able to flip-flop at will over American wars without any reasonable accountability because they are so good at marketing their changing position. Either way they go, they are "on the side of Americans," at least on TV or radio.
They loved Iraq War I, but were split on Somalia before they were against it. The GOP almost completely bailed on the incredibly successful US military involvement in the Balkans, which American political culture rarely references. With that one, they questioned every item of American priority from why we were getting involved to the open ended mission to how much it would cost the US taxpayer. At one point, there was even legislation: the House passed a bill not to fund the Balkans operation, while in the Senate
Does that sound like GOP behavior from the last decade? What would have been said about actions like that if Democrats had been the ones taking them? Luckily, we have that answer, and it is maddening to critics and opponents of the Iraq war, the Afganistan engagement, and the whole partisan tone of war politics during the Bush II years. It didn't matter if a position was right or wrong, supportive or non-supportive, or based on tactics alone: if it wasn't part of the GOP talking points, it was WRONG, not only WRONG but AMERICAN-SOLDIER-HATING, FLAG BURNING, TRAITORS SHOULD BE BURNED AT THE STAKE wrong, and that's how every public debate was framed. Taibbi sums up these feelings well:
Bill O'Reilly drew a direct line in response to Dick Durbin's equally ridiculous hyperbole (the Democrats and the left, never able to miss an opportunity to make a right-winger's point for them, only encouraged the bad behavior). Or we were led to believe that actually examining the war was akin to surrender. And all this went on for years, every day, every hour on Fox News and Talk Radio.
It even continued into the Obama Presidency, with right-wingers, hawks, and Republicans breathlessly anticipating American military surrender or defeat, now that a Democratic President was in the White House.
Then a funny thing happened. Obama called the right-wing bluff and went all in with the Cheney/McChrystal strategy. Y'all want to keep going in Afganistan? Let's really spool things up there and see what you do.
From a purely tactical standpoint, it still wasn't enough. Not nearly. We simply don't have the manpower or materiel or international support or national popular committment to "win" in Afganistan the way many Americans envision "winning" a war. And that cultural tactical confusion is what's been used by partisan politicians since the first troops showed up there.
But if you're trying to find a political solution to end the war - and I'm talking about here in the United States, not in Afganistan - you have to do some things that change the national conversation on a fundamental level. The President did the only thing he could plausably do considering the political climate: bulk up the forces with as few troops as possible to end this thing as close to our terms and cultural needs as possible. Work away from a goal to acheive a goal. Which is what is happening.
Though, thanks to Bush's strategic blunders of not sending adequate manpower or materiel at the onset, and the recent success against Osama Bin Laden personally, popular opinion has turned to ending the wars sooner rather than later. A financial crisis at home is driving home the point. And now GOP Presidential candidates are starting to use the machinery of right-wing marketing to advocate ending the war and bringing the troops home.
It is hard to call a political opponent out for "surrendering" when your stated positions advocate an even quicker exit - an exit that for a decade has been demonized by the right - when said political opponent is delivering not only on his campaign promises but yours. This gives Obama tremendous political capital in the face of defense contractor interests and neoconservatives that the left was simply unable or unwilling to manufacture on their own accord for the past decade. The national narrative has turned from "when will the Democrats make our brave troops surrender" to "how fast can we bring our brave troops home?"
In 2 years, President Obama has reconfigured the terms of the entire national-security discussion. That's something the liberals and progressives and true believers were wholly unable and unprepared to do for the last decade. Working away from a goal to acheive a goal.
Which brings me to the Libya intervention. US involvement is a huge gamble here. The Administration's going at it without Congressional authorization, and our Consitutional law professor President basically throwing that authorization need back into the faces of Republicans in Congress, is confusing. Why would such a deliberate administration act in such ways? Especially when Obama's stated position on Executive authority is so well known.
Of course, there are bipartisan internationalist members of the US Senate working to acquire Congressional authorization for the Libya action, even as isolationist Republican and anti-war Democratic members of the US House work to defund it (the old Balkan War trick).
This seems to be the par-for-the-course behavior. Isolationists and anti-war folks will get their voices heard, but the majority will back the Administration and the Libya operation will continue. But this President is despised among the Tea Party wing, who appear unafraid to salt the earth to keep the President in check. Add to that the rage of the anti-warrriors of the Democratic left, and you've got a good sized chunk of the Congress. Even if they aren't successful at defunding the Libya operation, they're going to want revenge for Obama's marginalization of Congress.
This became clear to me when I read the quote from Senator John McCain regarding how such behavior affected the Bush administration, and how it could affect future GOP Presidents.
Think about this politically: Obama has stated a desire for war powers to require more robust Presidential approval. Many Republicans oppose him to the point of distraction. The President could have gone to Congress for the Libya operation (especially when all the GOP folks currently complaining were calling on him to intervene) and recieved Congressional authorization in a heartbeat.
He chose to pick a fight with this Congress over the Executive powers to use the military, in the most in-your-face way possible. If nothing legislatively happens, the status quo remains.
But what if the anti-Obama GOP team up with the anti-war Democrats to propose legislation specifically limiting a President's authority to engage in military adventures? What if they amend the War Powers Act to be more specific, and more in tune with Obama's stated Constitutional beliefs?
