In modern politics, there are certain arguments that I'm really sick of hearing. Unfortunately, they keep cropping up and raising my blood pressure. Some of these arguments have only been around for a little while now, but others have been around for centuries or more. Common sense should tell us that these arguments are stupid, and yet people keep making them, which means that there are people out there who are actually being swayed.
#1. The Economy is Simple
So easy, a caveman can do it
We all know that the economy is in bad shape and unemployment is ridiculously high. Politicians urge us to blame specific things for this (too much or too little regulation, usually) and offer us simple solutions that could work if only more unsavory politicians wouldn't stand in the way. The unstated major premise here is that the economy is simple and easy to control. Therefore, when things go bad, we can pinpoint exactly what the cause is and then solve it with simple steps.
This is, of course, a big, fat, steaming pile of raw sewage. The economy is wildly complex and responds to millions of different factors. Not only is it ludicrous to try to blame a single thing for a recession, it is ludicrous to even assume that the economy works the way academics and theorists tell us it does. I'm not interested in debating the merits of the Austrian school versus Keynesian economics, but one thing I do know is this: anybody who tells you they perfectly understand the economy is lying.
So when politicians come forth and argue that they know how to fix it, they are most likely also lying, usually in an effort to pass some cherished legislation under the guise that it will do something to an unweildly economy. It is also completely unfair to blame politicians for the state of the economy, when in reality, the government--by design--has very little control over it. Seriously, look up the definition of capitalism. Sure, you can argue that the stimulus packages and government bail-outs are a bad idea or that they might give temporary help to businesses floundering under recession, but at the end of the day, what the government does will neither permanently fix nor greatly prolong what is happening in the marketplace.
This election year is certain to be all about jobs and the economy, so keep in mind that, whenever politicians or pundits start talking about it, it's all just meaningless spin designed to scare you into voting for them.
#2. The Minority Party is "the Party of No"
Damn Republicans, saying "no" to Bob all time!
One of the founding principles of our government is the idea of checks and balances. No one part of the government is supposed to have ultimate control over another while each part is answerable to the others. While the Constitution has nothing to say about political parties or partisan politics (in fact, many of its founders were vehemently against the idea of political parties), this idea of checks and balances should, in modern America, extend to them. I'm not saying it should be mandated by law that there be a certain percentage of each party in each branch of the government, but we should certainly be able to respect the opinions of the minority. Indeed, the minority's purpose should be to keep the majority from exerting too much control. It shouldn't matter which political party is in power.
Indeed, Democratic leaders who now try to portray Republicans as the "Party of NO" might easily find themselves in the same position as the Republicans in a few years. Should we expect them to bow down complacently and accept everything a Republican majority will try to do? Of course not.
The enemy is extremism. Any political party (or branch of government), when given too much power, will take it too far and mess things up. The unavoidable, inevitable result of this is tyranny; absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's the nature of politics, and one of the beauties of our constitution is that it endeavors to keep things in moderation through the use of checks and balances.
Also, it is important to remember that we do not live in a true democracy. This is a representative democracy, because we always need to respect the rights and opinions of the minority. True democracy doesn't work, because the majority will always exert its power over the minority. Therefore, to argue that the minority is standing in the way of what the majority considers "progress" is to argue that our representative democracy is still working properly.
#3. The Will of the People is Being Thwarted
As we all know, the people are always reasonable and coherent
Along the same lines, I'm sick of the argumentum ad populum. This is ironically coming more from the Republicans right now than the Democrats. Many are arguing that the Democrats are doing unpopular things and are therefore wrong. In a representative democracy, this argument is especially bad, because we elect our leaders to make difficult choices, regardless of how popular their decisions are.
There are numerous examples in current events, including the healthcare bill, the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" (which is neither at ground zero nor is a mosque), the new Arizona immigration law, and more. When a California judge recently tried to overturn the gay marriage ban, for instance, one of the headlines on the ever-popular right-wing Drudge Report was "1 Judge Voids 7,000,000 Voters."
Look, just because something is unpopular, it doesn't mean it should be illegal. That's fascistic. The minority opinion should always be respected, regardless of what the majority thinks. More importantly, the minority's rights should not be overturn based on nothing more than popularity. Sure, the healthcare bill was shoved down our throats by politicians who arrogantly believed they knew better than the people, and because of that, many of them will probably be voted out of office and the bill--now a law--might not ever go into full effect. As far as I can tell, that's the government working the way it's supposed to.
However, when it comes to the Muslim community center being built two blocks from what's left of the World Trade Center and the California gay marriage ban, the arguments of the majority of Americans are wholly centered on a lack of respect for the minority. There is no way to forbid the building of the "Ground Zero Mosque" without infringing on the rights of the people who want to build it. There is also no way to dictate whether homosexuals have a right to marry without infringing upon their basic human rights. Certainly people have the right to peacefully protest these things, but that doesn't mean that something has to be done. America is built on tolerance, not bigotry.
#4. Those who Disagree are Racists
That sign is racism!
In March, when members of the House were on their way to vote on the healthcare bill, several black congressmen passed through a veritable sea of protesters. A few of the congressmen (and one staffer)--all Democrats--accused people in the crowd of spitting, shouting racial and homophobic epithets, and showing general racism. Rep. Clyburn of South Carolina couldn't help himself from bringing up civil rights protests of the 1960's and talk about how traumatized he was. Despite the wealth of cameras, microphones, and cell phones at the event, not a single video or audio sample was captured of the alleged spitting or offensive shouts. Pressed for pictures to document the racism of the event, The Huffington Post snapped a couple of pictures of some protest signs that compared Obama to Hitler (because comparing Obama to Hitler is racist, whereas comparing George W. Bush to Hitler is perfectly acceptable).
