From Dionne's WashPost column today--
It needs to be clear to the country what our core beliefs are, and the last thing we need is strategic maneuvering," Edwards says. "What people want to see is leadership and strength and conviction. This is about what's inside us. It's not about how we get to the right place."
.......
It's true, of course, that rejecting political calculation can itself be a form of political calculation. Conviction politics was a big winner for Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Even President Bush's critics concede -- well, they don't concede anything these days, but they might grudgingly admit -- that Bush's core political edge is just that, the appearance of strength and of standing for something.
But conviction politics has not been in vogue in progressive circles. This era's two great center-left politicians, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, have been resolute Third Wayers, tacking carefully between left and right. The Third Way was a tacit admission of conservatism's momentum.
Edwards is well positioned to offer Third Way 3.0. He's a young southerner, a working-class kid made good whose dad was a deacon in his church. He speaks admiringly of Clinton's skills, particularly the former president's ability to make others feel that he identifies with their struggles.
But Edwards's instincts tell him that tepid politics are exactly what the Democrats don't need now. "I don't think this is about moderate, conservative, liberal," he says. "Americans are looking for strength, an idealistic strength. They want to know what we'd do on Day One if we ran the country."
Moral issues matter, Edwards says, but Democrats won't look moral by getting into a bidding war over how often they can invoke the name of God. Instead, Democrats should speak with conviction about an issue that has always animated them: the alleviation of poverty. "I think it is a moral issue; it's something we should be willing to fight about and stand up for," he says.
Those who counsel caution, he says, would let calculation push Democrats away from their historical commitments. "They think it's associated with some political label," he says, carefully avoiding the L-word himself. "They think that a lot of people who live in poverty don't vote and don't participate and so they don't think there's a lot of political capital there."
Edwards, who is planning to set up a center to study ways to alleviate poverty, is enough of a politician to insist that he wants to advocate not only on behalf of the destitute but also for those just finding their footing on mobility's ladder. But he offers the unexpected claim that the very voters who have strayed from the Democrats would respond forcefully to the moral imperative of aiding the poor.
"The people who love their guns and love their faith, they care about this," Edwards says. "There is a deep abiding feeling of moral responsibility people have about those who are doing everything right and are still having a hard time."
Okay, okay, it's bound to be said that Edwards is making a shrewd political wager that Democrats have tired of capitulation. The test will be whether he sticks with it. It's a fair bet that someone who talks about a real moral issue for the next four years will at least be easier to listen to than politicians who place all their money on yesterday's focus groups.
Here's my problems with what appears to be Edwards' take on the situation:
1) he's afraid of the term--and by extension the concept and past achievements of--liberal politics and policy;
2) The "two Americas" and "we need to help those who are playing by the rules and still can't get ahead" rhetoric is Clinton-est which among other things may cause some people to wonder, hey, haven't we heard this before? Your party had eight years in the WH from '93-2000. Why are the rule-players still struggling?
3) He either doesn't understand, or cares not to address, the nature of the tragedy that is this administration's policies and supporters' agenda, namely, the "Right's" substantive war against the courts, civil liberties, the "wall" separating church and state, "liberals", and other deemed undesirables, by any means necessary, but particularly by consolidating media control and smothering dissent, academic and otherwise.
Yes, we need conviction in our candidates, but we also need an awareness and willingness to confront the country's greatest dangers.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Bulworth Says...
You cannot simultaneously brag that your favorite cable television "news" station is No. 1 while also crying that the media is conspiring against you...
I wished I had watched Nightline last night...
It's funny that somehow affiliation with the ACLU is accorded the kiss of death but affiliation with cabinet secretaries and interest groups who attack cartoon characters isn't...
Dear Christian "Right" Leaders and Members: when you attack cartoon characters you can't expect the public to respect you...
Suburban Guerilla and Steve Gilliard describe U.S. Senator George Allen (R-VA) to a tee...
Why did you think I was watching Trading Spaces for, anyway?
I wished I had watched Nightline last night...
It's funny that somehow affiliation with the ACLU is accorded the kiss of death but affiliation with cabinet secretaries and interest groups who attack cartoon characters isn't...
Dear Christian "Right" Leaders and Members: when you attack cartoon characters you can't expect the public to respect you...
Suburban Guerilla and Steve Gilliard describe U.S. Senator George Allen (R-VA) to a tee...
Why did you think I was watching Trading Spaces for, anyway?
Thursday, January 27, 2005
The '60's are Dead, Long Live the '60's!
To further understand the conservative agenda, one must recognize the true point of origin for its wrath--the decade that ushered in the end of hierarchy and conformity in American and world politics--the 1960's.
The 1960's are the conservatives' favorite whipping boy, the source of all that has gone wrong with the American experiment. The 1960's are the headline atop the great "backlash myth" as Thomas Frank explains it in What's Wrong With Kansas? , the holy grail of conservative politics.
Liberals must ask ourselves, and our conservative friends, why this is the case. Moral blowhards like William Bennett will be quick to point us to their narrowly constructed list of "moral indicators" and the "decline" of these factors that began when the evil 1960's unleashed their unvaunted rage and rebellion against God's America by protesting the Vietnam War, kicking God out of our schools, encouraging free love and hippy communes, and perhaps worst of all, daring to question the White Christian Male Right To Rule. During the 1960's, that unAmerican institution of "The Courts" began to be used to increase the rights available to all Americans when its executive and legislative institutions failed to respond.
But conservatives will undoubtedly point to things like, "well, teen pregnancy increased, out of wedlock births increased, divorces increased, school violence increased, drug use increased, marriages decreased, abortions increased, disrespect for authorities increased" and so on. For conservatives, America before the 1960's was heaven on earth, where peace, love, joy and unquestioning obedience to the powers that be existed, undisturbed by such ideas as social democracy, freedom of expression, opposition to unjust wars, civil rights, and diversity. Whatever America did on the world stage was perfect and holy. Americans and their institutions were godly and upright. Now, undoubtedly, some of these measures conservatives will recite will have some truth to them. But, as Donald Rumsfeld might say, "Hey, freedom and democracy are 'messy' ".
Now, as it happens, I wasn't birthed until 1966, so I can't speak from experience about the years before 1960. But, thankfully, history has managed to record a few things I think bring into question the great conservative claim about the pre-1960 era. There was slavery of course for the first 74 years of our constitutional history, segregation for the 100 years following that, and of course the violence and hatred needed to keep segregation in place.
Before the 1960's, if you're weren't a member of the state religion, you were ridiculed, harrassed, and forced to engage in religious worship anyway. The separation of church and state became a reality.
Before the 1960's, America's right to war was unquestioned, its moral superiority and "exceptionalism" in the world unchallenged by students, professors, or press alike.
Before the 1960's, women were relegated pretty much to the kitchen.
Before the 1960's, people of color didn't enjoy the same rights and protections as white Americans. At this point I'm tempted to say that blacks and other racial minorities contributed as much to society as whites in that they served and died in combat, paid taxes, and maintained families just as other Americans. But that would be to suggest that our rights are earned. I don't believe they are. Thomas Jefferson and many of the constitutional framers didn't believe that either (at least not when they were busy justifying their rebellion against British rule). They believed we were all endowed by our Creator with inaliable rights. For many Americans, this vision hadn't become a reality until the 1960's.
Before the 1960's, it wasn't "politically correct", to use a revived conservative concept, to speak out against the actions of government or those of certain groups where injustice, cruelty, and oppression were ignored or condoned. Now, it is (or until Faux News tell us it isn't).
Conservatives loved the pre-1960 era when they could do what they want and assume that everyone else would either agree with them or not question them if they didn't. Those days are over, and understandably, conservatives are angry.
But Bulworth says liberals should contest the conservatives' treatment of the 1960's and challenge the conservatives' attempts to roll back the clock on civil rights and democratic freedoms. Liberal should challenge attempts to demonize "rights", privacy, and the democratic use of the court system for what they are, conservatives' attempts to recreate their dominant past.
Bulworth says, tell the conservatives to get over the 1960's and recognize their day in the sun is over. When conservatives speak badly of our friend, the 1960's, remind them of what America was really like before then.
The 1960's rocked. So Bulworth says, tell the conservatives to stick it.
The 1960's are the conservatives' favorite whipping boy, the source of all that has gone wrong with the American experiment. The 1960's are the headline atop the great "backlash myth" as Thomas Frank explains it in What's Wrong With Kansas? , the holy grail of conservative politics.