That means this President could topple Quadaffi WHILE creating political conditions necessary to legislatively restrain a President's future ability to get the nation into wars BY engaging in a conflict with minimal exposure and cost to American troops by emboldening our NATO allies. This could be some Michael Corleone level plans.
Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. But this President has already demonstrated a willingness to work away from a goal to acheive a goal, and an ability to allow American popular opinion to shift of its own accord. We'll see if anything really comes from this, but it sure does make for interesting viewing.
Update: The votes are in, and an big majority of Congress is standing up to the President on Libya. They're even entertaining a notion later that will "defund" American operations, except for search and rescue, intelligence gathering, refueling, and logistical operations. You know, the kind of operations that pretty much define the current US involvement in Libya.
So the mission continues as planned. Anti-Obama Republicans and anti-war Democrats are now working together against American adventurism abroad. Wonder what comes next?
.
But this is nothing new. The GOP is able to flip-flop at will over American wars without any reasonable accountability because they are so good at marketing their changing position. Either way they go, they are "on the side of Americans," at least on TV or radio.
They loved Iraq War I, but were split on Somalia before they were against it. The GOP almost completely bailed on the incredibly successful US military involvement in the Balkans, which American political culture rarely references. With that one, they questioned every item of American priority from why we were getting involved to the open ended mission to how much it would cost the US taxpayer. At one point, there was even legislation: the House passed a bill not to fund the Balkans operation, while in the Senate
Another resolution sponsored by a group of Republicans led by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas would support the troops but not the President's decision to send them.
Does that sound like GOP behavior from the last decade? What would have been said about actions like that if Democrats had been the ones taking them? Luckily, we have that answer, and it is maddening to critics and opponents of the Iraq war, the Afganistan engagement, and the whole partisan tone of war politics during the Bush II years. It didn't matter if a position was right or wrong, supportive or non-supportive, or based on tactics alone: if it wasn't part of the GOP talking points, it was WRONG, not only WRONG but AMERICAN-SOLDIER-HATING, FLAG BURNING, TRAITORS SHOULD BE BURNED AT THE STAKE wrong, and that's how every public debate was framed. Taibbi sums up these feelings well:
Six or seven or eight years ago, I seem to remember, anyone who even hinted that not using military force to resolve any foreign policy dispute, no matter how trivial or how imaginary the justification, was to be considered a traitor.
Bill O'Reilly drew a direct line in response to Dick Durbin's equally ridiculous hyperbole (the Democrats and the left, never able to miss an opportunity to make a right-winger's point for them, only encouraged the bad behavior). Or we were led to believe that actually examining the war was akin to surrender. And all this went on for years, every day, every hour on Fox News and Talk Radio.
It even continued into the Obama Presidency, with right-wingers, hawks, and Republicans breathlessly anticipating American military surrender or defeat, now that a Democratic President was in the White House.
Then a funny thing happened. Obama called the right-wing bluff and went all in with the Cheney/McChrystal strategy. Y'all want to keep going in Afganistan? Let's really spool things up there and see what you do.
From a purely tactical standpoint, it still wasn't enough. Not nearly. We simply don't have the manpower or materiel or international support or national popular committment to "win" in Afganistan the way many Americans envision "winning" a war. And that cultural tactical confusion is what's been used by partisan politicians since the first troops showed up there.
But if you're trying to find a political solution to end the war - and I'm talking about here in the United States, not in Afganistan - you have to do some things that change the national conversation on a fundamental level. The President did the only thing he could plausably do considering the political climate: bulk up the forces with as few troops as possible to end this thing as close to our terms and cultural needs as possible. Work away from a goal to acheive a goal. Which is what is happening.
Though, thanks to Bush's strategic blunders of not sending adequate manpower or materiel at the onset, and the recent success against Osama Bin Laden personally, popular opinion has turned to ending the wars sooner rather than later. A financial crisis at home is driving home the point. And now GOP Presidential candidates are starting to use the machinery of right-wing marketing to advocate ending the war and bringing the troops home.
It is hard to call a political opponent out for "surrendering" when your stated positions advocate an even quicker exit - an exit that for a decade has been demonized by the right - when said political opponent is delivering not only on his campaign promises but yours. This gives Obama tremendous political capital in the face of defense contractor interests and neoconservatives that the left was simply unable or unwilling to manufacture on their own accord for the past decade. The national narrative has turned from "when will the Democrats make our brave troops surrender" to "how fast can we bring our brave troops home?"
In 2 years, President Obama has reconfigured the terms of the entire national-security discussion. That's something the liberals and progressives and true believers were wholly unable and unprepared to do for the last decade. Working away from a goal to acheive a goal.
Which brings me to the Libya intervention. US involvement is a huge gamble here. The Administration's going at it without Congressional authorization, and our Consitutional law professor President basically throwing that authorization need back into the faces of Republicans in Congress, is confusing. Why would such a deliberate administration act in such ways? Especially when Obama's stated position on Executive authority is so well known.
The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
Of course, there are bipartisan internationalist members of the US Senate working to acquire Congressional authorization for the Libya action, even as isolationist Republican and anti-war Democratic members of the US House work to defund it (the old Balkan War trick).