This is a narrative many Democrats have been trying to tell for decades now: those who disagree with them are obviously racists. Now that there is a black man in the oval office, the argument practically writes itself. From Nancy Pelosi proclaiming that everyone making a ruckus at last year's town-hall meetings was wearing a Nazi armband to Keith Olbermann ranting that Republican Massachusetts Senatorial Candidate Scott Brown is a "homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women," these arguments all have one thing in common: they are ad hominum deflections. It's the same with the immigration debate, the gay marriage debate, and the "Ground Zero Mosque" nonsense. If you don't agree with the president on any issue, it means you are a racist, a homophobe, or an Islamophobe, and therefore your arguments can be dismissed without the need for troublesome debate.
Even if there are obvious racists who call themselves Republicans and even if the alleged racism at the healthcare vote is true, it doesn't automatically mean that all Republicans are racists or that everybody who opposes President Obama's agenda must be motivated by race rather than reason. Those kinds of assumptions are known as stereotypes, and people who live by them are called bigots.
Democratic leaders who play the race card every five seconds or compare every bit of left-wing legislation to the civil rights act aren't stupid. They know what they're doing. We live in an age where being accused of racism is far, far worse than being accused of being wrong. Calling your political opponent racist increases the odds that other opponents will keep their mouths shut for fear of the same label. It's a dirty, condescending, and unfortunately effective trick, and anyone who is not sick of it is obviously a rascist homophobe who hates Muslims.
#5. There's a Conspiracy
Glenn Beck proves that George Soros is responsible for the Apollo 13 accident
One of the worst parts of the "Ground Zero Mosque" debate is the insistence from certain people on the right that the people behind it are engaged in a conspiracy to destroy America and install sharia law. The imam has certainly made controversial statements and may have potentially dangerous beliefs, but in America, we do not prosecute people for what they say or believe, and people are innocent until proven guilty. Unless you can prove that the people behind the Muslim community center have been engaged in an actual crime, I don't give a flying crap what else you think they have done or said.
Of course, this kind of conspiracy thinking is everywhere in politics, from the 9/11 truthers and the Obama birthers to Glenn Beck's charts of Obama's unsavory associations and the left's continued insistence that the wars in the middle east are all about oil. The problem is in people's inability to apply Occam's razor.
In modern America, this kind of paranoia can trace its roots to the assassination of President Kennedy and to the machinations of President Nixon. Where Kennedy is concerned, a popular Democratic president was assassinated by a self-proclaimed communist, and people on the left, unable to rectify the apparent contradiction, came up with an increasingly elaborate explanation for what happened so that they wouldn't have to accept it. As for Nixon, he was a president who really was involved in a deep and unsavory conspiracy, and when that was uncovered, our collective trust in our leaders--already on the decline--suffered a major blow from which our country has yet to fully heal. As a result of all this, we have become so cynical as a society that we now believe that a complex conspiracy theory involving hundreds if not thousands of actors requires fewer dangerous assumptions than the idea that our leaders are trying to do what is best for the country.
Frankly, I'm sick of it. I'm all for being a realist and distrusting our politicians, but I find the vast majority of conspiracy theories out there to be ridiculous in the extreme. If there's one thing our government has proven, it's that it cannot, under any circumstances, keep a secret for very long. I may completely disagree with what our leaders are doing, but I'm not going to assume--as a default position--that they are actively and deliberately trying to destroy our way of life. The same goes for Muslims who want to build a community center in downtown New York City.
#6. The Media is Biased
Hatred is always reasonable
Of all the talking points on this list, this one is the most indomitable. Rather than accept that people with different political views are just as intelligent and learned as them, most people in America today would rather believe that a huge segment of the population has been indoctrinated by biased media. Faced with someone with conservative views, many Democrats will automatically accuse that person of watching Fox News, whereas they might get their news from such reliable sources as Jon Stewart. Many Republicans do the same thing when faced with someone with liberal views, only with MSNBC and Rush Limbaugh, respectively.
First of all, just because a news source is biased, it does not make it wrong about everything. Secondly, there is no such thing as an unbiased news report. Thirdly, this is the Internet age, and people can seek out whatever spin they want to support their political views. Lastly, it is intrinsically insulting and arrogant to assume that everybody who disagrees with you is somehow less reasonable and more susceptable to brainwashing than you are.
If you get all of your news from left-leaning outlets like The New York Times, Air America, and NPR, you are likely to have left-leaning views. Along the same lines, if you get all of your news from National Review, Sean Hannity, and the Wall Street Journal, you are likely to have right-leaning views. However, correlation does not equal causation. Most people tend to seek out sources of information that agree with their world-view, and they are not sponges who will just believe everything they are exposed to. And yet, people will no doubt be complaining about media bias until the end of the human race, which will probably be a subject of much contention on the world's final front pages.
Unless you deliberately seek out every possible spin on every possible news story, you cannot claim that you are any less biased than your least-favorite news source. I do not believe that reality is relative, but there is so much noise, spin, and commentary out there that I can't imagine anybody having enough authority to know what the truth is anymore, especially where politics is concerned. Perhaps that's what pisses me off about all of the talking points on this list: they all fail to make room for ambiguity or nuance.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
stumpynat
Danielle Ofri
Renee Smith
sueinaz
ChillerPop
Blackflon
Salon.com
Comments
Rated!
1. The economy is not simple, but it is also drastically underregulated and getting more chaotic ("freer") all the time.
2. There is no minority party. As Gore Vidal has pointed out, "we have one party with two right wings."
3. Most of the people have withdrawn from politics because they correctly perceive it as the domain of bought-and-paid-for sociopaths and liars.