Liberals must ask ourselves, and our conservative friends, why this is the case. Moral blowhards like William Bennett will be quick to point us to their narrowly constructed list of "moral indicators" and the "decline" of these factors that began when the evil 1960's unleashed their unvaunted rage and rebellion against God's America by protesting the Vietnam War, kicking God out of our schools, encouraging free love and hippy communes, and perhaps worst of all, daring to question the White Christian Male Right To Rule. During the 1960's, that unAmerican institution of "The Courts" began to be used to increase the rights available to all Americans when its executive and legislative institutions failed to respond.
But conservatives will undoubtedly point to things like, "well, teen pregnancy increased, out of wedlock births increased, divorces increased, school violence increased, drug use increased, marriages decreased, abortions increased, disrespect for authorities increased" and so on. For conservatives, America before the 1960's was heaven on earth, where peace, love, joy and unquestioning obedience to the powers that be existed, undisturbed by such ideas as social democracy, freedom of expression, opposition to unjust wars, civil rights, and diversity. Whatever America did on the world stage was perfect and holy. Americans and their institutions were godly and upright. Now, undoubtedly, some of these measures conservatives will recite will have some truth to them. But, as Donald Rumsfeld might say, "Hey, freedom and democracy are 'messy' ".
Now, as it happens, I wasn't birthed until 1966, so I can't speak from experience about the years before 1960. But, thankfully, history has managed to record a few things I think bring into question the great conservative claim about the pre-1960 era. There was slavery of course for the first 74 years of our constitutional history, segregation for the 100 years following that, and of course the violence and hatred needed to keep segregation in place.
Before the 1960's, if you're weren't a member of the state religion, you were ridiculed, harrassed, and forced to engage in religious worship anyway. The separation of church and state became a reality.
Before the 1960's, America's right to war was unquestioned, its moral superiority and "exceptionalism" in the world unchallenged by students, professors, or press alike.
Before the 1960's, women were relegated pretty much to the kitchen.
Before the 1960's, people of color didn't enjoy the same rights and protections as white Americans. At this point I'm tempted to say that blacks and other racial minorities contributed as much to society as whites in that they served and died in combat, paid taxes, and maintained families just as other Americans. But that would be to suggest that our rights are earned. I don't believe they are. Thomas Jefferson and many of the constitutional framers didn't believe that either (at least not when they were busy justifying their rebellion against British rule). They believed we were all endowed by our Creator with inaliable rights. For many Americans, this vision hadn't become a reality until the 1960's.
Before the 1960's, it wasn't "politically correct", to use a revived conservative concept, to speak out against the actions of government or those of certain groups where injustice, cruelty, and oppression were ignored or condoned. Now, it is (or until Faux News tell us it isn't).
Conservatives loved the pre-1960 era when they could do what they want and assume that everyone else would either agree with them or not question them if they didn't. Those days are over, and understandably, conservatives are angry.
But Bulworth says liberals should contest the conservatives' treatment of the 1960's and challenge the conservatives' attempts to roll back the clock on civil rights and democratic freedoms. Liberal should challenge attempts to demonize "rights", privacy, and the democratic use of the court system for what they are, conservatives' attempts to recreate their dominant past.
Bulworth says, tell the conservatives to get over the 1960's and recognize their day in the sun is over. When conservatives speak badly of our friend, the 1960's, remind them of what America was really like before then.
The 1960's rocked. So Bulworth says, tell the conservatives to stick it.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
The Problem Isn't Bush
I realize that coming from a die-hard, unapologetic liberal blogger, the above title may sound strange, but hear me out.
There's a passage or passages in the excellent David Herbert Donald biography of Abraham Lincoln where the President is listening to general McClellan time after time recite his various and always delayed plans to lauch attacks against cities in the South to which Lincoln increasingly and with ever more frustration responds by trying to get McClellan to recognize that he needs to direct his attacks against the real threat, the Confederate army.
As with McClellan's unwillingness to focus on the source of the Union's main threat from the South, I'm afraid that a lot of what has been passed off as Democratic Party strategy by its operatives and even by some Democratic leaning blogs has been I believe an inordinate focus on the words and actions of President Bush himself, and time staking analysis of current events, as opposed to the more serious and pervasive threat demonstrated by the conservative movement turned establishment itself.
There's lots of analysis on what's going wrong in Iraq from day to day, considerable parsing of the president's inaugural address, and so on. In the most recent presidential campaign, and underlying the Democrats' approach to campaigns generally, seems to be a haphard and uncertain preoccupation with opposing the president based on events as they develop rather than a more thorough and purposely communicated message to the public as to the problem with conservative policies and intentions themselves. This can be seen in the constant references, mostly by media observers, but accepted by some Democratic leaning bloggers as well, for the Democrats to come across "stronger" on national security and so-called "values" issues, to move to the center of the political arena, etc.
The problem isn't primarily the president, who I think we all realize by now isn't terribly interested in the affairs of government, but exists only to recite speeches prepared for him by zeolous staffers, to stuff the bureaucracy and court systems with conservative operatives (which is the same as would be carried out by any Republican president) and to carry on his family's name. The conservative establishment, it's authoritarian and undemocratic ambitions, and its malicious character sleezing and fear mongering appetite should be the most constant target of our (and hopefully the soon to be new Democratic Party heads as well) analysis, strategy, and communication.
Contrary to the chatter among the media that Democrats need to get more conservative, it is the conservative establishment itself that is the problem, and which must be opposed. This is why the Democrats cannot "move towards the center".
There's a passage or passages in the excellent David Herbert Donald biography of Abraham Lincoln where the President is listening to general McClellan time after time recite his various and always delayed plans to lauch attacks against cities in the South to which Lincoln increasingly and with ever more frustration responds by trying to get McClellan to recognize that he needs to direct his attacks against the real threat, the Confederate army.
As with McClellan's unwillingness to focus on the source of the Union's main threat from the South, I'm afraid that a lot of what has been passed off as Democratic Party strategy by its operatives and even by some Democratic leaning blogs has been I believe an inordinate focus on the words and actions of President Bush himself, and time staking analysis of current events, as opposed to the more serious and pervasive threat demonstrated by the conservative movement turned establishment itself.
There's lots of analysis on what's going wrong in Iraq from day to day, considerable parsing of the president's inaugural address, and so on. In the most recent presidential campaign, and underlying the Democrats' approach to campaigns generally, seems to be a haphard and uncertain preoccupation with opposing the president based on events as they develop rather than a more thorough and purposely communicated message to the public as to the problem with conservative policies and intentions themselves. This can be seen in the constant references, mostly by media observers, but accepted by some Democratic leaning bloggers as well, for the Democrats to come across "stronger" on national security and so-called "values" issues, to move to the center of the political arena, etc.
The problem isn't primarily the president, who I think we all realize by now isn't terribly interested in the affairs of government, but exists only to recite speeches prepared for him by zeolous staffers, to stuff the bureaucracy and court systems with conservative operatives (which is the same as would be carried out by any Republican president) and to carry on his family's name. The conservative establishment, it's authoritarian and undemocratic ambitions, and its malicious character sleezing and fear mongering appetite should be the most constant target of our (and hopefully the soon to be new Democratic Party heads as well) analysis, strategy, and communication.
Contrary to the chatter among the media that Democrats need to get more conservative, it is the conservative establishment itself that is the problem, and which must be opposed. This is why the Democrats cannot "move towards the center".
Why Do Conservatives Hate Gays?
I know some of our conservative friends would object to the charge that they actually "hate" gay people, but I think the overwhelming evidence from the anti-gay protests--whether in the form of wingnut blog postings, cable television shout fests, or "pro-family" interest group press releases--says about all we need to know.