This seems to be the par-for-the-course behavior. Isolationists and anti-war folks will get their voices heard, but the majority will back the Administration and the Libya operation will continue. But this President is despised among the Tea Party wing, who appear unafraid to salt the earth to keep the President in check. Add to that the rage of the anti-warrriors of the Democratic left, and you've got a good sized chunk of the Congress. Even if they aren't successful at defunding the Libya operation, they're going to want revenge for Obama's marginalization of Congress.
This became clear to me when I read the quote from Senator John McCain regarding how such behavior affected the Bush administration, and how it could affect future GOP Presidents.
"We were right to condemn this behavior then, and we would be wrong to practice it now ourselves, simply because a leader of the opposite party occupies the White House," he said. "Someday, a Republican will again occupy the White House, and the President may need to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities.
"So if my Republican colleagues are indifferent to how their actions would affect this President, I would urge them to think seriously about how a vote to cut off funding for this military operation could come back to haunt a future President when the shoe is on the other foot," he continued.
Think about this politically: Obama has stated a desire for war powers to require more robust Presidential approval. Many Republicans oppose him to the point of distraction. The President could have gone to Congress for the Libya operation (especially when all the GOP folks currently complaining were calling on him to intervene) and recieved Congressional authorization in a heartbeat.
He chose to pick a fight with this Congress over the Executive powers to use the military, in the most in-your-face way possible. If nothing legislatively happens, the status quo remains.
But what if the anti-Obama GOP team up with the anti-war Democrats to propose legislation specifically limiting a President's authority to engage in military adventures? What if they amend the War Powers Act to be more specific, and more in tune with Obama's stated Constitutional beliefs?
That means this President could topple Quadaffi WHILE creating political conditions necessary to legislatively restrain a President's future ability to get the nation into wars BY engaging in a conflict with minimal exposure and cost to American troops by emboldening our NATO allies. This could be some Michael Corleone level plans.
Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. But this President has already demonstrated a willingness to work away from a goal to acheive a goal, and an ability to allow American popular opinion to shift of its own accord. We'll see if anything really comes from this, but it sure does make for interesting viewing.
Update: The votes are in, and an big majority of Congress is standing up to the President on Libya. They're even entertaining a notion later that will "defund" American operations, except for search and rescue, intelligence gathering, refueling, and logistical operations. You know, the kind of operations that pretty much define the current US involvement in Libya.
So the mission continues as planned. Anti-Obama Republicans and anti-war Democrats are now working together against American adventurism abroad. Wonder what comes next?
.
Labels:
Afganistan,
History,
Iraq,
left-wing,
Libya,
narratives,
Obama,
politics,
President,
right wing,
the war
Planes of the South
OH NOES! Those Dirty Southerners are TAKIN' URR JOBS!
That explains, in one absurd op-ed, why so many people in this country have such a low opinion of unions. Here's a hint: if you are a pro-organized labor writer, and your purpose is to encourage sympathy for American workers, you don't do that by demonizing other American workers to make your case. And if you intend to make the company look like they're engaged in nefarious dealings, you don't make their free-market case for them in the most free-market major American news daily.
I know it might not seem this way to a big Chicago union lawyer, but we do a few things down South more complex than picking cotton. For example, Kyle Wingfield at the AJC picked apart this ridiculous screed of rhetorical sleight-of-hand, false choices, bald sectionalism, and inaccurate equivalencies. I don't always agree with real conservatives like Wingfield, but he makes some pretty good points in his takedown.
But let's be honest, he could go much, much further. And if he was so inclined, he could go at this from the left or the middle. Here's how:
Boeing is one of the most heavily subsidized corporations in the United States of America. They get billions in tax dollars and tax breaks. Hell, our government sends money overseas in loans so other countries and foreign companies will use those dollars to buy our Boeing products. Then there are the subsidies for the airlines they build these planes for.
I know it isn't helpful to the unions to say this, but the only reason these American workers have jobs at this particular plant doing this particular thing is because the industry they work in is heavily subsidized by tax dollars paid by other American workers - including workers from the South. It damn sure doesn't have anything to do with the skill, work ethic, pay grade, or experience of some American workers at the expense of others.
And that's before you start to consider the state and local subsidies that keep a manufacturing center running. There's a lot of local political connections involved in protecting the facility that currently exists, and there's a lot of local and political connections in developing the facility on the drawing board. The states and cities will be throwing taxpayer dollars at Boeing to keep them around.
Of course, that means every single one of these jobs is vulnerable to political conditions instead of market conditions. If we didn't have so much subsidy, we wouldn't need so many planes. If we don't need so many planes...
So right off the bat, we can see why this is such an important fight to special interests, and why that requires involvement of narratives from the right and the left. Some of the most vicious fights are the ones where localities are feuding over billions in government subsidies. And to protect those subsidies, they'll pull out all manner of completely empty partisan rhetoric. This ain't about "The American Worker" or "The Free Market" at all - and anyone who says so is just whistlin' Dixie.