4. There is indeed an enormous amount of racism loaded into the American system, redlining and segregated school funding formulas ("local control") being the two most egregious and damaging examples.
5. There IS a conspiracy and it's led by the investment class against everyone else.
6. The media is astoundingly biased in favor of corporatism, on every issue and in every conceivable way.
rated.
Very well done. I really enjoy how you put it all together.Not only that, but your clarity, to me, seems more intact than the average. Nice balancing of the facts, along with an all inclusive view on our political scene. Just terrific.
Very much Rated
If you're heartily sick of American media, try reading that of Canada, Britain and Australia. You'll find a very different perspective on many issues. That's a good beginning, if you truly want to be informed, not just seek supporting evidence for your worldview. Listen to BBC. If you speak another language or two, read or listen in those to the nations that speak them. Most nations do not think as Americans do about almost anything you can name. Unbridled capitalism rules the U.S. and dictates every issue as a result, including the media and what/how they report. e.g. no one covers "labor" anymore since unions have been decimated. Instead, we can all read about (and cheer for) "business."
if there must be oppression, let's minimize it by oppressing the minority, particularly that 1% who are very rich.
-R-
2. The GOP IS the Party of No. It's their strategy. Their fanatic base wouldn't allow cooperation anyway. Unless it's the GOP idea, they won't vote for it, basically. (I use "idea" singularly because they only have one idea)
3.The will of the people is being thwarted, but they keep voting anyway.
4. I've seen many people use racism as a cover-all complaint, and many who use it when the definition doesn't apply. It is irritating, but there is a very solid history of movement conservatives using race-baiting politics. The first coalition the movement cons crafted was with southern racists. Elements remain. That doesn't excuse false cries of racism, but explains them to a degree.
5.Conspiracy freaks abound. Even the ones with a fact to build on tend to look like jackasses when they "explain" the motivations behind the fact. They exist on the left, but the right has an entire media system built on conspiracies.
6. This is the real "fail" in this piece. It does sound "nice" and "reasonable" to say there is bias on both sides. The problem is it's not realistic. It is an affectation of reason and fairness, but isn't either.
The Rwing media exists to push an agenda; mostly about maintaining audience excitement, but also the Repub's agenda. Although it's getting difficult to tell which element is really calling the shots...it's sort of a pushmi-pullyu, I guess.
People on the "left" have different motivations. The "left" (and much, much smaller effort) media can get away with errors of emphasis, but not errors of fact. Fox, et al, is free to inflate, conflate and even simply make things up.
Taking "all sides" into account doesn't make you any smarter or more informed. In fact, it's surrendering to the he said-she said "moderate and fair" illusion. The idea used to be you examined the facts, not the players. It is best to serve reality instead of offering up IQ point sacrifices to some imagined Deity of Balance.
Given there's only one fanatical political movement in America, the reality is closer to --we have a right and a not-the-right.
So, I agree some, and disagree some. Well! That makes me Fair and Balanced! (chuckle)
Rated.
Democratic leaders who now try to portray Republicans as the "Party of NO"
Take a look at the record of
When since 2007 Senate Republicans have been filibustering and threatening to filibuster legislation at more than twice the average of previous sessions of Congress, that's worth pointing out. It's why little gets done, and even if the Senate is designed to put brakes on things, the brakes have been applied much hard and more often in the past few years by Republicans. Is that extremism? Could be. This session Republicans are even filibustering legislation they'd expressed approval of in past sessions.
On racism:
This is a narrative many Democrats have been trying to tell for decades now: those who disagree with them are obviously racists.
I think it's a narrative set in motion by Nixon's Southern strategy. Remember Lee Atwater?
"You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say 'nigger'—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
"And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger'.
That is, decades ago Democrats were responding to what we would now call racism, without much ambiguity. Of course, all Republicans aren't racists. But when you listen to the Birthers, the people who believe despite all claims to the contrary that Obama is a Muslim, the Tea Party activists who send out honestly racist emails, you wonder what motivates them. Maybe it's tribalism rather than conventional racism.
On the conspiracy issue, I'd add Vietnam. By the early 70s and perhaps earlier, most people figured out that the "victory is just around the corner" lines were, in fact, lies.
And I disagree with the characterization of the Kennedy assassination theories as resulting from the left's view that Oswald was a Commie and therefore couldn't have been the triggerman. Considering the expert marksmanship required, the magic bullet, the loss of Kennedy's brain tissue somewhere between the operating table and the autopsy, the Zapruder film, Oswald's CIA ties, the unusual deaths of some key witnesses, the Mafia's and the Cuban exiles' hatred of Kennedy, the "convenient" assassination of Oswald while in police custody, the disappearance of Oswald's interview notes, the almost unprecedented way in which Oswald could emigrate to the USSR and then return to the USA within a few years, why, you had to be preternaturally credulous to accept that "Oswald acted alone" was the end of that story.
Sorry to have gone on a bit on the points of disagreement. On the whole I think this is a fine summary.
Through regulation and enforcement, the government has a lot of control. Setting minimum wages and workplace safety rules, how they regulate banks. Subsidizing markets, such as the effect of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and mortgage interest tax deductions on the housing market. Whether they pursue anti-dumping cases. Laws on the behavior of American companies abroad, such as the Foreign Anti-Corrupt Practices Act.
It's not an exact mechanism, nor does it work instantaneously, but the government has a significant ability to influence the direction of the economy.
It's funny you mention 9/11 legislation and the Iraq resolution as examples of the Democratic minority being more reasonable than the Republican one, since many Democrats would probably vote differently if given another chance.
I do completely agree that Vietnam had a lot to do with this country losing faith in its leaders. One the whole, it probably did more damage to our collective psyche than the Kennedy assassination or Nixon.