So, why do conservatives hate gays? I'll give it a shot by suggesting several alternatives, then try to explain the basis for each.
a) The Bible condemns homosexuality, conservatives believe and follow every apparent command in the Bible, so by deduction, gays and homosexual behavior are to be hated and opposed so that God may glorify the nation;
b) Gayness undermines and threatens family unions and society's procreative future and consequently, leads to the downfall of the nation and civilization;
c) Gays are "different", and gay behavior is just "offensive", a deviance, a perversion that tempts our children to unproductiveness and places our culture at risk.
a) probably deserves more elaboration than I will choose to give it here, but I think it is fair to say in brief that few people if any believe or follow every example laid down in scripture. The Bible doesn't explicitly condemn polygamy, for example, and even appears to command it in some circumstances, such as when a brother has died without producing male offspring and the surviving widow is to be taken by a surviving brother of the deceased man (seemingly regardless of whether he is already married) to wife in order to provide the deceased man a family line (Deuteronomy 25). Yet polygamous relationships are something society seems to have decided are undesirable. Slavery gets a pass in the Bible, too (Exodus 21). Yet modern society, for all its decrepitness, has come to the conclusion that slavery is distasteful and immoral, even if the basis for that conclusion was helped in part by slavery's declining lack of usefulness economically. Furthermore, the Bible appears to condemn the eating of shellfish, pig meat, and prescribes a host of other health related guidelines that I suspect most people affiliated with Focus on the Family have conveniently discarded. In the Bible, people were stoned for breaking the Sabbath, killed for fornicating with neighboring tribes, for erecting "idolitrous" images, and so on. Finally, the number of references in the Bible to homosexuality are few, and in some of those, the actual behavior being condemned could be, and is disputed.
But perhaps even more relevant is that while some opponents of gayness reference the Bible in the course of their objections, it doesn't sound as if it is for God's glory they are reacting as they are. Rather, their concern seems to lie elsewhere. Such as in--
b) Gayness as threat to families and civilization has emerged as perhaps the most commonly cited concern by opponents. There are a number of unstated assumptions and premises underlying this origin of gay-hate. One is that although believed by conservatives to comprise less than 10% of a society's population, gayness, like a disease, is capable of spreading, influencing individuals who would otherwise hook up with other-sex partners to "choose" same sex partners instead. The result of such choices is that the desire to hook up with other sex partners declines, the desire to marry and produce families declines, and there is a groundswell towards homosexuality soon rendering a society extinct as it fails to produce offspring. National decline is a big crisis word conservatives serve up in the context of the gay debate. As acceptance of gayness grows, community heterosexuality grows weaker, heterosexual marriage becomes "under seige" by newly loud and vocal opponents of marriage, and, well, you get the idea.
All of this sounds rather implausible to me. Sometime last spring or summer when the gay debate was heating up I emailed Glenn Beck, one of the many right wing radio hosts out there with his own book and asked him how if homosexuality was much rarer than the numbers he claimed are cited by gay activists, then what exactly was the threat from homosexuality? He didn't respond to my email. Imagine that. Maybe there's more to this point, but I don't see it, and highly doubt whether conservatives themselves take it very seriously either, which leads me to--
c) Gayness is just deviant, corruptive behavior that offends some people. This sounds a lot like b) above but without the necessity for demonstrating the catastrophic consequences from homosexuality. It argues, instead, that gayness is just bad, not normal. It's reasoning is circular. Gayness is a threat to families and marriage because gayness is a threat to families and marriage. How exactly? If gayness is rather limited in the population, how does it threaten the inclination for heterosexual marriages and reproduction? Does it make marriage seem somehow "dirty" or not special to heterosexuals? If this is the case, that gayness is such a threat to families, than families must be pretty fragile entitities. This is the underlying cry from opponents of gays and gay rights. Families are "at risk", "under attack", etc. Families must be pretty weak, which makes me wonder if they are, why should we be propping them up? If families are so vulnerable, then maybe there are bigger problems out there than gays.
So, why do conservatives hate gays? I'll give it a shot by suggesting several alternatives, then try to explain the basis for each.
a) The Bible condemns homosexuality, conservatives believe and follow every apparent command in the Bible, so by deduction, gays and homosexual behavior are to be hated and opposed so that God may glorify the nation;
b) Gayness undermines and threatens family unions and society's procreative future and consequently, leads to the downfall of the nation and civilization;
c) Gays are "different", and gay behavior is just "offensive", a deviance, a perversion that tempts our children to unproductiveness and places our culture at risk.
a) probably deserves more elaboration than I will choose to give it here, but I think it is fair to say in brief that few people if any believe or follow every example laid down in scripture. The Bible doesn't explicitly condemn polygamy, for example, and even appears to command it in some circumstances, such as when a brother has died without producing male offspring and the surviving widow is to be taken by a surviving brother of the deceased man (seemingly regardless of whether he is already married) to wife in order to provide the deceased man a family line (Deuteronomy 25). Yet polygamous relationships are something society seems to have decided are undesirable. Slavery gets a pass in the Bible, too (Exodus 21). Yet modern society, for all its decrepitness, has come to the conclusion that slavery is distasteful and immoral, even if the basis for that conclusion was helped in part by slavery's declining lack of usefulness economically. Furthermore, the Bible appears to condemn the eating of shellfish, pig meat, and prescribes a host of other health related guidelines that I suspect most people affiliated with Focus on the Family have conveniently discarded. In the Bible, people were stoned for breaking the Sabbath, killed for fornicating with neighboring tribes, for erecting "idolitrous" images, and so on. Finally, the number of references in the Bible to homosexuality are few, and in some of those, the actual behavior being condemned could be, and is disputed.
But perhaps even more relevant is that while some opponents of gayness reference the Bible in the course of their objections, it doesn't sound as if it is for God's glory they are reacting as they are. Rather, their concern seems to lie elsewhere. Such as in--
b) Gayness as threat to families and civilization has emerged as perhaps the most commonly cited concern by opponents. There are a number of unstated assumptions and premises underlying this origin of gay-hate. One is that although believed by conservatives to comprise less than 10% of a society's population, gayness, like a disease, is capable of spreading, influencing individuals who would otherwise hook up with other-sex partners to "choose" same sex partners instead. The result of such choices is that the desire to hook up with other sex partners declines, the desire to marry and produce families declines, and there is a groundswell towards homosexuality soon rendering a society extinct as it fails to produce offspring. National decline is a big crisis word conservatives serve up in the context of the gay debate. As acceptance of gayness grows, community heterosexuality grows weaker, heterosexual marriage becomes "under seige" by newly loud and vocal opponents of marriage, and, well, you get the idea.
All of this sounds rather implausible to me. Sometime last spring or summer when the gay debate was heating up I emailed Glenn Beck, one of the many right wing radio hosts out there with his own book and asked him how if homosexuality was much rarer than the numbers he claimed are cited by gay activists, then what exactly was the threat from homosexuality? He didn't respond to my email. Imagine that. Maybe there's more to this point, but I don't see it, and highly doubt whether conservatives themselves take it very seriously either, which leads me to--
c) Gayness is just deviant, corruptive behavior that offends some people. This sounds a lot like b) above but without the necessity for demonstrating the catastrophic consequences from homosexuality. It argues, instead, that gayness is just bad, not normal. It's reasoning is circular. Gayness is a threat to families and marriage because gayness is a threat to families and marriage. How exactly? If gayness is rather limited in the population, how does it threaten the inclination for heterosexual marriages and reproduction? Does it make marriage seem somehow "dirty" or not special to heterosexuals? If this is the case, that gayness is such a threat to families, than families must be pretty fragile entitities. This is the underlying cry from opponents of gays and gay rights. Families are "at risk", "under attack", etc. Families must be pretty weak, which makes me wonder if they are, why should we be propping them up? If families are so vulnerable, then maybe there are bigger problems out there than gays.
Let The Word Go Forth
The General has christened soon-to-be Secretary of State, Donna Rice, as "Ofgeorge", based, no doubt, on that french-screed of a book, The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood.
But if Donna Rice is Ofgeorge, then what do we call Secretary of Education, Tori Spelling, W's Texas-grown homegirl he promoted from White House policy advisor? And she's been busy lately...
But if Donna Rice is Ofgeorge, then what do we call Secretary of Education, Tori Spelling, W's Texas-grown homegirl he promoted from White House policy advisor? And she's been busy lately...
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Something Other Than What It Seems?
There was a big celebration for pro-lifers on the Washington Mall the other day. The Republican president, as usual, phoned in his remarks. My fellow Adventist, I'm sorry to admit, Maryland Congressman Roscoe Barlett, was on hand, though, to cheer on the troops of compassionate conservatism, if that is what they are.
Now, Bulworth admits abortion makes him uncomfortable. Especially those carried out after the fetus is viable outside the womb. But at the same time, I can't say I get worked up about the issue. It's hard for me to imagine that abortions performed early, and inventions such as the so-called "morning after" abortion pill, RU-486, cause harm to a conscious or unborn being.
Which makes me wonder just exactly what is it about abortion that gets the ardent anti-abortioners upset. They seem like a pretty rough, angry group, unsympathetic to other human rights issues and the care of persons once they're born. Take for example, some of the loudest, most prominent voices waged against abortion such as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, and the folks at townhall.com. So it seems hard to believe they are really concerned about the "sanctity of life" as they and their president like to say.