Yes, I know that stings. Especially to those of you who may have bought in to one narrative or another. But government subsidy dollars find their way into high-priced union lawyers' bank accounts just as easily as they find their way into corporate profits. That's why that whole WSJ op-ed, or any of the pro-orgainzed-labor press on this issue never talked about just how heavily South Carolina will be subsidizing the Boeing plant in Charleston.
That really sticks in my craw, too. Do you know how useful that news would be in exposing a whole lot of Southern Republicans as fiscally fraudulent in their "conservative" rhetoric? But the organized labor interests demand we leave that arrow in the quiver, because bringing it to light may invite comparisons to how heavily Washington State subsidizes their Boeing plants. And Lord help us if anyone asks about national tax subsidies supporting airplane manufacturing and the airline industry! That just might start a conversation about why us taxpayers are subsidizing businesses in the billions while they keep declaring and delivering profits to their shareholders.
As for workers who can manufacture airplanes (no matter what state they call home), they'd be better off, with more secure jobs, working in an industry that is more sustainable economically and doesn't exist solely off the largesse of government subsidies.
I've never done anything as complicated as manufacturing an airplane, but I'm guessing that's a fairly specialized trade that requires some high level of skill. And while they've worked really hard and have earned their money and benefits within the system they had access to - I hate to be the one to bring up reality here - we won't be able to sustain the airplane manufacturing industry at current levels for much longer.
Petroleum costs are only going up. That means costs of jet fuel are only going up, which will make air travel much more expensive. You already see where this is going, but let's finish the trip. While the government will continue to subsidize the airline and airplane manufacturing industry robustly for a while, at some point that will become unsustainable economically and politically. Especially with one group of folks scaring the crap out of citizens about what a bad idea it is for the government to spend money.
Eventually, American culture, transportation, and tax priorities will shift, and it doesn't matter if you live in Washington State or South Carolina, there are going to be a whole lot less airplanes that need to be made, and a whole lot less subsidies to support their manufacture.
Alternately, what will need to be made, by highly skilled workers trained in manufacturing durable items with extremely high standards, are items to support alternative energy, green technology, high-speed rail, and mass transit. Who knows, there are some really nerdy types that want to get us back to dirigibles (and yes, I'm a nerdy type and I think that would be awesome). But all of those things are going to need to be built. The next generation of aircraft utilizing lighter but stronger materials to become as efficient as possible are going to need to be built. And whatever new technologies come along and require fabrication are going to need to be built.
That's a lot of stuff to be built. And the folks who are going to be needed to build it are the folks who are currently building high tech products like the Dreamliners. That's good news for the workers, but bad news for the status quo that unions want to protect. Maybe we could get to building that stuff sooner if we started turning off the subsidy tap that's keeping our economy from innovating.
.
That explains, in one absurd op-ed, why so many people in this country have such a low opinion of unions. Here's a hint: if you are a pro-organized labor writer, and your purpose is to encourage sympathy for American workers, you don't do that by demonizing other American workers to make your case. And if you intend to make the company look like they're engaged in nefarious dealings, you don't make their free-market case for them in the most free-market major American news daily.
I know it might not seem this way to a big Chicago union lawyer, but we do a few things down South more complex than picking cotton. For example, Kyle Wingfield at the AJC picked apart this ridiculous screed of rhetorical sleight-of-hand, false choices, bald sectionalism, and inaccurate equivalencies. I don't always agree with real conservatives like Wingfield, but he makes some pretty good points in his takedown.
But let's be honest, he could go much, much further. And if he was so inclined, he could go at this from the left or the middle. Here's how:
Boeing is one of the most heavily subsidized corporations in the United States of America. They get billions in tax dollars and tax breaks. Hell, our government sends money overseas in loans so other countries and foreign companies will use those dollars to buy our Boeing products. Then there are the subsidies for the airlines they build these planes for.
I know it isn't helpful to the unions to say this, but the only reason these American workers have jobs at this particular plant doing this particular thing is because the industry they work in is heavily subsidized by tax dollars paid by other American workers - including workers from the South. It damn sure doesn't have anything to do with the skill, work ethic, pay grade, or experience of some American workers at the expense of others.
And that's before you start to consider the state and local subsidies that keep a manufacturing center running. There's a lot of local political connections involved in protecting the facility that currently exists, and there's a lot of local and political connections in developing the facility on the drawing board. The states and cities will be throwing taxpayer dollars at Boeing to keep them around.
Of course, that means every single one of these jobs is vulnerable to political conditions instead of market conditions. If we didn't have so much subsidy, we wouldn't need so many planes. If we don't need so many planes...
So right off the bat, we can see why this is such an important fight to special interests, and why that requires involvement of narratives from the right and the left. Some of the most vicious fights are the ones where localities are feuding over billions in government subsidies. And to protect those subsidies, they'll pull out all manner of completely empty partisan rhetoric. This ain't about "The American Worker" or "The Free Market" at all - and anyone who says so is just whistlin' Dixie.
Yes, I know that stings. Especially to those of you who may have bought in to one narrative or another. But government subsidy dollars find their way into high-priced union lawyers' bank accounts just as easily as they find their way into corporate profits. That's why that whole WSJ op-ed, or any of the pro-orgainzed-labor press on this issue never talked about just how heavily South Carolina will be subsidizing the Boeing plant in Charleston.