Also, I'm really surprised you're the only one to take issue with what I said about the Kennedy assassination. I honestly thought that would be the most contested and controversial part of this whole rant!
I'm sorry, but I honestly don't think the far left is any less fanatical than the far right. You may think I'm being intellectually dishonest, but when I read HuffPo or watch MSNBC, I see just as much insanity as when I read the Drudge Report or watch Fox News. If you believe that only one political party is corrupt and the other is somehow more honest and good, I think your perspective is skewed.
That's what's known as an Andrew Breitbart Talking Point.
The New York Times and NPR are resolutely right-wing.
Air America is dead. Didn't you get an invite to the funeral?
The filibustering is the result of the fact that Democrats had a supermajority in the Senate, which hasn't been true for the last few sessions of Congress. As I said in the original article, I believe the minority opposing the majority is not only normal, I think it is a good thing, regardless of which party is which.
Good point! I still can't believe Ollie North even has a career.
That's all true, but I think you overestimate the effect these policies ultimately have. The market adjusts surprisingly fluidly to these kinds of pressures; the problem is that there are so many competing pressures in addition to them that no one policy or piece of legislation is going to affect the economy the way our politicians say it will.
Granted, things like minimum-wage laws and foreign subsidies do have a drastic overall effect on how business is done, but I don't believe they have as drastic an effect on how healthy the economy will be.
I'm not saying it's futile for the government to put restrictions in place, but I see a lot of dishonesty from our politicians who try to reduce this massively complex system to a debate about raising or lowering taxes.
"That's what's known as an Andrew Breitbart Talking Point."
And that makes it automatically untrue because...?
"The New York Times and NPR are resolutely right-wing."
Really? Okay, then. ~nods head and backs away slowly~
Thank you so much for the awesome compliment! Yeah, to tell you the truth, reading some of these comments, I do fluctuate between laughing and banging my head against the desk. Such is the nature of writing about politics!
Thanks! I couldn't ask for anything more than that.
I didn't say one party is corrupt and the other is good. I said there are substantial differences between the right and left. I can support my statements without resorting to the convenience of fabricating your side of the argument.
The idea of a political left/right mirror image equivalence is an example of lazy thinking and the dismissal of objectivity.
It is a nice topic for a political fluff piece, however.
Also, as you say, the constitutional idea of "checks and balances" has nothing to do with political parties. Even if it did, the filibuster is not part of the constitution either. Your idea that a small minority being able to prevent any legislation from ever being discussed in the Senate is a"check and balance" of the same type as those found in the constitution is a bizarre position that no constitutional scholar would support.
Becuase as Mary McCarthy said of Lilliam Hellman every word he says is a lie -- including "and" and "the."
"Really? Okay, then. ~nods head and backs away slowly~"
You do that little thing. KAPO!
Regarding #2, you have missed what the “Party of No” gripe is about. Minority parties have always complained. That's supposed to be a starting point to negotiation. They aren't supposed to threaten to filibuster each and every item (though I think if the Democrats made them do it, that would end quickly). The problem is that the Republicans are behaving as if stopping things with no opportunity to negotiate is their path to victory, so they can claim this administration is ineffective. The risk is that if they get in, the Democrats will have to respond in kind. And it won't be until we've seen both parties brought to their kneeds that we'll finally say enough of the filibuster. Meanwhile, the economy will be in the toilet and Global Warming will be in high gear. So I think you're wrong to say that this is just more of same and the Dems are just whining on this. What the Republicans have done is embark on a dangerous strategy of risking the death of the nation because they fear they have no other choice. They'd be better off admitting they made some mistakes, doing some compromising, and moving forward. But that's not their chosen strategy. We have serious problems that cannot wait, and it used to be that Republicans and Democrats would have different sources of ideas but would work together anyway.
Now, largely I suspect because of complex issues in funding that should be illegal, they are not allowed to be. Candidates who deviate from the party line are told they will be outspent. This is not how Democracy is intended to function. And that is what people are complaining about when they talk about “The Party of No.” There has long been a party of “Gee, I'd Prefer Something Else,” but they used to have to expend extraordinary energy to actually stop something. Now, things pass only by supermajority, which was never intended to be the normal situation.
You don't have to be insulting. At no point did I say the right and left were exactly the same. Of course that analogy is flawed, as all analogies ultimately are.
However, I don't think there is that much difference in how politicians and pundits act, generally speaking and regardless of their political leanings. I fail to see how pointing that out is lazy or fluffy.
It is not my intention to be any more insulting than measured reciprocation indicates.
What you wrote above wasn't about pundits and politicians, but the left - right in general. Your position now is another ratcheting-back of your previous and far more assertive statements.
Anyway, there is no gain in arguing further, but if I did I promise you it would be anything but superficial and subjective.
I am curious to know what you mean by "radical left," to see how that aligns with the definition of radical and left.
Relax, it's only politics...
Whether you intend it to be or not, your tone is one of arrogant superiority, and it's exceedingly tiresome.
I am not "ratcheting-back" anything; I am simply clarifying. You are the one who seems to think that I made the assertion somewhere that the right and the left are identical--an assertion I have never made. From what I can tell, you are only interested in your own superficial assumptions about what you think I wrote rather than what I actually wrote, so you're right, there's no point in us discussing this any further.
But if you go back and read at least the last paragraph of this article, you will see that the point I was trying to make is that these political talking points lack sophistication and leave no room for nuance. Is it any wonder I feel insulted when you call my article a superficial, intellectually lazy, fluff piece?
I'm not calling the entire piece fluff. Just the last part. The idea that when one "side" slides into fanaticism, it means the other 'side" must be declared equally as off course for the sake of "balance" lacks objectivity. After that, nuance serves only to embellish a flawed premise.
