I’m not nearly as concerned about the intelligence of the Obama administration, as I am about the lack of intellectual honesty on the right.
The constant tone of shrill and incoherent opposition, based primarily on distortions and lies, does not reflect well on the party. Obama may be down near 50% approval. But outside the deep south, the GOP is well under 20%.
It really makes no sense to claim that Obama is both incompetent and an evil mastermind who will transform the country in mere months. Obviously he is neither. He is a disciplined and patient politician, and he understands the nature and pace of Congress.
But go ahead and convince yourself that we’re all a bunch of idiots – after all, we voted for Obama-Biden over McCain-Palin. Certainly that’s evidence of something…
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Kaufman smears himself: reverse hate speech?
This is another pathetic example of what PJM is trying to pass off as journalism.
All the “objectionable” material cited was in a public forum, where anyone can log in and share their personal thoughts. Kaufman is calling for the organization to remove comments that he doesn’t like. That’s basically un-American, because in America, we don’t try to muzzle critical voices – we respond with more speech. You can call out the individual forum posters, but trying to tie their posts to the organization would be like trying to tar the GOP based on posts in their forum. Or impeaching PJM based on the comments I make.
Believe me, you do not want to go there.
All the “objectionable” material cited was in a public forum, where anyone can log in and share their personal thoughts. Kaufman is calling for the organization to remove comments that he doesn’t like. That’s basically un-American, because in America, we don’t try to muzzle critical voices – we respond with more speech. You can call out the individual forum posters, but trying to tie their posts to the organization would be like trying to tar the GOP based on posts in their forum. Or impeaching PJM based on the comments I make.
Believe me, you do not want to go there.
Republicans don't get "Justice"
If you are searching for social justice in the Constitution, just check the preamble; “Promote the general welfare” is a pretty good analog for “social justice”. And Congress is also empowered to enact taxes for the specific purpose of promoting the general welfare.
It’s really not that difficult a concept.
It’s really not that difficult a concept.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
GOP Nazis
It’s true. Conservatism isn’t like Nazism. But we don’t have a properly conservative party in the USA. We have the GOP…
On to the four elements:
1) Conservatives only want the rich to succeed.
Although the effect of conservatives’ low tax policies always is the same – increased concentration of wealth at the top end of the income scale – the notion of trickle down economics is still maintained as gospel among some conservatives. The unfortunate reality is that economic growth does benefit the wealthy disproportionately when tax rates are not sufficiently progressive, and has led to an erosion in purchasing power for the working poor.
Even more interesting, conservatives equate “success” with economic wealth. The value of public goods is minimized, in order to emphasize the role of business in the economy. Profit and growth become the only measures of success, and the negative effects of both can be ignored as irrelevant. Conservatives believe that free market capitalism achieves the best outcome for all individuals, despite copious evidence that this is not the case.
Conservatives misunderstand success as a personal condition of wealth, when in reality success means much more. Success involves healthy communities, public safety, education, and all the other aspects of a community. None of us can be a success in isolation. An exclusive focus on monetary wealth ignores the value of the environment, the community, the culture and the wider world.
It’s not that conservatives only want the rich to succeed – it is that they use wealth as the primary measure of success.
2) Conservatives hate minorities.
Hating minorities is not central to modern conservatism. Many conservatives are too accepting of racial bias, and opposition to affirmative action is wrongheaded, but that does not mean that conservatives in general hate minorities. The problem is that conservatives tolerate those who hate minorities, and do nothing to counteract their hate.
3) Conservatism was the ideology of Nazis.
Fascism, of course, was the ideology of the Nazis. Conservatism of course has nothing to do with fascism, but as I noted above, the GOP has little to do with conservatism. Conservatism would not permit the abandonment of habeas corpus, or the perpetration of warrantless wiretaps, or a war without express authorization. These are things that are associated with authoritarian regimes, among them the Nazis. Nothing conservative about it, though.