That really sticks in my craw, too. Do you know how useful that news would be in exposing a whole lot of Southern Republicans as fiscally fraudulent in their "conservative" rhetoric? But the organized labor interests demand we leave that arrow in the quiver, because bringing it to light may invite comparisons to how heavily Washington State subsidizes their Boeing plants. And Lord help us if anyone asks about national tax subsidies supporting airplane manufacturing and the airline industry! That just might start a conversation about why us taxpayers are subsidizing businesses in the billions while they keep declaring and delivering profits to their shareholders.
As for workers who can manufacture airplanes (no matter what state they call home), they'd be better off, with more secure jobs, working in an industry that is more sustainable economically and doesn't exist solely off the largesse of government subsidies.
I've never done anything as complicated as manufacturing an airplane, but I'm guessing that's a fairly specialized trade that requires some high level of skill. And while they've worked really hard and have earned their money and benefits within the system they had access to - I hate to be the one to bring up reality here - we won't be able to sustain the airplane manufacturing industry at current levels for much longer.
Petroleum costs are only going up. That means costs of jet fuel are only going up, which will make air travel much more expensive. You already see where this is going, but let's finish the trip. While the government will continue to subsidize the airline and airplane manufacturing industry robustly for a while, at some point that will become unsustainable economically and politically. Especially with one group of folks scaring the crap out of citizens about what a bad idea it is for the government to spend money.
Eventually, American culture, transportation, and tax priorities will shift, and it doesn't matter if you live in Washington State or South Carolina, there are going to be a whole lot less airplanes that need to be made, and a whole lot less subsidies to support their manufacture.
Alternately, what will need to be made, by highly skilled workers trained in manufacturing durable items with extremely high standards, are items to support alternative energy, green technology, high-speed rail, and mass transit. Who knows, there are some really nerdy types that want to get us back to dirigibles (and yes, I'm a nerdy type and I think that would be awesome). But all of those things are going to need to be built. The next generation of aircraft utilizing lighter but stronger materials to become as efficient as possible are going to need to be built. And whatever new technologies come along and require fabrication are going to need to be built.
That's a lot of stuff to be built. And the folks who are going to be needed to build it are the folks who are currently building high tech products like the Dreamliners. That's good news for the workers, but bad news for the status quo that unions want to protect. Maybe we could get to building that stuff sooner if we started turning off the subsidy tap that's keeping our economy from innovating.
.
Disaster Politics
Unsurprisingly, there are a few individuals (mostly website comment trolls) who consider themselves on "the left," who are taking the opportunity of the Tornado disasters and Mississippi River flooding to oversimplify the political beliefs of Southerners and write us all off as Tea Partiers demanding smaller government. By virtue of our assumed collective hatred for TEH SOCIALIZMS of disaster recovery, they think we should live our values now and not ask for any Federal aid. Viewing the South through such a lens, they then descend into "blame the victim" territory so ably applied by their political rivals.
Beyond the fact that their finger-wagging is an absolute failure of narrative building (at which they simply are not prepared to compete with the right), they end up running into other folks on "the left" who despise the concepts of collective blame, political marketing, and false equivalence.
Folks with more crediblity are ready to stop them in their tracks:
Thanks for that.
It also got me thinking. Most importantly, disasters don't check your voter registration before they come crashing through the door. Anyone, anywhere. There but for the Grace of God go I.
But there are apparently plenty of folks who do concern themselves with the voting patterns of Southerners as it relates to the current state of disaster. Not that it should matter, but look at this map alongside the one of where flooding is the worst. Look at the 2008 election returns in Tuscaloosa and Jefferson Counties in Alabama.
Which way did the disaster victims vote, again? And, again, why does it matter?
I hesitate to bring that up. The chorus of "why do you live by a river" is already warming up in the national narrative, and I'm sure there are plenty of right wing elements who are going to use the "handouts" to flood victims and anecdotes of government ineffectiveness in their own states in order to raise some political capital for the next election. I'd expect the same demagougery from Democratic or "liberal" elements as well. Same as it ever was.
.
Beyond the fact that their finger-wagging is an absolute failure of narrative building (at which they simply are not prepared to compete with the right), they end up running into other folks on "the left" who despise the concepts of collective blame, political marketing, and false equivalence.
Folks with more crediblity are ready to stop them in their tracks:
Hating on the South in the comments for voting Republican will get you banned, permanently. I'm in no mood.
Thanks for that.
It also got me thinking. Most importantly, disasters don't check your voter registration before they come crashing through the door. Anyone, anywhere. There but for the Grace of God go I.
But there are apparently plenty of folks who do concern themselves with the voting patterns of Southerners as it relates to the current state of disaster. Not that it should matter, but look at this map alongside the one of where flooding is the worst. Look at the 2008 election returns in Tuscaloosa and Jefferson Counties in Alabama.
Which way did the disaster victims vote, again? And, again, why does it matter?
I hesitate to bring that up. The chorus of "why do you live by a river" is already warming up in the national narrative, and I'm sure there are plenty of right wing elements who are going to use the "handouts" to flood victims and anecdotes of government ineffectiveness in their own states in order to raise some political capital for the next election. I'd expect the same demagougery from Democratic or "liberal" elements as well. Same as it ever was.