To imply it has been a mutual journey to polarization from both "sides" is to ignore the last 60 years of American history and a realistic description of the present.
The "fluff" part is my way of saying the flawed premise is appealing to those who lack sufficient understanding of politics. Rather than examine the facts and trend, one simply damns all equally. It's a warm and fuzzy concept, but only an affectation of rising above the fray in a display of profound wisdom.
I'll leave this with my previous statement. I agree some, disagree some. The last part, though, lacks firm connection to reality.
I don't think this explains things, E. Magill. That is, filibustering can't be due to Democrats having a supermajority. First, because they only had it for about six months, from July 2009 through February 2010, with a month gap after Kennedy's death. Republican obstructionism has been going on since 2007. Second, the idea of having a supermajority is that a party can override a filibuster, so I don't see the connection. Sure, it's normal for the minority can oppose the majority, but you'd think that a reasonable minority would do it by taking into account the proposed legislation, rather than by blocking everyday stuff, including things that the minority claims to support.
Fair enough. Sorry if I seemed overly defensive, but that's the nature of writing on the Internet about politics. I still don't entirely agree with your interpretation of what I wrote, but it's not necessary that we agree.
First of all, the Republicans have voted "yes" on several pieces of legislation recently, including libel tourism legislation and more, and secondly, I was not arguing that Republicans aren't excessively voting "no" or threatening to filibuster every five minutes. They are, but that's beside the point.
And yeah, I wasn't exactly right when I mentioned the supermajority as a major cause of the filibustering threats, but I stand by the idea that it was certainly a catalyst for where we are today. From what I can tell, the Republican leadership strategy is dictated on going with the majority opinion, and the majority--whether right or wrong--have reacted very negatively to the Democrats' agendas (which, in some cases, are merely extensions of what were Republicans were pushing only two years ago). These Democratic agendas got off to an intense start during the six months of supermajority, which is why I call that a catalyst. Therefore, the strategy of standing resolutely in the way of major Democratic legislation makes sense in that it will get them votes, because that's what the majority wants right now.
Saying that they're the "Party of No" is utterly meaningless, and I frankly have no problem with a minority party that behaves that way, regardless of which party it happens to be. If we lived in a country where the Republicans had a big majority and a man in the white house and they were all trying to pass Republican dream legislation that was deeply unpopular with the people, I would want the Democrats to become the "Party of No" too.
And I don't believe they're playing with the stability of the nation or risking total collapse. That's just alarmist. If government inaction or gridlock could cause America to fall apart during difficult times, this country would have stopped existing two hundred years ago.
Damn straight the other party becomes the "Party of No" when they lose power, but with liberals it is "no" to war and torture and with conservatives it is "no" to helping Americans in need.
Nobody but conservatives pulls this "everything I say you call racist" crap. Nobody. Some things said are racist, and when examples are given it is not just labeling the other guy a "racist" to make yourself look good. For example: I have heard conservatives say "multiculturalism is destroying America." That is a racist statement that can be taken no other way. If some fool wants to defend that statement as not racist then they can show how that is so. They cannot, therefore a great many conservatives are indeed racists and most people just don't have the guts to say anything about it. Well shame on the cowards, I say.
Also the media is biased. It's biased toward corporate and business interests. There is a reason we hear about this unpatriotic 'tea party' all the damn time: the people who own the news media would love this kind of crap to get more attention.
Thanks so much!
I wouldn't expect any other reaction from somebody with your handle.
My major problem with #2 is that the Congress as a whole does not represent the American people, and is clearly and obviously beholden to special interests. So whether the "minority party is the party of NO" or not really doesn't matter, and I'm pretty sure that there are a considerable number of things going on in Washington that the Framers never intended. In other words, "NO" is not good politics, but "YES" isn't necessarily good politics either. Your argument #3 more or less makes this exact same point, if you think about it.
My minor problem with #3 is that while I agree with you that voting against health care reform (as moronic as that is, but let's save that for another time) is not inherently racist, some of it is racist. People saying that they've worked hard all their lives and don't want to support poor people that don't have health care...that's a little racist. Opposition to the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" is racist. Saying the president is a Muslim from Kenya is racist. Saying that Obama's nomination of Sotomayor to the SCOTUS is reverse racism is racist. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater there.
All in good will, of course! Thanks for writing a thought-provoking post.
#1. The Economy is Simple
The economy may not be simple, but its basic principles are not complex. By 2003 or 2004, the federal deposit insurance corporations were holding unsecured mortgage debt in excess of the entire US GDP during a time when everyone openly admitted that the entire country was in the grip of a huge housing bubble that was going to go bust. It was not necessary to know exactly when it would happen, or exactly how much it would bust, or which mortgage asset swap techniques were specifically going to be the biggest problem. All that was necessary was a basic ability to make rough numeric comparisons, read and remember simple information, and follow a simple thought experiment through to completion.
It just didn't add up. Yet at the time, the smug and self-righteous made almost exactly this same argument -- the economy is so complex, don't you think that the people who really understand it know what they're doing?
History is pretty damning on that count.
#2. The Minority Party is "the Party of No"
When the minority filibusters -everything-, they are the party of "no." That just does not happen in American politics normally. It is exceptional. Trying to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
Also, we are not a representative democracy because we respect minority rights. You got your 3rd grade civics lesson crossed. We are a representative democracy because we elect a legislature to vote on our behalf. Minority rights are what make us a free society.
#3. The Will of the People is Being Thwarted
No argument there. Sometimes the people can be a real bunch of chuckleheads. Then thwarting them is a virtue.
#4. Those who Disagree are Racists
When their disagreements are couched in race prejudice, and they consistently embrace disparate policies whose sole coherent thread is that they reinforce the second-class status of racial minorities, then yes, they are racists.