There are some who would say that the whole anti-abortion movement is really about limiting sex, and ultimately wants to do away with contraceptives as well, something which, if right-to-lifers really thought about it, would likely have the effect of increasing unplanned pregnancies and increasing abortions. This is by and large the official Catholic church position, so there must be some truth to this allegation.
Then there is the curious phenomenon that indicates that real life abortions actually declined under the liberal Democratic President, Bill Clinton, but have increased under the stewardship of George W. Do "right-to-lifers" care about these trends? Is there any interest on the "right"
about what causes abortion and perhaps taking strides to limit those conditions, or is it just the prominence of legislation, the stamp of official disapproval from their nation's federal government that they want?
Still, what else is there? Do they feel the "pain" of the fetus? Do they think there is some injustice being done during an abortion? Or are they upset about something else? Me thinks most anti-abortion members aren't really concerned about families or children or the "unborn". Their tone and alternative policy preferences strike me as a jarring disconnect.
Then, too, I wonder to what degree most "right to lifers" are really ready to impose serious criminal penalties on doctors who perform abortions and women who receive or attempt to receive them? Undoubtedly some believe they are. But it seems like a difficult hurdle for anti-abortionists to get over. Maybe I'm being too generous or naive about the ends to which some "defenders of life" are willing to go.
Like the Rogue Progressive, I tend to believe that most if not all of the issues under the culture war banner are about restricting the rights of women. But I think the general conservative fetish is that of hierarchy. That's why conservatives express such reverance for institutions like the military, the church, and corporations, and such disdain for more egalitarian and diverse places like colleges and universities. When conservatives say things like "the family is under attack" I suspect they are primarily complaining about what they perceive to be challenges to the man's hierarchical place in it.
Now, back to what I started with...abortion gives women an option about a pregnancy after the fact, so to speak, and this prerogative doesn't sit well with conservative admirers of male domination, even among those women who like male-dominated family hierarchy.
Next: Why do conservatives hate gays?
Now, Bulworth admits abortion makes him uncomfortable. Especially those carried out after the fetus is viable outside the womb. But at the same time, I can't say I get worked up about the issue. It's hard for me to imagine that abortions performed early, and inventions such as the so-called "morning after" abortion pill, RU-486, cause harm to a conscious or unborn being.
Which makes me wonder just exactly what is it about abortion that gets the ardent anti-abortioners upset. They seem like a pretty rough, angry group, unsympathetic to other human rights issues and the care of persons once they're born. Take for example, some of the loudest, most prominent voices waged against abortion such as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, and the folks at townhall.com. So it seems hard to believe they are really concerned about the "sanctity of life" as they and their president like to say.
There are some who would say that the whole anti-abortion movement is really about limiting sex, and ultimately wants to do away with contraceptives as well, something which, if right-to-lifers really thought about it, would likely have the effect of increasing unplanned pregnancies and increasing abortions. This is by and large the official Catholic church position, so there must be some truth to this allegation.
Then there is the curious phenomenon that indicates that real life abortions actually declined under the liberal Democratic President, Bill Clinton, but have increased under the stewardship of George W. Do "right-to-lifers" care about these trends? Is there any interest on the "right"
about what causes abortion and perhaps taking strides to limit those conditions, or is it just the prominence of legislation, the stamp of official disapproval from their nation's federal government that they want?
Still, what else is there? Do they feel the "pain" of the fetus? Do they think there is some injustice being done during an abortion? Or are they upset about something else? Me thinks most anti-abortion members aren't really concerned about families or children or the "unborn". Their tone and alternative policy preferences strike me as a jarring disconnect.
Then, too, I wonder to what degree most "right to lifers" are really ready to impose serious criminal penalties on doctors who perform abortions and women who receive or attempt to receive them? Undoubtedly some believe they are. But it seems like a difficult hurdle for anti-abortionists to get over. Maybe I'm being too generous or naive about the ends to which some "defenders of life" are willing to go.
Like the Rogue Progressive, I tend to believe that most if not all of the issues under the culture war banner are about restricting the rights of women. But I think the general conservative fetish is that of hierarchy. That's why conservatives express such reverance for institutions like the military, the church, and corporations, and such disdain for more egalitarian and diverse places like colleges and universities. When conservatives say things like "the family is under attack" I suspect they are primarily complaining about what they perceive to be challenges to the man's hierarchical place in it.
Now, back to what I started with...abortion gives women an option about a pregnancy after the fact, so to speak, and this prerogative doesn't sit well with conservative admirers of male domination, even among those women who like male-dominated family hierarchy.
Next: Why do conservatives hate gays?
Monday, January 24, 2005
What Liberal Media?
As I've mentioned before, Bulworth is a Christian and attends church each week, but he has, shall we say, a few differences with the Religious Right. Anyway, Bulworth has noticed how many religious programs there are on TV these days and the origin as well as the content of these shows deserves some attention.
On regular TV you can tune in on Sundays to hear D. James Kennedy, from Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Kennedy hosts a radio program and related website called Truths that Transform, heads an outfit called the Center for Reclaiming America, and in February is hosting a Reclaiming America for Christ conference, which will include among others, David Limbaugh. Now, I'm not sure that Christ wants to claim or reclaim America or if he needs D. James Kennedy's help if He decided to do so. But as you might imagine, Kennedy's programs are light on Bible teaching and heavy on political spiel, with an emphasis on the new trifecta of right-wing politics: gays, abortion, and "America's Christian Heritage". Kennedy openly and brazenly lambastes the separation of church and state.
On cable TV, you can get Kennedy as well as Rod Parsley, the pastor of the World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio. Parsley has his own political foundation as well, lobbying and advocating on the same set of issues as Kennedy, chastizing gays, abortion, liberals, feminists, atheists, Democrats, the ACLU, and other perceived opponents and undesirables. Where Kennedy projects a calm, if arrogant image, Parsley is a screamer and a sweater. A charismatic, pentecostal preacher, Parsley has a checkered background in ministry. Nonetheless, his church plays host to some 5000 members a week.
Finally, my Comcast stable of offerings also includes the Catholic Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN). Although Catholicism is anything if not diverse, EWTN toes the conservative line, emphasizing its opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and the separation of church and state in its "news" coverage and special programming. Several specific programs are dedicated to the abortion issue alone. While EWTN includes a good deal of Catholic specific teaching and doctrine, its overwhelming and narrow political focus puts in solidly in the camp of the previous shows and hosts and in most segments, is virtually indistinguishable from programming on the protestant, Pat Robertson headed 700 Club.
It would be nice if networks provided equal time programming to these overtly political shows. If we really had a liberal media, maybe they would.
On regular TV you can tune in on Sundays to hear D. James Kennedy, from Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Kennedy hosts a radio program and related website called Truths that Transform, heads an outfit called the Center for Reclaiming America, and in February is hosting a Reclaiming America for Christ conference, which will include among others, David Limbaugh. Now, I'm not sure that Christ wants to claim or reclaim America or if he needs D. James Kennedy's help if He decided to do so. But as you might imagine, Kennedy's programs are light on Bible teaching and heavy on political spiel, with an emphasis on the new trifecta of right-wing politics: gays, abortion, and "America's Christian Heritage". Kennedy openly and brazenly lambastes the separation of church and state.
On cable TV, you can get Kennedy as well as Rod Parsley, the pastor of the World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio. Parsley has his own political foundation as well, lobbying and advocating on the same set of issues as Kennedy, chastizing gays, abortion, liberals, feminists, atheists, Democrats, the ACLU, and other perceived opponents and undesirables. Where Kennedy projects a calm, if arrogant image, Parsley is a screamer and a sweater. A charismatic, pentecostal preacher, Parsley has a checkered background in ministry. Nonetheless, his church plays host to some 5000 members a week.
Finally, my Comcast stable of offerings also includes the Catholic Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN). Although Catholicism is anything if not diverse, EWTN toes the conservative line, emphasizing its opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and the separation of church and state in its "news" coverage and special programming. Several specific programs are dedicated to the abortion issue alone. While EWTN includes a good deal of Catholic specific teaching and doctrine, its overwhelming and narrow political focus puts in solidly in the camp of the previous shows and hosts and in most segments, is virtually indistinguishable from programming on the protestant, Pat Robertson headed 700 Club.