4) Conservatives are fanatical Christians who want to use the government to proselytize.
Conservatives are not fanatical Christians who want to use the government to proselytize. By the same token, fanatical Christians who want to use the government to proselytize are not conservatives, and have unfortunately taken over the GOP. A quick perusal of the party platform is all it takes to see that the fanatical Christians are driving the Republican bus – which may be why things look so apocalyptic for the party at the moment.
No true conservative would be caught opposing equal rights for homosexuals, or permitting the state to interfere in the doctor patient relationship. It is the fanatical Christian fringe that most endangers the GOP and the nation, by being unable to grasp the concept of secular government.
So no, conservatism isn’t like nazism – it has its own set of problems, and an even bigger problem in not having a party. The GOP is no longer compatible with conservatism – and it will be a herculean task to rebuild the party along those lines if that is indeed the path to GOP revival.
On to the four elements:
1) Conservatives only want the rich to succeed.
Although the effect of conservatives’ low tax policies always is the same – increased concentration of wealth at the top end of the income scale – the notion of trickle down economics is still maintained as gospel among some conservatives. The unfortunate reality is that economic growth does benefit the wealthy disproportionately when tax rates are not sufficiently progressive, and has led to an erosion in purchasing power for the working poor.
Even more interesting, conservatives equate “success” with economic wealth. The value of public goods is minimized, in order to emphasize the role of business in the economy. Profit and growth become the only measures of success, and the negative effects of both can be ignored as irrelevant. Conservatives believe that free market capitalism achieves the best outcome for all individuals, despite copious evidence that this is not the case.
Conservatives misunderstand success as a personal condition of wealth, when in reality success means much more. Success involves healthy communities, public safety, education, and all the other aspects of a community. None of us can be a success in isolation. An exclusive focus on monetary wealth ignores the value of the environment, the community, the culture and the wider world.
It’s not that conservatives only want the rich to succeed – it is that they use wealth as the primary measure of success.
2) Conservatives hate minorities.
Hating minorities is not central to modern conservatism. Many conservatives are too accepting of racial bias, and opposition to affirmative action is wrongheaded, but that does not mean that conservatives in general hate minorities. The problem is that conservatives tolerate those who hate minorities, and do nothing to counteract their hate.
3) Conservatism was the ideology of Nazis.
Fascism, of course, was the ideology of the Nazis. Conservatism of course has nothing to do with fascism, but as I noted above, the GOP has little to do with conservatism. Conservatism would not permit the abandonment of habeas corpus, or the perpetration of warrantless wiretaps, or a war without express authorization. These are things that are associated with authoritarian regimes, among them the Nazis. Nothing conservative about it, though.
4) Conservatives are fanatical Christians who want to use the government to proselytize.
Conservatives are not fanatical Christians who want to use the government to proselytize. By the same token, fanatical Christians who want to use the government to proselytize are not conservatives, and have unfortunately taken over the GOP. A quick perusal of the party platform is all it takes to see that the fanatical Christians are driving the Republican bus – which may be why things look so apocalyptic for the party at the moment.
No true conservative would be caught opposing equal rights for homosexuals, or permitting the state to interfere in the doctor patient relationship. It is the fanatical Christian fringe that most endangers the GOP and the nation, by being unable to grasp the concept of secular government.
So no, conservatism isn’t like nazism – it has its own set of problems, and an even bigger problem in not having a party. The GOP is no longer compatible with conservatism – and it will be a herculean task to rebuild the party along those lines if that is indeed the path to GOP revival.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Fighting AGW reality is a losing battle
There is no net benefit to continued reliance on fossil fuels.
The article cited by the author does not call into question the science of AGW – it merely points out the obvious. Yes, temperatures vary over time, and there are cyclical forces at play – but the overall trend is not in question, and the basis for the science is still sound.