.
Labels:
Arkansas,
infrastructure,
left-wing,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,
Missouri,
narratives,
right wing,
United States
Cadaverism
Last night, it took the internet about 40 seconds to begin (jokingly) demanding to see OBL's "long form death certificate."
Of course, this only took about 12 hours to stop being a joke. Well, technically a joke.
SAWB's favorite unhinged leftist, Cindy Sheehan, chimes in to demand people "put away their flags and think."
She'll be teaming up with that paragon of right-wing credibility, Andrew Breitbart. But I'm sure all the national news organizations won't question it when he releases exclusive video of OBL in a pimp costume hiding out at ACORN world headquarters.
(HT: Andrew Sullivan)
.
Of course, this only took about 12 hours to stop being a joke. Well, technically a joke.
SAWB's favorite unhinged leftist, Cindy Sheehan, chimes in to demand people "put away their flags and think."
She'll be teaming up with that paragon of right-wing credibility, Andrew Breitbart. But I'm sure all the national news organizations won't question it when he releases exclusive video of OBL in a pimp costume hiding out at ACORN world headquarters.
(HT: Andrew Sullivan)
.
Labels:
left-wing,
right wing,
War on Terror,
WTF
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
The Unions Forever?
I don't subscribe to that apparent left-wing narrative that "all unions are always good always." Unions, like any large human organization, are just as capable of serious and fatal flaws as they are to obsolecence.
But the "union thuggery" narrative used so often by the far-right wing, despite contrary evidence, is a national one. It further erodes the credibility of real conservatives who associate with madness like this and refreshes in my mind what is at stake in Madison.
Don't fool yourself, this is all about political power, political marketing and credibility. Ending the right to collectively bargain has very little to do with actually balancing a budget. Because budgets have to do with revenues and expenditures; you don't balance those two things by significantly cutting revenues while reducing tiny amounts of expenditures and granting massive subsidies or giveaways to political allies.
In essence, the Republican runs on a platform of fiscal responsiblity, then institutes fiscally irresponsible legislation while cloaking it in some larger, more emotional national narrative. If they actually win, all the better. If they lose, they get to harvest the support that comes from intellectually incurious individuals on their "side" who see other Americans as less than Americans. Partisan political hackery at its finest.
As for the unions and their sympathizers, I can only hope this serves as a wake-up call to revitalize local and state-level activism. I hope it serves as a moment when these unions and activists become more politically savvy. (The ironic "union thug" t-shirt is a fantastic idea that needs to be replicated.) I hope this is the moment they begin to bring unions back from the brink of outdated-ness that they are fast approaching. There is some serious antipathy towards unions in this country, and for real reasons. These folks should start to see that, and not just base their support on something because all the cool liberals are doing it.
And they shouldn't couch this one event in terms of "losing" and "winning." Just because the GOP gets their legislation now doesn't mean that policy can't change later. You just have to remain vigilant and involved. If you fail to acheive your objectives here, you have to reevaluate and try again later. Once you do acheive your objectives, you must always seek to improve them. In a representative republic, we don't just get to enjoy one legislative battle and then luxuriously never revisit the issue.
Because, when it comes to unions, there is an awful lot of self-improvement that could take place.
I'm from the South, so it ain't like I've had a lot of experience with unions, even though I was in one for a year. A public employees union at that. Despite even active participation in said union, I am at a loss to figure out what that union did for me as a worker. Or for any of my co-workers, for that matter. I am at a loss to figure out what value that union added to the local area, whose public schools had experienced decades of decline and neglect.
Apparently, I was paying dues so some national-level union administrators could have snazzy lunches with congressfolk, and some local-level union administrators could throw cookouts. I also guess that, if anything had happened to me, the union might appoint some local and well connected lawyer to my case, if I didn't have the wherewithal to get one on my own. They could have just called the union I was in "legal troubles insurance." That's how membership was sold to me, after all. Though I never could find out how that would have worked. I also didn't quite trust the track record, since the union watched as 5,000+ employees were summarily dismissed once upon a time, and not one thing could be done about it.
This is all in spite of the fact that I knew some very spirited and sincere individuals who worked for that union. But that's to be expected. After all, I am from the South, and we've got a lot of spirited and sincere people here. Whatever civic or private organizations we create, there are going to be those people - just like there will be bad people. That's just the nature of things.
Despite the fact that I'm a "liberal,"* I'm a Southern liberal, and we tend to focus more on race than collective bargaining. To collectively bargain, after all, you have to accept some semblance of equality in the collective. And corporate interests didn't even have to divide us down here before we were conquered, we generally handled that for them ahead of time.
* (Roughly defined, by both "liberals" and "conservatives" as "anyone who doesn't agree with the most right-wing utopian thought processes.")
.
But the "union thuggery" narrative used so often by the far-right wing, despite contrary evidence, is a national one. It further erodes the credibility of real conservatives who associate with madness like this and refreshes in my mind what is at stake in Madison.