It would be nice if networks provided equal time programming to these overtly political shows. If we really had a liberal media, maybe they would.
Thems Were The Days...
Remember this?
Once upon a time, many years ago (1999), in a land very far away (The U.S.), the Republican Party railed against the use of annual Social Security trust fund surplus monies to "inflate the federal budget numbers". They even called such budgetary gimmickry "morally wrong".
And today?
Total Deficit(-) or Surplus in billions of dollars
Year 2004
Total Revenues 1,782
Total Outlays 2,158
Total Deficit (-) or Surplus -375
on-budget -536
off-budget (with Soc Sec) -161
So for those of you kids keeping score at home, we're using $161 billion of the 2004 Social Security trust fund surplus funds (that is, all of the currrent incoming payroll taxes not needed to fund current Social Security benefits) for tax cuts and the war in Iraq.
Oh where, oh where, have the morally right, conservative Republican budgeteers gone?
Once upon a time, many years ago (1999), in a land very far away (The U.S.), the Republican Party railed against the use of annual Social Security trust fund surplus monies to "inflate the federal budget numbers". They even called such budgetary gimmickry "morally wrong".
And today?
Total Deficit(-) or Surplus in billions of dollars
Year 2004
Total Revenues 1,782
Total Outlays 2,158
Total Deficit (-) or Surplus -375
on-budget -536
off-budget (with Soc Sec) -161
So for those of you kids keeping score at home, we're using $161 billion of the 2004 Social Security trust fund surplus funds (that is, all of the currrent incoming payroll taxes not needed to fund current Social Security benefits) for tax cuts and the war in Iraq.
Oh where, oh where, have the morally right, conservative Republican budgeteers gone?
Thomas's Foot Still in His Mouth
Here is Ways and Means Chairman, William Thomas (R-CA), trying to amend last week's statement about Bush's Social Security plan being a "dead horse":
I didn't say it was dead on arrival," he said. "What I said was, I hope we didn't have our friends on the other side of the aisle attacking the president's proposal once it's introduced. Because, once it's introduced, it becomes part of the legislative process. Suggest changes or suggest substitutions, but don't continue the arguments against the president's plan, because it's now part of the legislative process. That would be beating a dead horse."
What? Once the President's plan has been introduced you can only suggest changes, you can't "attack it" or oppose the whole thing? Students of Congress must be racking their brains trying to figure this enunciation of legislative procedure out.
I didn't say it was dead on arrival," he said. "What I said was, I hope we didn't have our friends on the other side of the aisle attacking the president's proposal once it's introduced. Because, once it's introduced, it becomes part of the legislative process. Suggest changes or suggest substitutions, but don't continue the arguments against the president's plan, because it's now part of the legislative process. That would be beating a dead horse."
What? Once the President's plan has been introduced you can only suggest changes, you can't "attack it" or oppose the whole thing? Students of Congress must be racking their brains trying to figure this enunciation of legislative procedure out.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Debunking "Limited Government" II
Earlier I stated that the stated conservative goal of Limited Government was both a manipulative way of preventing the terms of economic policy from being contested and thereby maintaining the existing state of power relations favorable to the haves of society at the same time it was hypocritical and disingenuous because conservatives routinely and vigorously throw the assumption of Limited Government under the metaphorical bus when their aim is to enact punitive, invasive policies to restrict the sexual practices of individuals, compel religious adherence, and regulate activity otherwise normally reserved to the private sphere.
To that I will add a critical third point. Even where it concerns the intervention in and regulation of economic behavior or the establishment of economic institutions, the notion of Limited Government is really about as useful and principled a paradigm for conservatives and the rest of us as a wad of phlegm. That is, when conservatives claim to support Limited Government the truth is they do not really mean it.
If conservatives really believed in Limited Government there would not be any funding for scientific and medical research and development, the benefits of which flow to many of our supposed bastions of Free Enterprise, like the pharmaceutical industry (PHARMA). If conservatives really believed in and truly wanted Limited Government there would not be any mortgage interest tax deductions or any employer deductions for providing health insurance to their employees. If conservatives really admired Limited Government there would not be any subsidies to large agribusiness farm conglomerates. If conservatives really favored Limited Government there would be no need to regulate or prohibit employee unions, as they would have the same right to organize as any other group and could negotiate work conditions or not with employers as necessary, free from government interference. If conservatives really wanted Limited Government they would not be as falling down begging eager to make sure military bases and associated contracts stayed in their districts or states the better to keep the local economies alive.
To sum up, the world conservatives have tried to foist on us is unwarranted politically, is not morally or practically consistent, and is not economically realistic or sensible.
So, the whole conceptual and moral deck of cards of which the conservative movement is supposedly constructed, that of Limited Government, is at best a fraud. At worst, it represents a non-plausible and inconsistent set of policies that are economically neither sustainable nor desirable but which are nonetheless morally hideous and disastrous.
This is why Democrats cannot move towards The Center.
To that I will add a critical third point. Even where it concerns the intervention in and regulation of economic behavior or the establishment of economic institutions, the notion of Limited Government is really about as useful and principled a paradigm for conservatives and the rest of us as a wad of phlegm. That is, when conservatives claim to support Limited Government the truth is they do not really mean it.
If conservatives really believed in Limited Government there would not be any funding for scientific and medical research and development, the benefits of which flow to many of our supposed bastions of Free Enterprise, like the pharmaceutical industry (PHARMA). If conservatives really believed in and truly wanted Limited Government there would not be any mortgage interest tax deductions or any employer deductions for providing health insurance to their employees. If conservatives really admired Limited Government there would not be any subsidies to large agribusiness farm conglomerates. If conservatives really favored Limited Government there would be no need to regulate or prohibit employee unions, as they would have the same right to organize as any other group and could negotiate work conditions or not with employers as necessary, free from government interference. If conservatives really wanted Limited Government they would not be as falling down begging eager to make sure military bases and associated contracts stayed in their districts or states the better to keep the local economies alive.
To sum up, the world conservatives have tried to foist on us is unwarranted politically, is not morally or practically consistent, and is not economically realistic or sensible.
So, the whole conceptual and moral deck of cards of which the conservative movement is supposedly constructed, that of Limited Government, is at best a fraud. At worst, it represents a non-plausible and inconsistent set of policies that are economically neither sustainable nor desirable but which are nonetheless morally hideous and disastrous.
This is why Democrats cannot move towards The Center.
Debunking "limited government"
In his classic 1960 book entitled The Semisovereign People, political scientist E.E. Shattschneider laid out the central dynamic of politics--conflict.
According to Schattschneider, it is the nature of the ruling group or groups to attempt to minimize the scope of conflict by limiting the inclusion of competing ideas and groups within the political process. This is done in two ways. The first step is more formal and consists of configuring the rules so as to prevent conflicts from becoming a part of the political process. The second step is less formal and consists of trying to delegitimize the conflicting ideas or groups in question.
So, when we consider the conservative refrain of "limited government" we should recognize that what they are attempting to accomplish is this second style, delegitimizing of political conflict in some area that is beneficial to them and their patrons. In the case of the "limited government" appeal in particular, the desire is to delegitimize and prevent the expansion of conflict in regards to the economic system, by those--such as consumer groups, unions, welfare advocates, what have you--that would contest the established power of major corporations. The idea is to ensure that certain ideas and debates are not heard and thus are prevented from being considered by the political process and its institutions.
In terms of economic reform, this is the conservative's game. They want to limit the scope of conflict and prevent certain ideas from entering the political and social domain.
Conversely, conservatives are playing the opposite game when it comes to matters of sex and religion. Like their liberal economic counterparts, social conservatives--such as the various "pro-family groups" like FONF, FRC, etc--desire to expand the scope of conflict to include now largely private concerns like abortion, sexual preference, and religious devotion to be a matters of decision for the public sphere.
So, on the one hand, when conservatives repeat the "limited government" phrase it is usually in the context of economic decision making, and they are attempting to limit the public's involvement in economic decision making by way of its constitutional institutions and representives. On the other hand, the conservative's desire for "limited government" does not extend to so-called issues of sexual morality and religious practice, which conservatives would like to make the jurisdiction of the state, rather than the domain of individuals.
[Now, many people would object to my apparent failure to distinguish between what we might call economic conservatives or libertarian conservatives on the one hand, which prefer "limited government", and social conservatives on the other hand. But I am purposely lumping the two groups together because for all practical purposes, they are one and the same. To the extent their ambitions do not overlap and conflict with each other, they are united. And that I would suggest is an apt depiction of the current political situation.]