It is easy to cherry pick data and pretend that AGW is not happening – it is much more difficult to face the reality that fossil fuels and deforestation are having a global impact that may be irreversible. The loss of biodiversity, and the potential for ecological disaster, are more than sufficient to justify invoking the precautionary principle.
There is no compelling reason to persist in the use of fossil fuels – unless you are making a profit on them.
The article cited by the author does not call into question the science of AGW – it merely points out the obvious. Yes, temperatures vary over time, and there are cyclical forces at play – but the overall trend is not in question, and the basis for the science is still sound.
It is easy to cherry pick data and pretend that AGW is not happening – it is much more difficult to face the reality that fossil fuels and deforestation are having a global impact that may be irreversible. The loss of biodiversity, and the potential for ecological disaster, are more than sufficient to justify invoking the precautionary principle.
There is no compelling reason to persist in the use of fossil fuels – unless you are making a profit on them.
Will Obama lose support from the left?
I don’t think it is likely that much of Obama’s base will turn on him. Certainly there is a mass of people on the left who will be disappointed if escalation is the way Obama chooses to proceed, but there is a huge difference between Bush and Obama when it comes to war fighting. Obama seems genuinely interested in making the best decision possible, with evidence to support it, and his deliberate and measured process ensures that his base cannot claim he is being reckless.
There will be dissent against whatever choice Obama makes, and there is no way to know going forward if his choice is the best available or not – history does not allow us the luxury of studying hypotheticals.
The claim that 40,000 troops will somehow magically create the change needed in Afghanistan is hopelessly naive. Obama’s pursuit of a workable strategy for victory is the best way forward – precipitous escalation is meaningless without an underlying strategy that can tie together all of the elements necessary for a stable and democratic Afghanistan to emerge from the wreckage of eight years of war.
Given the complete failure of the previous administration to square this circle, Obama’s task is clearly a difficult and thorny challenge – but the best way forward is not intuitively obvious, and the assumptions that underlie the call for a “surge” should be properly challenged and explored. Without a complete and thoughtful policy review, sending additional troops into harm’s way would be a crime – not as great a crime as the invasion of Iraq, but certainly a failure in the proper conduct of war.
There will be dissent against whatever choice Obama makes, and there is no way to know going forward if his choice is the best available or not – history does not allow us the luxury of studying hypotheticals.
The claim that 40,000 troops will somehow magically create the change needed in Afghanistan is hopelessly naive. Obama’s pursuit of a workable strategy for victory is the best way forward – precipitous escalation is meaningless without an underlying strategy that can tie together all of the elements necessary for a stable and democratic Afghanistan to emerge from the wreckage of eight years of war.
Given the complete failure of the previous administration to square this circle, Obama’s task is clearly a difficult and thorny challenge – but the best way forward is not intuitively obvious, and the assumptions that underlie the call for a “surge” should be properly challenged and explored. Without a complete and thoughtful policy review, sending additional troops into harm’s way would be a crime – not as great a crime as the invasion of Iraq, but certainly a failure in the proper conduct of war.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Nobel: Bush Bashing?
Bush is not America, and does not represent her values. In fact, the repudiation of Bush is a reaffirmation of American values.
Obama’s prize means more than simply a repudiation of Bush – it is also an endorsement of his broad policy objectives, and the return of America to world leadership.
GOP terrorists denigrating the Nobel Peace Prize is of course not a surprise. Do you fools really believe that everyone else in the world is stupid? Can you not see the horrendous damage inflicted on our nation by the Bush cabal, and the heroic efforts of Obama to reverse this tragedy?
The lack of grace, humility, and comprehension on the right is staggering.
Obama’s prize means more than simply a repudiation of Bush – it is also an endorsement of his broad policy objectives, and the return of America to world leadership.
GOP terrorists denigrating the Nobel Peace Prize is of course not a surprise. Do you fools really believe that everyone else in the world is stupid? Can you not see the horrendous damage inflicted on our nation by the Bush cabal, and the heroic efforts of Obama to reverse this tragedy?