Don't fool yourself, this is all about political power, political marketing and credibility. Ending the right to collectively bargain has very little to do with actually balancing a budget. Because budgets have to do with revenues and expenditures; you don't balance those two things by significantly cutting revenues while reducing tiny amounts of expenditures and granting massive subsidies or giveaways to political allies.
In essence, the Republican runs on a platform of fiscal responsiblity, then institutes fiscally irresponsible legislation while cloaking it in some larger, more emotional national narrative. If they actually win, all the better. If they lose, they get to harvest the support that comes from intellectually incurious individuals on their "side" who see other Americans as less than Americans. Partisan political hackery at its finest.
As for the unions and their sympathizers, I can only hope this serves as a wake-up call to revitalize local and state-level activism. I hope it serves as a moment when these unions and activists become more politically savvy. (The ironic "union thug" t-shirt is a fantastic idea that needs to be replicated.) I hope this is the moment they begin to bring unions back from the brink of outdated-ness that they are fast approaching. There is some serious antipathy towards unions in this country, and for real reasons. These folks should start to see that, and not just base their support on something because all the cool liberals are doing it.
And they shouldn't couch this one event in terms of "losing" and "winning." Just because the GOP gets their legislation now doesn't mean that policy can't change later. You just have to remain vigilant and involved. If you fail to acheive your objectives here, you have to reevaluate and try again later. Once you do acheive your objectives, you must always seek to improve them. In a representative republic, we don't just get to enjoy one legislative battle and then luxuriously never revisit the issue.
Because, when it comes to unions, there is an awful lot of self-improvement that could take place.
I'm from the South, so it ain't like I've had a lot of experience with unions, even though I was in one for a year. A public employees union at that. Despite even active participation in said union, I am at a loss to figure out what that union did for me as a worker. Or for any of my co-workers, for that matter. I am at a loss to figure out what value that union added to the local area, whose public schools had experienced decades of decline and neglect.
Apparently, I was paying dues so some national-level union administrators could have snazzy lunches with congressfolk, and some local-level union administrators could throw cookouts. I also guess that, if anything had happened to me, the union might appoint some local and well connected lawyer to my case, if I didn't have the wherewithal to get one on my own. They could have just called the union I was in "legal troubles insurance." That's how membership was sold to me, after all. Though I never could find out how that would have worked. I also didn't quite trust the track record, since the union watched as 5,000+ employees were summarily dismissed once upon a time, and not one thing could be done about it.
This is all in spite of the fact that I knew some very spirited and sincere individuals who worked for that union. But that's to be expected. After all, I am from the South, and we've got a lot of spirited and sincere people here. Whatever civic or private organizations we create, there are going to be those people - just like there will be bad people. That's just the nature of things.
Despite the fact that I'm a "liberal,"* I'm a Southern liberal, and we tend to focus more on race than collective bargaining. To collectively bargain, after all, you have to accept some semblance of equality in the collective. And corporate interests didn't even have to divide us down here before we were conquered, we generally handled that for them ahead of time.
* (Roughly defined, by both "liberals" and "conservatives" as "anyone who doesn't agree with the most right-wing utopian thought processes.")
.
Government Did Not Do That
David Frum writes a State of the Union I can believe in. It is like a real conservative trying to explain liberal pragmatism to right-wingers who don't want to believe it and left wingers who don't want to hear it.
I'd love to hear some of this tonight. We need the injection of reality.
And a healthy dose of why "the right" owns the discussion about fiscal policy.
Both links HT: Daily Dish.
.
I'd love to hear some of this tonight. We need the injection of reality.
And a healthy dose of why "the right" owns the discussion about fiscal policy.
Both links HT: Daily Dish.
.
Left-Wing Narratives: Everything Was Fine Until...
Michael Lind is no left-winger, but after reading a recent article of his, it appears that he is a subscriber to one of the left-wing's most prevalant narratives. Lind falls into the same category of many left- and right-wing elite, especially those who cannot seem to reconcile the positions of others who do not agree with them 100%. Thus is the burden of already knowing everything.
You know how they know this? Because in the past, back when everyone who mattered "agreed" with them (the idea that they could be picking and chosing the agreement of historical figures to their personal philosophy never seems to be taken into account), the world was a far better, almost utopian, place. Just look at the state of things today, and how much better off we'd be if we had continued what was working!
Sound familiar? It should. There is an almost identical past-as-utopia streak running through the right-wing. (I'm not surprised that Lind is described as a "former" neoconservative.) But we can't ignore the danger of the same narrative running through the DNA of the left.
The main difference with the left's version is the understanding of what and where that utopian past specifically went off the rails. Lind fairly nails this current: Everything Was Fine Until The Christians Showed Up (In the 1970's). To many a leftist, society's fall from the rational advance of rational reason can be explained rationally as a result of irrational Christianity's rise to political power some time after 1970.
Because, the narrative tells us, lots of people in this country were Christians in the past, but they weren't very Christian-y. Not like today, anyway. Religion didn't have a very large impact on policy or history, the narrative goes, except as a foil for the forces of rationalism to defeat. The forces of irrational religion never won against the reasonable arguments of rational behavior, until something went wrong in the very recent past.
Oh, and this switch was made without any rational reason, because every scientific advance experienced in American history never had a consequence that was bad, ever.