So progressives should not be intimidated by conservative calls for "limited government" or give in to requests by the media, the other party, or even fellow members of its own party, to, for the sake of phantom popularity, to abandon its goals for a more economically just and inclusive economic and welfare system. Progressives should also recognize that such conservative rhetoric is largely bullshit in so far as it fails to accurately describe much of the conservative's own agenda when it comes to limiting and eliminating the past century's growth of individual rights and privacy.
According to Schattschneider, it is the nature of the ruling group or groups to attempt to minimize the scope of conflict by limiting the inclusion of competing ideas and groups within the political process. This is done in two ways. The first step is more formal and consists of configuring the rules so as to prevent conflicts from becoming a part of the political process. The second step is less formal and consists of trying to delegitimize the conflicting ideas or groups in question.
So, when we consider the conservative refrain of "limited government" we should recognize that what they are attempting to accomplish is this second style, delegitimizing of political conflict in some area that is beneficial to them and their patrons. In the case of the "limited government" appeal in particular, the desire is to delegitimize and prevent the expansion of conflict in regards to the economic system, by those--such as consumer groups, unions, welfare advocates, what have you--that would contest the established power of major corporations. The idea is to ensure that certain ideas and debates are not heard and thus are prevented from being considered by the political process and its institutions.
In terms of economic reform, this is the conservative's game. They want to limit the scope of conflict and prevent certain ideas from entering the political and social domain.
Conversely, conservatives are playing the opposite game when it comes to matters of sex and religion. Like their liberal economic counterparts, social conservatives--such as the various "pro-family groups" like FONF, FRC, etc--desire to expand the scope of conflict to include now largely private concerns like abortion, sexual preference, and religious devotion to be a matters of decision for the public sphere.
So, on the one hand, when conservatives repeat the "limited government" phrase it is usually in the context of economic decision making, and they are attempting to limit the public's involvement in economic decision making by way of its constitutional institutions and representives. On the other hand, the conservative's desire for "limited government" does not extend to so-called issues of sexual morality and religious practice, which conservatives would like to make the jurisdiction of the state, rather than the domain of individuals.
[Now, many people would object to my apparent failure to distinguish between what we might call economic conservatives or libertarian conservatives on the one hand, which prefer "limited government", and social conservatives on the other hand. But I am purposely lumping the two groups together because for all practical purposes, they are one and the same. To the extent their ambitions do not overlap and conflict with each other, they are united. And that I would suggest is an apt depiction of the current political situation.]
So progressives should not be intimidated by conservative calls for "limited government" or give in to requests by the media, the other party, or even fellow members of its own party, to, for the sake of phantom popularity, to abandon its goals for a more economically just and inclusive economic and welfare system. Progressives should also recognize that such conservative rhetoric is largely bullshit in so far as it fails to accurately describe much of the conservative's own agenda when it comes to limiting and eliminating the past century's growth of individual rights and privacy.
The New Bill Clinton Admiration Society
And you thought we wingnuts hated Clinton, didn't you? Not true. Oh sure, we know we've said lots of disparaging things about your president, #42. There was that nasty business about him being a draft-dodging, pot-smoking rapist, a disgrace to the presidency and all that. And yes, we did impeach that usurper to the Republican throne. Fat lot of good it did us in the '98 elections. We got Newt good for that. And yeah, many of our bloggers on the Internets, and many of our radio and cable TV hosts continue to repeat many of the same old smears of Clinton even though he's been out of office for over four years now, because when the news is lagging everybody needs a reminder about what slimebags you liberals are.
But it's not true that we don't love the guy. In fact, I dare say we love him more than you liberal scumbuckets do. After all, he single handedly rejuventated our ranks of deluded followers and through his presence, allowed us to create a virtual publishing industry dedicated to rooting out all things Clinton, real and imagined, providing much needed capital and jobs for our many out of work and underskilled staff of "writers". Our biggest accomplishment, Fox news, wouldn't exist without the man.
And he's even useful for our policy purposes. He allowed us to gut welfare. And now, as we still defend our moronic trip to Iraq in search of WMD that didn't exist we can go back to your man's quotes on the WMD that he believed were in Baghdad, too, and use them to justify ourselves to the librul media. And Bill's been a valuable resource on Social Security as well. Your man even said that crappy program was bankrupt (even though we know it's not and don't even know what "bankrupt" in the context of a pay as you go system even means) so don't go accusin' us of making up a Social Security crisis.
Yeah we really like(d) Bill. Even though he was the worst president ever and his administration the most corrupt in history, we'll go quotin' him when it suits us and act like we admire him for a few seconds, forgetting all the vitriolic bile we sent his and your way all those years and continue to do even now. And your libril media will eat it up.
But it's not true that we don't love the guy. In fact, I dare say we love him more than you liberal scumbuckets do. After all, he single handedly rejuventated our ranks of deluded followers and through his presence, allowed us to create a virtual publishing industry dedicated to rooting out all things Clinton, real and imagined, providing much needed capital and jobs for our many out of work and underskilled staff of "writers". Our biggest accomplishment, Fox news, wouldn't exist without the man.
And he's even useful for our policy purposes. He allowed us to gut welfare. And now, as we still defend our moronic trip to Iraq in search of WMD that didn't exist we can go back to your man's quotes on the WMD that he believed were in Baghdad, too, and use them to justify ourselves to the librul media. And Bill's been a valuable resource on Social Security as well. Your man even said that crappy program was bankrupt (even though we know it's not and don't even know what "bankrupt" in the context of a pay as you go system even means) so don't go accusin' us of making up a Social Security crisis.
Yeah we really like(d) Bill. Even though he was the worst president ever and his administration the most corrupt in history, we'll go quotin' him when it suits us and act like we admire him for a few seconds, forgetting all the vitriolic bile we sent his and your way all those years and continue to do even now. And your libril media will eat it up.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Got Your Values Right Here
Dividin' not Unitin'--
"Most of our families don't look to Hollywood as a source of values," Mr. Bush told audiences during his final campaign swing.
The Washington Times, November 4, 2004
Hollywood, Music Celebrities Tapped For 'Tsunami Aid' Concert
January 15, 2005
Anybody know when the tsunami aid special put on by Rush Limbaugh, Michael "Savage" Weiner, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell is on?
"Most of our families don't look to Hollywood as a source of values," Mr. Bush told audiences during his final campaign swing.
The Washington Times, November 4, 2004
Hollywood, Music Celebrities Tapped For 'Tsunami Aid' Concert
January 15, 2005
Anybody know when the tsunami aid special put on by Rush Limbaugh, Michael "Savage" Weiner, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell is on?
Friday, January 14, 2005
In Their Own Words
Selections of conservative thought from Media Matters:
Pat Buchanan: "[W]e [the South] wouldn't lose" the Civil War "the next time out"
Ann Coulter: Canada is "lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent"
"Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole"
David Horowitz: Democrats, media are "getting Americans killed in Iraq ... because of their
pathological hatred of George [W.] Bush"
G. Gordon Liddy: listening to Hitler "made me feel a strength inside I had never known before"
Pat Robertson on RU-486: "lo and behold, people are dying"
Michael Savage on the tsunami: "I wouldn't call it a tragedy. ... We shouldn't be spending a nickel on this"
Feel the love
Pat Buchanan: "[W]e [the South] wouldn't lose" the Civil War "the next time out"
Ann Coulter: Canada is "lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent"
"Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole"
David Horowitz: Democrats, media are "getting Americans killed in Iraq ... because of their
pathological hatred of George [W.] Bush"
G. Gordon Liddy: listening to Hitler "made me feel a strength inside I had never known before"
Pat Robertson on RU-486: "lo and behold, people are dying"
Michael Savage on the tsunami: "I wouldn't call it a tragedy. ... We shouldn't be spending a nickel on this"
Feel the love
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Where's my lunch pail?
There's a recent post over at Pandagon that basically readdresses the issue of how Republicans have exploited cultural or "heuristic" issues, as Ezra says, in wooing rural and low income white voters to their party while pursuing economic policies that are adverse to the working class needs of these constituents.
The other day, or yesterday, I posted something about how I hope our next presidential candidate embraces more liberal rhetoric and policies and avoids the same mad, futal dash to the "center" that the punditry constantly urges us to do, which I think is counterproductive to building a long term progressive movement, whatever the temporal results of particular elections or public opinion polls would indicate. At the same time I suggested there was evidence to support my view that liberal ideas were more popular than the word "liberal" would indicate, given the general basis of support for universal health care coverage, a fairer, more progressive tax structure, increased aid for disadvantaged groups, etc.
