I don’t generally find myself lined up with the likes of Michael Moore, but I can’t help feeling a certain sense of camaraderie with the sentiments he recently expressed to Democrats like Max Baucus and Kent Conrad,
To the Democrats in Congress who don’t quite get it: I want to offer a personal pledge. I – and a lot of other people – have every intention of removing you from Congress in the next election if you stand in the way of health care legislation that the people want[.]
One has to always be careful with and wary of the use of phrases like, “the people”, of course. Moore can’t possibly think (or at least certainly shouldn’t think) that every single Democratic voter, let alone the moniker of all Americans to which a catch-all like, “the people” might point, are supportive of a public option in the way that he and those who agree with him are. But it remains true that for all the controversy and haggling, there is reasonable base of support for the public option amongst Americans.
Given that support, the kind of galling concern-trollery one hears coming from the lips of Max Baucus sort of begs to be met with war cries. To the point I made last Friday, there is a troublesome disingenuous in the studied ballet of Baucus’ political pirouettes that has left many wondering what the real intentions at play here are. Politics as the art of the possible notwithstanding, do we really know what is possible before even trying or in the facing of hedging against possible outcomes from the outset of the debate?
The fact that the proposed bench-clearing brawl is to take place amongst team members makes me, in some senses, only more enthusiastic about the proposition. Which is not to suggest that I’m tickled about dissension in Democratic ranks in particular, though I do think it a good thing. But I admit that it is dissension itself that leaves me feeling like something of worth is happening.
Perhaps its because of the blogopsheric circles in which I run, but it has been apparent to me and therefore feels like it ought to go without saying that there has been a steady stream of intra-movement argumentation from conservatives. Perhaps, one might point out, not from the mainstream, high profile types (though even that ediface seems to be cracking), but the work of folks like Conor Freidersdorf, Rod Dreher, David Frum, Bruce Bartlett, and, the ultimate anti-conservo-christ, Andrew Sullivan hasn’t exactly gone unnoticed. Their work is, I would argue, much to the benefit of conservatism in general.
So I’m just looking for, if not the same, then a similar kind of conversation in liberal and Democratic ranks. Whether you’re in power or not, a forced and forceful exchange of ideas is general a boon to be embraced where the ultimate achievement of good governance is concerned, rather than stain to be avoided (where the consolidation of power is more rightly concerned). As Uncle Walt once said,
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.
But the larger point here is that democracy is not and should not be seen as a spectator sport and insofar as Moore is calling people off the benches, I’m with him.
It is the same kind of impetus that makes me argue against a complete write off of 9/12ers, problematic though I’m inclined to see many of their tactics. If you think something is wrong with the way things are going, you ought to feel emboldened enough to at least attempt to do something about it… and bring your friends.
That process is most certainly more art than science, so it will, almost of necessity, be messy and given to over declarations and fits of melodrama. So be it, truly outrageous acts should and will be called out on the spot, course corrective measures initiated in mid-stream. Besides, the group-think politics of partisan posturing is surely a worse fate we’d do well to avoid.
Would I prefer that the rallying figures of this momentum were other than Michael Moore and Glenn? Sure, but, you know, we live in the world as it is, as opposed to how we would like it to be. And so I’m inclined to look at these ruptures as opening salvos rather than concluding remarks in an ongoing negotiation of shifting terrain.
Will Truman 
Patrick Cahalan 
Cornelius 
wardsmith 
Tod Kelly 
Tom Van Dyke 
Murali 
James Hanley 
Borat: “I do a picture, only small, of the Tishnik Masacre. Where many Uzbeks…crushed!”
Kindly Gray Hippie: “How did you feel when you drew this?”
Borat: “Very proud!”.
KGH: “I’m just listening with sadness…a little sadness for your people…?”
Borat: “Yes…no, it is not sad. It is us who do the kill!”
When in doubt,
{ 86 comments }
Debate is good. Making incumbents attentive to their constituents is good. Maybe something worth while come from Michael Moore though I’ll not hold my breath as I’ve never been fond of the bugger. Odd, you’d think I would considering we both share a love of hyperbolie.
More important than the concept of the people, is the question of “want.” it seems clear to me that the health care program people want includes:
Free of charge at the point of service
No limitations on what’s covered.
No tax increases to pay for it.
People want lots of things.
I’m a huge fan of what Michael Moore is advocating.
I’m just pretty sure that we’ll end up with just as many Liebermans in the Senate without adding a single Lamont.
Not sure that is the immediate point, at least from my vantage.
I’m actually worried we’ll end up with more Bachmanns or Wilsons.
Given my distaste for a lot of Moore’s grandstanding and his occasional descents into paranoid speculation (e.g. the Saudi stuff in F9/11), I was surprised at how well he seems to understand the situation we’re in, and indeed how much he actually sounded – gasp – conservative at times on NPR the other day. Of course, his diagnosis of the roots causes is rather different than what I imagine our Libertarian Commenter Brigade would propose, but then you’re hitting the major irreconcilable philosophical difference about what, exactly, we mean by “capitalism”.
(Moore thinks its inseparable from corporatism, libertarians generally consider it to be all private commerce.)
I also appreciated how sanguine he was about the ironic corporate backing of his film distribution.
