Who you calling stupid?

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Glenn Beck is the new GOP

I agree with the author:

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.

Funny Business

• Jebus, the Republicans are starting to look good. (Oops — I couldn’t find a link for this one.)

Why am I not surprised?

Anger, yes - violence, no

Talk of assassination. Odd intimations that assassins of liberals are themselves liberals. Political anger is one thing, but fomenting political violence, and lying about the source and nature of said violence, is a very low place to go.

In general, it is very easy to tell the difference between left-wing and right-wing violence. Leftists tend to engage in violence against property – rightists instead engage in violence against persons. I will leave it to each of you to decide for yourself which is more grievous.

GOP should abandon Beck

This is good advice, but it will fall mostly on deaf ears at PJM. The right is so devoid of real leadership, it is simply too easy for a shill like Beck to take the reigns. His racist and nonsense-filled rants sound quite reasonable to many of the GOP faithful, and they will gladly follow him over the cliff.

I was amused at the mention of Palin. The claim that she was treated unfairly always makes me laugh out loud. She is not far from Beck in her potential to negatively impact the GOP. Although not as outrageous as Glenn, Sarah is certainly on the fringe, and the longer she remains in the media spotlight, the better off the Democrats will be.

Of course, I don’t expect the denizens of PJM to agree with me – most will froth with incredulity at the idea that their heroes could be so hollow. But then again, this is the fringe of the fringe here.

Calling out the violence on the right

The most stark difference you will see in this case, is that nobody will come to the defense of Pouillon’s murderer.

Considering the outpouring of support on PJM for the killer of Dr. Tiller, this difference is more than sufficient to make clear the contrast in perspectives at play here.

Moreover, the anti-abortion movement has explicitly called for violence against medical providers. No such calls have issued from the pro-choice camp. I think the history of violence against pro-choice physicians speaks for itself.

Blinded by History

The war mongering of Bush was hardly an effective response to the emerging threats facing the USA. Instead of using our resources to promote our national interest, we have become embroiled in ancient tribal and religious conflicts in a region where we have little to gain, and much to lose.

Obama is embarking on a reinvention of America’s international reputation, which is much needed after the punishment inflicted under Bush. At the same time, he is taking practical and realistic steps to push for a realignment in international relations. Rather than the “with us or against us” rhetoric of Bush, Obama is working on the basis of building consensus.

In the long term, the strategy of Obama is the only one that can succeed. Without international cooperation and agreement, the US cannot achieve her long term strategic goals. Extricating our military from Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to take many years, and cost us a great deal more blood and treasure. Inviting more of the same is a fool’s game, and one that Obama is determined not play.

Going it alone is a recipe for foreign policy disaster, as made clear by Bush & Co. While Bush was starting a war in Iraq for his own purposes, he took the eye off of the ball. Afghanistan turned against us, Iraq became a quagmire, and North Korea and Iran both made more progress toward nuclear weapons than under any previous administration.

Given the situation he faces, Obama is taking the right steps to restore American standing in the world, and refocus our military and diplomatic efforts on protecting the vital interests of Americans, rather than corporations. It is a welcome change, and a hopeful one.

Capitalism doesn't kill people - Capitalists do

Just as guns don’t kill people, capitalism doesn’t kill people.

It’s all about how you use it – and unfortunately, humans reliably demonstrate a capacity to kill with guns, as well as with capitalism. Capitalism is a great system in theory – but in practice, it is perhaps the single most destructive force the planet has ever seen. Capitalism may work, but what it accomplishes is not necessarily a good thing.

Kettle, heal thyself

Articles like this are expected at PJM, and actually help to put the lie to the author's conclusions. He readily admits that he has no statistics, no evidence, nothing to back up his assertions - but nonetheless is confident that his conclusions are sound.