But the counter to that view is that while many voters may in general support liberal policies, they are either not very passionate about them or may hold different conclusions about how these policy goals should be attained or may not understand even in an elementary way what our current policies are and how the party platforms would affect them.
All of this is to say that I think the notion of bringing about a successful realignment in American politics (and I think that's what we're really talking about now, given Republican dominance in all three branches of government as well as in most states) will likely depend on more than a more charasmatic candidate speaking liberally.
While I'm optimistic in some ways about how changing demographics and economics potentially favors Democrats (see Ruy Texeira's book "The Emerging Democratic Majority"), I also have to concede that the Republican message of exclusion and punishment, be it in the form of patriotic rhetoric and symbols, wars and rumors of wars, "less government", affirmative action or whatever the latest gimick is, has a certain appeal, too, that we would be negligent in doubting. Singling out an appropriate "out" group or the "other" in politics has always had its share of adherents. I doubt this strategy will backfire on Republicans until the mess they're making begins to come more to fruition.
So as to the state of the party, if I can insert a football analogy, a comment attributed to Dallas Cowboy coach Bill Parcels is that "you are what you're record says you are". So, if for instance your record is 7-9, there's little basis for qualifying it by claiming such things as "well, we lost four games by five points or less", or "we didn't have our second receiver for three games" or "we won three of our last five". So while I think Kerry performed reasonably well given the circumstances, unfortunately the circumstances are that the party is in bad shape in many places, both geographically and rhetorically. We remain defensive about our policy preferences and are reluctant to play a challenging role when events seem against us. So, we are down a bunch of seats in the House, are approaching dire conditions in the Senate, and have no real spokesperson or message seemingly waiting around to be used to orchestrate our revival.
I've also been thinking about the party's past. It probably would be an exaggeration to say that the progressive movement really didn't start or achieve anything until the Great Depression, given the establishment of some regulatory agencies and the income tax early in the 20th century and the popularity of such figures as Theodore Roosevelt (aka, the Bull Moose). So it probably would be an exaggeration to claim that liberals didn't achieve success until 1932.
But I'll say it anyway. Progressives really didn't get their start until the New Deal, after the conservatives (Republicans in the north, Democrats in the south) had basically run the ship of state into the ground. The economic structure built during the New Deal and later years served to provide a considerable ground of support for the emerging middle class, and consequently, in due time, has been gradually removing the earlier inhibitions of growing centralized private power in the form of corporations and the preferences granted to them, and the dismantling of the welfare state in its broadest form (including direct government assistance as well as more "hidden" forms of welfare through the tax code).
If it took the Great Depression to give progressive policies a platform--and that even with considerable opposition in the south and from Wall Street--there may not be a whole lot of mileage in trying to convince people that the Republicans are screwing them if they don't actually experience it directly in the form of tragedy, which can be linked to the policies their supposed conservative benefactors have been working on behind their backs. Hopefully things won't get to the crisis point, [uh, oh, I'm using a Bush word] before more rational people can be elected and more rational policies implemented. But it's hard to see how the Republican policy of tax cuts forever anywhere and everywhere can continue before we're basically running the government on credit and history, sadly, repeats itself to those who won't remember it. As the private welfare state of subsidized employer health care and retirement pensions declines, people may actually start fretting about the status of the visible welfare state.
So what does all this mean? Should we be willing to embrace a Democratic Party that moves more and more to the right (that's where moving to the "center" will lead) anyway, with the thought that at a minimum moderate, centrist Democrats can at least prevent the passing of the worst stuff from the other side until such time as real changes can be made? Or can we or should we be more bold in our attempts to change the dynamics, despite the disadvantages of doing so?
I'd like to say we should keep up the good fight if for no other reason than to be able to say later that "we tried to tell you so", but that seems a bit hollow. For what its worth, I still hope a leader or set of leaders emerges to challenge the reigning orthodoxy. There's an illuminating passage from the movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis "Thirteen Days" where Kevin Costner's character says to JFK and RFK after a meeting with the military and former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, all pressing for immediate air strikes and an invasion of the island: "everybody thinks there's some wise old men out there who know what to do in these situations. Well, there is no wise man, there's just us." Maybe that's our situation as well, that there isn't and won't be any leader or leaders that will emerge. Maybe there's just us. We of the web. Hubris? Maybe. But there isn't right now.
The other day, or yesterday, I posted something about how I hope our next presidential candidate embraces more liberal rhetoric and policies and avoids the same mad, futal dash to the "center" that the punditry constantly urges us to do, which I think is counterproductive to building a long term progressive movement, whatever the temporal results of particular elections or public opinion polls would indicate. At the same time I suggested there was evidence to support my view that liberal ideas were more popular than the word "liberal" would indicate, given the general basis of support for universal health care coverage, a fairer, more progressive tax structure, increased aid for disadvantaged groups, etc.
But the counter to that view is that while many voters may in general support liberal policies, they are either not very passionate about them or may hold different conclusions about how these policy goals should be attained or may not understand even in an elementary way what our current policies are and how the party platforms would affect them.
All of this is to say that I think the notion of bringing about a successful realignment in American politics (and I think that's what we're really talking about now, given Republican dominance in all three branches of government as well as in most states) will likely depend on more than a more charasmatic candidate speaking liberally.
While I'm optimistic in some ways about how changing demographics and economics potentially favors Democrats (see Ruy Texeira's book "The Emerging Democratic Majority"), I also have to concede that the Republican message of exclusion and punishment, be it in the form of patriotic rhetoric and symbols, wars and rumors of wars, "less government", affirmative action or whatever the latest gimick is, has a certain appeal, too, that we would be negligent in doubting. Singling out an appropriate "out" group or the "other" in politics has always had its share of adherents. I doubt this strategy will backfire on Republicans until the mess they're making begins to come more to fruition.
So as to the state of the party, if I can insert a football analogy, a comment attributed to Dallas Cowboy coach Bill Parcels is that "you are what you're record says you are". So, if for instance your record is 7-9, there's little basis for qualifying it by claiming such things as "well, we lost four games by five points or less", or "we didn't have our second receiver for three games" or "we won three of our last five". So while I think Kerry performed reasonably well given the circumstances, unfortunately the circumstances are that the party is in bad shape in many places, both geographically and rhetorically. We remain defensive about our policy preferences and are reluctant to play a challenging role when events seem against us. So, we are down a bunch of seats in the House, are approaching dire conditions in the Senate, and have no real spokesperson or message seemingly waiting around to be used to orchestrate our revival.
I've also been thinking about the party's past. It probably would be an exaggeration to say that the progressive movement really didn't start or achieve anything until the Great Depression, given the establishment of some regulatory agencies and the income tax early in the 20th century and the popularity of such figures as Theodore Roosevelt (aka, the Bull Moose). So it probably would be an exaggeration to claim that liberals didn't achieve success until 1932.
But I'll say it anyway. Progressives really didn't get their start until the New Deal, after the conservatives (Republicans in the north, Democrats in the south) had basically run the ship of state into the ground. The economic structure built during the New Deal and later years served to provide a considerable ground of support for the emerging middle class, and consequently, in due time, has been gradually removing the earlier inhibitions of growing centralized private power in the form of corporations and the preferences granted to them, and the dismantling of the welfare state in its broadest form (including direct government assistance as well as more "hidden" forms of welfare through the tax code).
If it took the Great Depression to give progressive policies a platform--and that even with considerable opposition in the south and from Wall Street--there may not be a whole lot of mileage in trying to convince people that the Republicans are screwing them if they don't actually experience it directly in the form of tragedy, which can be linked to the policies their supposed conservative benefactors have been working on behind their backs. Hopefully things won't get to the crisis point, [uh, oh, I'm using a Bush word] before more rational people can be elected and more rational policies implemented. But it's hard to see how the Republican policy of tax cuts forever anywhere and everywhere can continue before we're basically running the government on credit and history, sadly, repeats itself to those who won't remember it. As the private welfare state of subsidized employer health care and retirement pensions declines, people may actually start fretting about the status of the visible welfare state.
So what does all this mean? Should we be willing to embrace a Democratic Party that moves more and more to the right (that's where moving to the "center" will lead) anyway, with the thought that at a minimum moderate, centrist Democrats can at least prevent the passing of the worst stuff from the other side until such time as real changes can be made? Or can we or should we be more bold in our attempts to change the dynamics, despite the disadvantages of doing so?