This very recent and shocking rise of religion over rationality is an exception to the historical rule. Though it does explain, to the left-wing mind, the following things:
1. Why people disagree with their rational beliefs in the first place;
2. Why people vote against their own interests, making their disagreements policy;
3. Why the most left-wing candidates lose elections to dumb people voting against their own interests;
4. Why people who disagree with them should just shut their stupid mouths as not to encourage the dumb people who vote against their interests;
5. Why the only recourse is to make fun of those who disagree - there's nothing that can be done except withdraw into circles of similar thought and maybe throw a protest every now and again to compare witty and ironic signs.
With all that in play, I can tell you that the left doesn't have a problem losing elections because the "dumb people" are "irrationally" voting against their interests. The left loses elections because they subscribe to this narrative, and don't see the value in understanding why voting against their policies can be seen by large numbers of voters as the most rational thing to do.
.
You know how they know this? Because in the past, back when everyone who mattered "agreed" with them (the idea that they could be picking and chosing the agreement of historical figures to their personal philosophy never seems to be taken into account), the world was a far better, almost utopian, place. Just look at the state of things today, and how much better off we'd be if we had continued what was working!
Sound familiar? It should. There is an almost identical past-as-utopia streak running through the right-wing. (I'm not surprised that Lind is described as a "former" neoconservative.) But we can't ignore the danger of the same narrative running through the DNA of the left.
The main difference with the left's version is the understanding of what and where that utopian past specifically went off the rails. Lind fairly nails this current: Everything Was Fine Until The Christians Showed Up (In the 1970's). To many a leftist, society's fall from the rational advance of rational reason can be explained rationally as a result of irrational Christianity's rise to political power some time after 1970.
Because, the narrative tells us, lots of people in this country were Christians in the past, but they weren't very Christian-y. Not like today, anyway. Religion didn't have a very large impact on policy or history, the narrative goes, except as a foil for the forces of rationalism to defeat. The forces of irrational religion never won against the reasonable arguments of rational behavior, until something went wrong in the very recent past.
Oh, and this switch was made without any rational reason, because every scientific advance experienced in American history never had a consequence that was bad, ever.
This very recent and shocking rise of religion over rationality is an exception to the historical rule. Though it does explain, to the left-wing mind, the following things:
1. Why people disagree with their rational beliefs in the first place;
2. Why people vote against their own interests, making their disagreements policy;
3. Why the most left-wing candidates lose elections to dumb people voting against their own interests;
4. Why people who disagree with them should just shut their stupid mouths as not to encourage the dumb people who vote against their interests;
5. Why the only recourse is to make fun of those who disagree - there's nothing that can be done except withdraw into circles of similar thought and maybe throw a protest every now and again to compare witty and ironic signs.
With all that in play, I can tell you that the left doesn't have a problem losing elections because the "dumb people" are "irrationally" voting against their interests. The left loses elections because they subscribe to this narrative, and don't see the value in understanding why voting against their policies can be seen by large numbers of voters as the most rational thing to do.
.
Labels:
culture,
History,
internet,
left-wing,
liberals,
Media,
narratives,
Neoconservatives,
politics,
we really suck at this
Left-Wing Narratives: The Military Industrial Complex
Was Eisenhower a peacenik, darkly hinting that Pentagon insiders and defense contractors would secretly lead America to war every chance they got?
Probably not. Though his Presidential farewell is often quoted, it is done so for the one line - not the realism, pragmatism, internationalism, context and optimism it beautifully displays. Section IV of the address is where you will find the quote, along with these:
So, I guess if you could simplify the context in which Ike utters the phrase "military-industrial complex," you could simplify the context of his "captive of a scientific-technological elite" quote to undermine both Global Warming and Federal participation in university research.
Those aren't good roads to take for the left-liberal-progressive side of the political aisle. The Slate examination goes further:
Narratives. No matter which side uses them, they dull the wits and focus only on those parts that support a "side" in an argument made today.
.
Probably not. Though his Presidential farewell is often quoted, it is done so for the one line - not the realism, pragmatism, internationalism, context and optimism it beautifully displays. Section IV of the address is where you will find the quote, along with these:
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
...
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
...
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present--and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
So, I guess if you could simplify the context in which Ike utters the phrase "military-industrial complex," you could simplify the context of his "captive of a scientific-technological elite" quote to undermine both Global Warming and Federal participation in university research.
Those aren't good roads to take for the left-liberal-progressive side of the political aisle. The Slate examination goes further:
As Ledbetter's book shows, Eisenhower had estimable motives too. He feared America might become a "garrison state," as the lingo of the day had it, limiting civil freedoms in the name of one military crisis after another. He resented the skill with which Defense Department brass finagled congressional leaders. Even his obsession with balancing the books, though a product of a pre-Keynesian worldview, had the virtue of keeping him alert to Pentagon bloat. And his warnings about military overreach were couched, it's usually forgotten, in passages insisting on the need for a military of unprecedented size, which Eisenhower called "a vital element in keeping the peace."
Narratives. No matter which side uses them, they dull the wits and focus only on those parts that support a "side" in an argument made today.
.
Labels:
economy,
government,
History,
left-wing,
liberals,
narratives,
the war,
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)