One paragraph in particular gave me pause, as it so clearly applies to much of the invective spewed in comment threads:

One of the things I find most disturbing is the stubborn resistance to data that does not consort with a prior and deeply held conviction, the unwillingness to reflect upon one’s own prejudices, assumptions, and ideological stances. I believe it was Jonathan Swift who said that “what a man has not been reasoned into, he will not be reasoned out of.” Was he right? One would like to believe that intellectual curiosity can always be stimulated and that acquired knowledge can have a salutary effect, despite so much evidence to the contrary.

I do hope that my fellows in the comment threads at PJM will take this thought to heart. The emphasis on reason, and on intellectual curiosity, are in complete accord with my own efforts here at PJM. Despite the ongoing ad hominem attacks that persist at PJM, I am confident that there is a cohort of reasonable and intellectually curious readers who appreciate the efforts of folks who bring dissenting views to these pages.

I would have more respect for the author if he had addressed this problem in the rational and intellectually honest manner that he proposes, rather than using the entire article as a platform for his own ad hominem attacks on the left. The author claims to have found "that the great majority of these crude and invidious remarks come from patently left-leaning readers" but can offer nothing more than his own personal impression, no doubt clouded by the ideology. He describes the problem well, while providing a great example, too.

When I read the line "certain sites feature articles, reports, and analyses of contemporary events that, in their content and phrasing, differ little from the productions of the most thoughtless and vitriolic commenters themselves" the first site that came to mind was the one the author is posting on. I want to thank Mr. Solway for putting the lie to his own thesis so elegantly.

Birthers / Truthers

It is true that not all conspiracy theories are created equal, and not all fringe elements are comparable.

In this case, the birther contingent has no evidence, no motive, and no theory – so it would be hard to call them conspiracy theorists. They are simply loony.

The truther contingent, on the other hand, can point to specific documents to support the contention that the Bush administration failed to take even the most basic measures to prevent the attack of 9/11/01, such as the “Bin Laden determined to attack in the US” memo, and the ongoing refusal of the Bush administration to acknowledge or address this threat seriously leading up the attack.

Fundamentally, the difference is very simple. The “birthers” wish to avoid facing the truth, while the “truthers” are interested in discovering it. Obama’s birthplace has no practical impact on the lives of Americans, while the failure of the government to prevent 9/11 has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans. I could go into greater detail about the Bush administration’s Iraq invasion, warrantless wiretaps and other unconstitutional adventures – but the bottom line is the same.

One side is worried about a technicality related to eligibility, while the other side is worried about actually protecting Americans from harm. To use your analogy, I don’t mind if Obama “wears his underwear on his head” – I am much more concerned about the crazy uncle that sexually molested detainees, and has tried to bury the evidence and avoid punishment. The Bush administration openly admitted engaging in criminal acts against the people of the USA – the location of Obama’s birth certificate hardly has the same significance.

Nukes on Parade

Nuclear energy is hardly “the only solution”. It is only a viable “solution” if you are willing to deny the inherent problems with nuclear power generation.

There is plenty of work being done on sustainable energy economies. One has to deliberately ignore the available evidence to conclude that nuclear power is the answer.

Solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower can provide plenty of energy, and improvements in efficiency can reduce power requirements substantially. By comparing nuclear with biofuels, you are ignoring all of the truly sustainable technologies that are available now.

Nuclear power is part of the old paradigm of massive central generation. The future does not lie in these types of projects – micro-scale power generation and improvements in efficiency are a much more intelligent way forward. Nuclear facilities simply are not efficient in the long term.

The particular focus here on motor fuel is also misguided, as improvements in electricity storage are likely to render gasoline obsolete before these nuclear plants would pay back the initial capital investment. Moving to distributed generation of electricity through solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower is the way forward – the continued obsession with nuclear power is a relic of the cold war, and serves no useful purpose.

Snowe(d) In?

It looks like the far right and far left can find a little common ground here: Snowe should become a Democrat, because she obviously is no longer welcome in the GOP.

This is similar to what has happened to a large portion of the voting public, who have also become Democrats, as there is no room for them in today's GOP.