The lack of grace, humility, and comprehension on the right is staggering.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
The Power of Deluding Yourself
VDH claims some special insight into why Obama was voted into office, but he is missing a big part of the picture. Some of us actually looked into the policy positions Obama advocated, and preferred them to the alternatives.
My support for Obama has absolutely nothing to do with his race, his age, or his charisma. This is, and always has been, about policy. Every time someone mentions race as a reason he was elected, they betray their inner racist monologue. Obama could have been hispanic, white or asian – his race was not why people voted for him.
I want him to achieve his aims, because they are positive prescriptions for American prosperity. The author claims that Obama is getting his payback now – but in reality, Obama is turning the corner right now. By this time next year, health reform will be law, cap and trade will be in force, and jobless numbers will be improving. Obama is currently more popular than he was on the day he won the election – and for all the talk of failure, he is moving forward on the broad agenda that was his platform in the campaign.
I noticed there was no citation for the claim that Obama’s approval is dipping – probably because the latest polls show approval increasing, while disapproval has dropped significantly. Obama’s approval is higher than his share of the vote last November – and as his patient and deliberate approach to governance is vindicated by legislative victories, his numbers will only improve.
The situation in Afghanistan is indeed a sticky wicket, but the goals Obama has laid out are clear.
What VDH is really arguing is that Obama can’t possibly be as intelligent, popular and well-informed as he appears, because he is just a black man who benefitted from affirmative action. This is blatant racism. Nobody believes you anymore when you claim you are not a racist, because you keep demonstrating that this is how you think.
The GOP is drifting farther and farther away from rational discourse and intelligent policy discussions, and toward a racist, xenophobic, religious-right party of limited utility. This article is just more of the same “I hope Obama fails” rhetoric that has been standard issue all year long – no constructive criticism, just a lot of ad hominem attacks on Obama and his supporters, and no policy prescriptions whatsoever.
More proof that the Republican party has no idea how to do anything right.
My support for Obama has absolutely nothing to do with his race, his age, or his charisma. This is, and always has been, about policy. Every time someone mentions race as a reason he was elected, they betray their inner racist monologue. Obama could have been hispanic, white or asian – his race was not why people voted for him.
I want him to achieve his aims, because they are positive prescriptions for American prosperity. The author claims that Obama is getting his payback now – but in reality, Obama is turning the corner right now. By this time next year, health reform will be law, cap and trade will be in force, and jobless numbers will be improving. Obama is currently more popular than he was on the day he won the election – and for all the talk of failure, he is moving forward on the broad agenda that was his platform in the campaign.
I noticed there was no citation for the claim that Obama’s approval is dipping – probably because the latest polls show approval increasing, while disapproval has dropped significantly. Obama’s approval is higher than his share of the vote last November – and as his patient and deliberate approach to governance is vindicated by legislative victories, his numbers will only improve.
The situation in Afghanistan is indeed a sticky wicket, but the goals Obama has laid out are clear.
What VDH is really arguing is that Obama can’t possibly be as intelligent, popular and well-informed as he appears, because he is just a black man who benefitted from affirmative action. This is blatant racism. Nobody believes you anymore when you claim you are not a racist, because you keep demonstrating that this is how you think.
The GOP is drifting farther and farther away from rational discourse and intelligent policy discussions, and toward a racist, xenophobic, religious-right party of limited utility. This article is just more of the same “I hope Obama fails” rhetoric that has been standard issue all year long – no constructive criticism, just a lot of ad hominem attacks on Obama and his supporters, and no policy prescriptions whatsoever.
More proof that the Republican party has no idea how to do anything right.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Glenn Beck is the new GOP
I agree with the author:
Beck is indeed radioactive, extremely hazardous - even a little exposure can cause violent and potentially fatal disease.