And hey, the thing about bigotry is that you don't have to identify yourself as a bigoted schmuck to be one!
#5. There's a Conspiracy
Just because conspiracy nuts are paranoid doesn't mean there's never a conspiracy.
#6. The Media is Biased
This would be a fair talking point to bust on the basis of the argument that reasonable people can disagree. If the mass media ever actually expressed any disagreement on anything.
The main mode of the mainstream press in America is a kind of "tastes great / less filling" cheerleading for the power elite. Their bias is, simply put, toward a general state of amnesia and superficiality in which anything that was true yesterday can be replaced with some other truth today, depending on who is doing the talking (and spending the most money).
Sometimes this makes them seem "liberal." Often it makes them seem "conservative." But in reality neither term is exactly right. It's more like, "whore."
2) You mischaracterize the Republican Party’s actions. They haven’t simply stood in the way of the Democratic Party’s initiatives, but they have refused to present their own legislative initiatives. In other words, they have demonstrated a calculated unwillingness to let voters decide between Platform A and Platform B. Instead, they merely denounce every Democratic initiative as the work of Satan and then attempt to run out the clock.
3) Agreed. [Though, to nitpick, each of the rights and privileges in the U.S. Constitution were originally voted on by an extraordinarily small group of citizens. The Constitution didn’t simply descend from the sky in a golden chariot.]
4) Racism can be used as a political weapon (and I certainly don’t doubt that it is), but most Democrats, progressives, and liberals I have met or talked to don’t accuse others of racism simply because they disagree with them or the president’s agenda. That’s an absurd straw man.
Your “argument” also tends to gloss over the very demonstrable fact that racism is still present in this nation (and is/was the basis of the Republican Party’s extraordinarily successful “Southern Strategy”). It’s why all those white Democrats in the South suddenly decided to become Republicans once LBJ signed civil rights legislation into law.
5) Again, a silly mischaracterization. Conspiracies are quite often compartmentalized to a great degree. The only individuals privy to the “master plan” are a select few folks at the top of the ladder. The rest are mere bit players. Look back to the wide array of shady, conspiratorial CIA dealings that were uncovered in the 1970s (prior to George H. W. Bush’s appointment as head of the Agency). In fact, look at any number of the conspiratorial plots concocted in the nether chambers of the CIA now publicly available due to the Freedom of Information Act. It’s mind-boggling. Assassinations. Terrorist plots. Drug running. Money laundering. You name it.
All publicly available. I think the only thing absurd about conspiracies is that so many dismiss them without a second thought.
6) I generally agree with this point, but it’s also true that truth exists. Facts exist. While no side is capable of attaining a perfect understanding of any situation, certain interpretations are most definitely more valid than others.
Overall, a strange and oft-misleading, misunderstood list.
First, the Republicans manifestly are playing the Party of No in a way the Democrats have not. They aren't merely doing their job as the minority party. They are using non-coperation as a strategy. These guys would rather see the US fail than see it succeed under Obama. They have opposed their own avowed policies rather than allow them to become law under this president. This behaviour needs to be pointed out. How, in your universe, can this be done if it offends you to hear about their nay-saying obstructionism?
By being the Party of No, and essentially sabotaging Congress by preventing normal majority decision-making, and forcing everything to pass only by supermajority, Republicans are indeed thwarting the will of the people, and are indeed guilty of your point 3. The people voted Democrat, and the majority continue in the polls to support much of the legislation the Republicans are opposing. The Republicans don't care. By not wanting to hear about it, you comfort the Republicans.
To your point 4, how can if be denied that the Republicans are indeed harboring a racist contingency, or that they haven't deliberately kept alive the confusion that Obama is Muslim? Not wanting to hear it doesn't make it less true.
As to your point 5, while the Republicans may accuse the Democrats of elaborate conspiracy, which I agree we don't need to hear, the Republicans actually engage in it. Research, for instance, Charles and David Koch:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25039.htm>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25039.htm
And finally, to your point 6, I can only suggest you try reading American media next to international media to see just how appallingly biased and slanted US outlets are. How did most of the American public come to believe Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11 if not through the collusion of the American press, which refused to do its job of reporting the obvious truth? Why are Americans so far behind the rest of the world in understanding climate change? Why do Americans hate government spending so much, yet will not discuss demilitarization when the military budget represents half of the federal government's discretionary spending? Why do a quarter of Americans to this day think President Obama is Muslim? Not only does the US mainstream media selectively report the news, it tends to bury its mistakes, thus allowing the public to continue in their ignorance. After all the salacious news stories, how many Americans still think there was an actual "climate-gate" scandal, even though it has since been shown there was no wrong-doing?
Ignorance has a pro-Republican bias. As does the suppression of the 6 points you don't want to hear. Or so it seems to me, who watches US politics as a Canadian.
Bravo.
2. Disagree. The current state of the Republican party has truly redefined the concept of the "party of no". It is pretty disgusting.
3. Agree. The will of the people is being moderated by representation and the actual issues are being distorted to make them seem as though the people disagree with the outcome.
4. Any issue that is inherently supported by a VERY small fraction of the actual minority races in this country is going to seem racist. It is likely to be more accurately described as financial or economic control of an underrepresented minority, but that in and of itself was and is a factor of racial control.
5. Disagree. It does not matter if there is or is not a conspiracy. It matters that people in the hundreds of thousands are watching one source for news and being convinced there is one. That IS actually how Nazism succeeded in an otherwise well-educated populace.
6. HIGHLY disagree. The media is insanely biased. The left chooses the facts it wants to use for propaganda's sake. The right just makes up the news and the storyline to repeat over and over until it is the truth. Propaganda vs. Indoctrination, great choice.