I'd like to say we should keep up the good fight if for no other reason than to be able to say later that "we tried to tell you so", but that seems a bit hollow. For what its worth, I still hope a leader or set of leaders emerges to challenge the reigning orthodoxy. There's an illuminating passage from the movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis "Thirteen Days" where Kevin Costner's character says to JFK and RFK after a meeting with the military and former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, all pressing for immediate air strikes and an invasion of the island: "everybody thinks there's some wise old men out there who know what to do in these situations. Well, there is no wise man, there's just us." Maybe that's our situation as well, that there isn't and won't be any leader or leaders that will emerge. Maybe there's just us. We of the web. Hubris? Maybe. But there isn't right now.
The Sky is Falling
Now that Dean has officially declared for the DNC Chairman race.
Remember the cries from staunch Democrats like Joemomentum Lieberman about Dean's leftishness and opposition to the Iraqi war and how unfit he was to represent the party and lead the country? Well, now that rhetoric's back as Dean seaks to lead the DNC. But before getting into all that, let's go back, shall we, to the days after Saddam Hussein's "capture" in December 2003. The Saddam statue had been toppled, freedom was on the march, and while a few rebel attacks were causing some disruption, we were assured they represented backenders and that with the capture of Hussein, the U.S. was "turning the corner" in Iraq. Well, we've had a few more corner turning events since then. But anyway, here's our fearless Democratic establishment responding to Dean's dismissal of the importance of finding Hussein:
Lieberman said that if Dean doesn't think Americans are safer with Hussein in custody, "he has climbed into his own spider hole of denial." Lieberman [also] said the former Vermont governor "has made a series of dubious judgments and irresponsible statements in this campaign." Those statements, he said, "signal he would in fact take us back to the days when we Democrats were not trusted to defend America's security."
Now, back to the present. Bulworth knows you've heard this story already, but here it is again, courtesy of the Washington Post--lead drum beater for invading Iraq--just so the wingnuts at NRO, LGF, Powerline, Reynolds and Faux and our Democratic officeholders can be reminded. No weapons. And that's actually the good news from Iraq. Bulworth would hate to imagine what would be going over there if Iraqi insurgents had the chemical and biological weapons we sent to Saddam when he was our buddy at their disposal.
Regardless of the situation in Iraq, Dean is still a problem for some Dems, who are very comfortable losing elections, thank you. Here is some new commentary from Lieberman's spokesperson on Dean's DNC candidacy:
"I think Dean did a tremendous job in the primaries -- energizing people, making statements of principle -- and that he has a lot to contribute to the debate," said Dan Gerstein, former press secretary to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.). "That said, I think he would be a disastrous choice to head the party because of the image he projects on national security."
"Statements of principle." Yeah, let's not have any of that. Somebody might get upset. The Republicans might not like us, if we go around "making statements of principle". Faux might not invite us on their "fair and balanced" shows if we are too busy "making statements of principle" that are contrary to the Republican Administration's and the conservative media's world view and talking points. Rush certainly won't like us, and we need to try to get on his good side. Then "...disastrous choice...because of the image he projects on national security." I'll give you a few minutes to consider that choice of words. "Image" and "national security." What sort of "image" on "national security" does our gang in DC have now? As my man, The Rude Pundit, declared in October "The world is burning...Do you #$%@& get that!"
Finally, the sky is falling, because as everyone and their neighbor's uncle knows, Democrats need to "overcome the values gap with Republicans". I don't know where to begin to go with this. "A values gap with Republicans."
These values? Or these? How about these? Or we could adopt these values. And what about these?
I wouldn't be discouraged if Rosenberg gets the position, but really, Roemer, Lieberman, Frost, at long last, sirs, have you no shame?
Remember the cries from staunch Democrats like Joemomentum Lieberman about Dean's leftishness and opposition to the Iraqi war and how unfit he was to represent the party and lead the country? Well, now that rhetoric's back as Dean seaks to lead the DNC. But before getting into all that, let's go back, shall we, to the days after Saddam Hussein's "capture" in December 2003. The Saddam statue had been toppled, freedom was on the march, and while a few rebel attacks were causing some disruption, we were assured they represented backenders and that with the capture of Hussein, the U.S. was "turning the corner" in Iraq. Well, we've had a few more corner turning events since then. But anyway, here's our fearless Democratic establishment responding to Dean's dismissal of the importance of finding Hussein:
Lieberman said that if Dean doesn't think Americans are safer with Hussein in custody, "he has climbed into his own spider hole of denial." Lieberman [also] said the former Vermont governor "has made a series of dubious judgments and irresponsible statements in this campaign." Those statements, he said, "signal he would in fact take us back to the days when we Democrats were not trusted to defend America's security."
Now, back to the present. Bulworth knows you've heard this story already, but here it is again, courtesy of the Washington Post--lead drum beater for invading Iraq--just so the wingnuts at NRO, LGF, Powerline, Reynolds and Faux and our Democratic officeholders can be reminded. No weapons. And that's actually the good news from Iraq. Bulworth would hate to imagine what would be going over there if Iraqi insurgents had the chemical and biological weapons we sent to Saddam when he was our buddy at their disposal.
Regardless of the situation in Iraq, Dean is still a problem for some Dems, who are very comfortable losing elections, thank you. Here is some new commentary from Lieberman's spokesperson on Dean's DNC candidacy:
"I think Dean did a tremendous job in the primaries -- energizing people, making statements of principle -- and that he has a lot to contribute to the debate," said Dan Gerstein, former press secretary to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.). "That said, I think he would be a disastrous choice to head the party because of the image he projects on national security."
"Statements of principle." Yeah, let's not have any of that. Somebody might get upset. The Republicans might not like us, if we go around "making statements of principle". Faux might not invite us on their "fair and balanced" shows if we are too busy "making statements of principle" that are contrary to the Republican Administration's and the conservative media's world view and talking points. Rush certainly won't like us, and we need to try to get on his good side. Then "...disastrous choice...because of the image he projects on national security." I'll give you a few minutes to consider that choice of words. "Image" and "national security." What sort of "image" on "national security" does our gang in DC have now? As my man, The Rude Pundit, declared in October "The world is burning...Do you #$%@& get that!"
Finally, the sky is falling, because as everyone and their neighbor's uncle knows, Democrats need to "overcome the values gap with Republicans". I don't know where to begin to go with this. "A values gap with Republicans."
These values? Or these? How about these? Or we could adopt these values. And what about these?
I wouldn't be discouraged if Rosenberg gets the position, but really, Roemer, Lieberman, Frost, at long last, sirs, have you no shame?
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
More on '08
Kevin Drum links to this semiserious piece in the Washington Monthly talking up Democratic prospects for '08, from the global, corporate, entertainment and political benches.
What the hell. I'm willing to be unconventional. And it's not like we're loaded with charismatic, clean up hitters who deserve their turn. One stipulation I have, though, is that he or she agree to not run away from the word "liberal". As Ezra says:
We don't need to turn out our base, we need to enlarge it. We need to make liberalism safe and attractive, and we need more Americans to demand more progressivism in their candidate. When Barry Goldwater turned the hell out of his base, he lost by one of the widest margins in American history. His base was too small. When Reagan turned out his base, he won repeatedly. Reagan made conservatism attractive, he made his base -- theoretically the same one Goldwater had -- huge. Which is why the whole idea of bases as monolithic groups is dead wrong, they're amorphous, they fluctuate in size. And they're not the answer. When liberalism is ascendant and its spokesperson appealing, our base will be huge. Until then, it'll never be large enough.
What the hell. I'm willing to be unconventional. And it's not like we're loaded with charismatic, clean up hitters who deserve their turn. One stipulation I have, though, is that he or she agree to not run away from the word "liberal". As Ezra says:
We don't need to turn out our base, we need to enlarge it. We need to make liberalism safe and attractive, and we need more Americans to demand more progressivism in their candidate. When Barry Goldwater turned the hell out of his base, he lost by one of the widest margins in American history. His base was too small. When Reagan turned out his base, he won repeatedly. Reagan made conservatism attractive, he made his base -- theoretically the same one Goldwater had -- huge. Which is why the whole idea of bases as monolithic groups is dead wrong, they're amorphous, they fluctuate in size. And they're not the answer. When liberalism is ascendant and its spokesperson appealing, our base will be huge. Until then, it'll never be large enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)