The left attacks Beck because he is "just a dimwitted freak" - much like Palin and Bush. The right continually offends the sensibilities of intelligent persons by touting these sub-par spokespersons as their new leadership. Beck is not a significant threat to the Democrats - he is really more of a threat to our political discourse. Abandoning reason and logic for showmanship only marginalizes the GOP in the eyes of the critical observer. Yes, the faithful lap it up, and there is great profit in this for Fox - but it does nothing productive for the political process.
I do agree with the author that Beck is a man for his time - he perfectly represents the anti-intellectual, pop-psych perversion that the Republicans have become. The right has much more to fear from Beck and Palin than the left - but the left will keep attacking these two as convenient targets that prevent any other conservative voices from being taken seriously.
Promoting the dimwitted as the future of the GOP, the Republicans have clearly reached a new low in recruitment, while also making progress in presenting honestly the true face of the party. Crazy, but true. Palin and Beck are the best gifts the left could ever hope for.
In the realm of power dynamics, the former DJ is plutonium.
Beck is indeed radioactive, extremely hazardous - even a little exposure can cause violent and potentially fatal disease.
The left attacks Beck because he is "just a dimwitted freak" - much like Palin and Bush. The right continually offends the sensibilities of intelligent persons by touting these sub-par spokespersons as their new leadership. Beck is not a significant threat to the Democrats - he is really more of a threat to our political discourse. Abandoning reason and logic for showmanship only marginalizes the GOP in the eyes of the critical observer. Yes, the faithful lap it up, and there is great profit in this for Fox - but it does nothing productive for the political process.
I do agree with the author that Beck is a man for his time - he perfectly represents the anti-intellectual, pop-psych perversion that the Republicans have become. The right has much more to fear from Beck and Palin than the left - but the left will keep attacking these two as convenient targets that prevent any other conservative voices from being taken seriously.
Promoting the dimwitted as the future of the GOP, the Republicans have clearly reached a new low in recruitment, while also making progress in presenting honestly the true face of the party. Crazy, but true. Palin and Beck are the best gifts the left could ever hope for.
Health Care Reform Will Pass
The short answer is: yes. Obama has the votes for health care reform, and some sort of comprehensive bill will pass this session. This bill will include some form of a public option, watered-down or not, and will also eliminate many insurance industry practices that kill Americans every day.
The GOP does not have the votes to stop this bill, and have made it clear that they are not willing to compromise or work together to craft this legislation. This is a major miscalculation by the Republican caucus. Health reform will pass, and Obama and the Democrats will get all of the credit - and extra kudos for standing up to the obstructionists.
Pretending that the American people are satisfied with the most expensive, dysfunctional health care system in the developed world is not doing the GOP any favors. After trying to gut social security, it is hilarious to see the right wingers pretending to defend Medicare. Health care reform is good for Medicare, because it will let the government take on patients who are not yet heavy health care consumers, which will help balance the rising costs for older patients.
We have never been closer to comprehensive health care reform - and it will happen before the end of this year. It has the support of the majority in Congress as well as the majority of Americans. The fact that the GOP is not on board is just more evidence that the right is out of touch with voters.
The GOP does not have the votes to stop this bill, and have made it clear that they are not willing to compromise or work together to craft this legislation. This is a major miscalculation by the Republican caucus. Health reform will pass, and Obama and the Democrats will get all of the credit - and extra kudos for standing up to the obstructionists.
Pretending that the American people are satisfied with the most expensive, dysfunctional health care system in the developed world is not doing the GOP any favors. After trying to gut social security, it is hilarious to see the right wingers pretending to defend Medicare. Health care reform is good for Medicare, because it will let the government take on patients who are not yet heavy health care consumers, which will help balance the rising costs for older patients.
We have never been closer to comprehensive health care reform - and it will happen before the end of this year. It has the support of the majority in Congress as well as the majority of Americans. The fact that the GOP is not on board is just more evidence that the right is out of touch with voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