Though with a name like Heinrich Dietrich, he sounds to me more like a Cherman than a Near Northerner, anyway; may vee see your papers please, mein herr?
But seriously, dear Magill, your long-suffering even-handedness does contain a modicum of genuine wisdom, but also gives cover to (and so abets) a multitude of sins, most of them Republican and/or corporate-media in origin, the shortsightedness of "chuckleheads" notwithstanding.
A last comment in echo of Lincoln's famous dictum: it's more than half depressing on occasion to consider just how many, many of the "some people" can be fooled ALL of the time.
Seeing the wee bit of your bio there at the top of this blog, EM, I thought, "Mine's the 4th of November; we've got that (almost) in common!" I felt like I'd received a large, long-anticipated, and very pleasant present on my birthday two years ago, the shine of which has distinctly diminished since, but still is worth savoring, and even standing up for online. How about you, sir?
(perhaps i should read through yr backlog of posts for my answer...)
I don't believe I've EVER said "The Minority Party is the Party of No". Not a single time.
I have, however, OBSERVED that that *Republican* Party is the Party of No.
You had to use a saw, a plane and probably a rather large hatchet to get this one to fit into your list of Must-Dies, huh?
See, the Republicans are the Majority Party now, and still they're saying No to Jobs, No to the Economy and they're even phrasing their one single goal in the negative: No to a Second Term for Obama.
The Democrats will try like hell to preserve the Yes's they've gotten through in the last two years as the Republicans try to tear them down, for their own stated reason: they want to bring Obama down.
Rome is burning and the Republicans have already hired someone to compose a violin concerto funeral dirge for Obama's Presidency, and violins are also known as fiddles, you know.
Florid prose, sure, but no more fanciful than the stuff you're shoveling in this blog piece.
And by the way, when someone says:
"That's what's known as an Andrew Breitbart Talking Point."
Even YOU assume the common meaning is "Lie" and you don't find that interesting?
I take it to mean that:
a) I have to do my own fact checking
b) I have to check my references' references.
c) Breitbart is interested in lots more things ahead of fact.
d) Breitbart lives and dies by one thing: Plausible Deniability
But no, for myself? I don't assume that a Breitbart Talking Point is a lie. That's too easy to shoot down and dismiss. That's not dangerous at all.
your mouth to God's ear!
Point #1: No, the economy isn't simple, but at times refuting Neo-Liberal Free Trade/Low Taxes/Smash Unions/Dismantle The Welfare State blather is. Simply point to Germany; a highly-unionized highly-socialized high-tax high-wage country that manages to be the world's #2 exporter (#1 according to some economists who believe China fudges its numbers).
Point #2 - There is a difference between being the opposition party and being the Party of No. When the Democrats are out of power, they have acted as an opposition party, delaying legislation and attempting to amend it to see that their interests are addressed. Over the past 20 years, when the Republicans have been out of power, they have either shut down or crippled the government.
It is not democracy, or even representative democracy, when one Senator can say "No, I won't let us vote on that", or when the House majority refuses to fund basic government operation, or when one party (guess which one) exploits Senate rules to force the Senate to shut down after 3 p.m.
Point #3 : In the abstract, this is true. In Reality, it's almost completely bogus.
If you've been following politics closely since the 1980s, the Corporatist Kleptocrats who run our government and own both political parties have manufactured 'the will of the people'.
Everything from the repeal of the estate tax, to the invasion of Iraq, to the existence of the Tea Parties has been based on lies and propaganda to induce the people to want what the plutocrats want.
Yet when a genuinely popular idea that goes against the wishes of the plutocracy is proposed (public option for healthcare, taxing the rich to close the budget deficit, etc.), it's the plutocrats who win and the people whose wishes are ignored.
Point #4: Until 2008, I would have agreed with this one. But Obama's campaign, election, and inauguration has unveiled the seething cauldron of racism that still exists in America.
Unless you can come up with an alternative explanation for why the Tea Partiers weren't out in force between 2002 and 2008 complaining about excessive government spending and high taxes, one is stuck with the obvious (a black man is President).
As for the examples you pick (illegal immigration, gay marriage, Ground Zero 'mosque), again, sorry, you're just flat wrong.
Foes of 'illegal immigration' never worry about illegal immigrants from Canada or Ireland. Furthermore, they almost never focus on the (mostly white) employers who exploit illegal immigrants to depress wages for American citizens. When we see a wave of CEOs and business owners doing 'perp walks' for employing illegal immigrants, I'll believe it's not about race.
Opposition to gay marriage = homophobia. It's that simple. I've yet to hear a rational argument against it that stands up to scrutiny.
Opposition to the 'Ground Zero mosque' = Islamophobia. It's that simple, unless you can explain to me how it's presence causes actual or potential HARM to people, not just offense.
5) Just because not all conspiracy theories are true does NOT mean that all of them are automatically false.
The Bush administration conspired to push for an invasion of Iraq. The financial services industry conspired to make themselves trillions of dollars on subprime mortgages and the derivative instruments containing them. A group of right-wingers conspired to attempt a military coup to overthrow FDR, and on and on and on.
Furthermore, not all conspiracies require 'thousands of actors'. Sometimes it requires just a few actors who can set up the 'game' so that the remaining actors simply respond rationally to the incentives placed before them (e.g. vote for the Iraq war or we will demonize you as a Muslim-loving America-hater).
6) All news reports are biased. But there is bias and there is blatant repetition of talking points in the Vast Right Wing Echo Chamber.
Comparing the relatively tiny reach and broad subject coverage of NPR and what's left of Air America to the coordinated near-lock-step propaganda blatherings of Fox Noise, Rush, Beck, Hannity, et al. is a false equivalency.
Other than that, great article....;-D....
The examples are numerous enough to cast doubt on your claim. Also, your claim is faulty in that it brings in potential future possibilities. You can't use what might happen in the future as a claim. The Democratic party might, indeed, become the Party of No in the future. I might also grow 30 feet and sprout wings. You've got to make the argument from what is happening, not what could happen.
The racism .... you're completely 100% wrong about that one. It stands to reason that everyone who protests something Obama does is not a racist. However, the irrational behavior of many of the Tea Party suggests a visceral response. What I mean is, they hate him for ... some irrational reason not based on facts. Facts are ignored completely. The suspicious number of "It's a WHITE House" signs among other racist rhetoric at their rallies is pretty damning.
My own belief in this racist response is based on my experience as a person from the South. The racists here often hide their views with smiles. It's a very familiar behavioral pattern to me.
I remember the election of Obama well. My family lives in the South. My father heard, "I don't want to vote for that bitch, but I can't vote for the nigger." (Nice, right? So much wrong there.) He heard that A LOT. More than once. More than twice. Maybe 50 or 60 times. He is one man. The likelihood that he was simply surrounded by the only 50 or 60 racists in the entire country is unlikely. Many of the Southern states went further red for this reason. Much of the Tea Party rhetoric is coming from these states. I'm sorry. I can't be this disingenuous about it. Can I prove with verifiable facts that many of these people from the Tea Party are racist? Well, they aren't going to say that. You won't get them to admit it. But, the next time you run into someone of this affiliation, drop a line about the black man or some such. Make it a test for yourself. You'll see I'm right.
When the book Invisible Man starts to look super current as an issue, there is a problem. This issue, of racism, is the number one issue that divides us as a country. Not a hell of a lot has really changed since the end of Civil War for a lot of people. I had a history teacher once who said, "It won't be the South becoming more like the rest of the country. It'll be the rest of the country becoming more like the South." I'm sad to say he appears to have been correct.
Really? You deride cliche talking points while using the most egregious of Republican talking points. Healthcare was turned into a dirty word--Obamacare--that Republicans could use to scare people into believing death panels would either give them a pass or pull the plug. After a century of trying and failing to bring a civilized and just perspective to health coverage in this "greatest of all nations," Obama managed to pass a constructive first step. He was attacked by the shills of the for-profit healthcare industry, accused of being a Marxist, Hitler, a tyrant--all because he wanted to bring costs down and deliver quality healthcare to all people, not just those able to afford it. It wasn't "shoved down" anybody's throat. It was debated for decades and failed to pass for decades because the opposition was very effective, using money and virulent accusations of Communism and socialism to deride any plan that attempted to regulate the profit-mongers.
Your slip is showing. If we're to consider the minority opinion as well as the majority opinion, we have to drain the system of the corrupting influence of cash in the hands of those who would buy healthcare legislation in the interests of profit. Healthcare, like education, is a basic right in every civilized Western country except this "greatest" country in the history of man. What garbage, what nationalistic hubris it is to claim greatness in the face of the pettiness currently on display. I don't care whether you read the WSJ, or watch Stewart, or pledge allegiance to the T party bible, common sense should tell you that providing equitable healthcare and education will result in a better society than the one we're so proud of now. That's in all our best interests. We all pay for the right to drive a car, and we should all pay for healthcare, education, a clean environment, our defense, our infrastructure. That's what taxes are for. The Bush administration decimated the Treasury. His tax cuts did nothing to create jobs while his pro-deregulation policies brought the economy to disaster. Those cuts were set to expire at the end of 2010. Instead, the Republicans forced extention and added 800 billion to the deficit as a gift to their rich supporters. If those taxes were re-instated, the deficit would be cut in half within 5-7 years. The only thing that's been shoved down our throats is a corrupt political process that serves the money that supports it.
Really? You deride cliche talking points while using the most egregious of Republican talking points. Healthcare was turned into a dirty word--Obamacare--that Republicans could use to scare people into believing death panels would either give them a pass or pull the plug. After a century of trying and failing to bring a civilized and just perspective to health coverage in this "greatest of all nations," Obama managed to pass a constructive first step. He was attacked by the shills of the for-profit healthcare industry, accused of being a Marxist, Hitler, a tyrant--all because he wanted to bring costs down and deliver quality healthcare to all people, not just those able to afford it. It wasn't "shoved down" anybody's throat. It was debated for decades and failed to pass for decades because the opposition was very effective, using money and virulent accusations of Communism and socialism to deride any plan that attempted to regulate the profit-mongers.
Your slip is showing. If we're to consider the minority opinion as well as the majority opinion, we have to drain the system of the corrupting influence of cash in the hands of those who would buy healthcare legislation in the interests of profit. Healthcare, like education, is a basic right in every civilized Western country except this "greatest" country in the history of man. What garbage, what nationalistic hubris it is to claim greatness in the face of the pettiness currently on display. I don't care whether you read the WSJ, or watch Stewart, or pledge allegiance to the T party bible, common sense should tell you that providing equitable healthcare and education will result in a better society than the one we're so proud of now. That's in all our best interests. We all pay for the right to drive a car, and we should all pay for healthcare, education, a clean environment, our defense, our infrastructure. That's what taxes are for. The Bush administration decimated the Treasury. His tax cuts did nothing to create jobs while his pro-deregulation policies brought the economy to disaster. Those cuts were set to expire at the end of 2010. Instead, the Republicans forced extension and added 800 billion to the deficit as a gift to their rich supporters. If those taxes were re-instated, the deficit would be cut in half within 5-7 years. The only thing that's been shoved down our throats is a corrupt political process that serves the money that supports it.