Beyond that, though, I worry that Moore’s ideological crusade runs the risk of turning the country over to the truly insane, rather than the just crassly self-serving, of course. But that’s mostly because I fear that those may end up being out only choices.
Scott – do note that the Senators who can’t get it together to do what the country wants and needs (not just on health care) all come from small states – Baucus, Dorgan, Snowe/Collins, Grassley, etc… I would argue that there simply aren’t enough talented people in those states to consistently produce a capable senator. There are 640,000 people in North Dakota – and yet on this issue, their two senators have about as much pull as California’s two senators.
It would be as though Medicine Hat kept its two MLAs and the rest of Alberta went from 81 to 2. There’s no question the other two MLAs would be a lot smarter and more capable than Medicine Hat’s – and they’d be responsive to the other 3.57 million people in the province.
A couple nitpicks: A liberal used the term “the people”, to refer to what he thinks he correct. Well golly gee, how shocking. It’s only conservatives who get to claim they know and represent what all American’s think.
I admit I like Moore although I haven’t seen his last couple films. It amazes me how he is grouped with the becks and limbaughs. That is a whopper of a false equivalence. It seems now any partisan on the left like moore or olbermann has to be somehow the polar opposite of the braying loud mouths on the right. I would put money down that we could get an independent bunch of refs and compare a large random sample of things said by these folks and olbermann and moore would be found to far more truthful and use far fewer vicious slanderous insults.
Greg,
1.) No one gets a free lunch on using the term “the people”, the country is too diverse and divided to allow for accurate usage by a liberal or a conservative or anyone else, for that matter.
2.) Insofar as Beck is leading the populist charge on the right and Moore is leading the populist charge on the left, they occupy similar trajectories. That is, I think, about as far as my comparison went in terms of mentioning both in the same sentence at the end of the post.
One of my biggest complaints about Moore is that he feels the need to lie (Canada has ten times as many guns per capita as the US?) when the truth is damning enough. He’s no Beck or Limbaugh, but he’s not a paragon of truth-telling.
Dude. He played the Internationale over the closing credits of his last movie.
If that’s not Beckian or Limbaughesque or Hannitiristic, what would it be?
It would be revolutionary.
Now I need to see that movie. Moore overstates his case at times, which ends up damaging it, but he’s an absolutely invaluable voice against the corporatist consensus. There’s a lot of supposedly “mainstream” people who say crazier things than he does.
All I want to know is, who sang The International at the end of the movie? Was it Richard Cheese?
Peace,
Tex Shelters
Dude, so what. How is playing that a lie or slander at another person?
I think you’ve got a good point there, Greg. I might not be super keen on Michael Moore, but neither would I judge him on the same basis as some of the stuff that Beck and Limbaugh have come out with of late. We can both rest assured that JB will come back with an answer, though.
Oh, sorry. I thought you were saying that he wasn’t as left as Limbaugh, Beck, and those guys were right.
Instead, you were just saying that he didn’t lie or slander as much as those guys did.
If you want to get into the whole “lying” or “slandering” thing, the great thing about Michael Moore’s movies have to do with you walking away with a general impression that X but, if you said “the movie said X”, you’d be wrong because Michael Moore never came out and said X.
We can discuss whether this is as bad as that, but please understand that I thought your point was that Moore was not as “left” as those guys were “right” instead of how much more moral footing he has than they do.
Though, thinking about it some more, I’d say that the endorsement of Communism is pretty much equivalent to the endorsement of National Socialism if not an outright endorsement of Leninism/Stalinism given that the Internationale was the National Anthem of Russia from 1922 to 1944.
We’re not talking about just some song, here.
We’re talking about the equivalent of playing all three verses of Deutschlandlied at the end of a movie talking about what a pity it is that we have such weak and indecisive rulers.
i think Moore, although their are plenty of valid criticisms against some of his flicks, is not nearly as dishonest or engage in the same kind of slanderous shit that beck and limbaugh thrive on.
It’s a separate idea, but i am not sure if moore is as far left as beck and limbaugh are to the right.( i don’t know enough about where he stands on various issues) what is taken for mainstream right thought now woiuld have been moonbat stuff not that long ago. Try saying control the military industrial complex now and see if that is taken as a statement from a conservative. And by the same token, some people think a three percent tax increase on the highest bracket is marxism. American’s have a constricted view of the political spectrum that just doesn’t allow for many ideas to be spoken in polite society (that goes for libertarian and left wing ideas primarily.
The International was used by more then just the soviet commies. i believe it was also sung by various left wing/socialist groups taht were not aligned with the soviets. per my point above about the constricted political spectrum in America, there have been plenty of democratic socialist parties in europe. socialism is akin to the devil in america, usually by people who couldn’t define the word with three dictionaries and wikipedia.
The fact that there are people who claim that a 3% tax increase is marxism does not make an appeal to the USSR’s National Anthem at the time of Lenin and Stalin something other than an appeal to Communism-as-it-was-practiced.
“The International (sic) was used by more then just the soviet commies.”
Sure. (I still know the words from my college days!)
Yet if at the end of a movie criticizing weak and ineffective rulers, I played all of the verses of “Deutschlandlied”, would you believe me if I said that it’s what German soccer fans sing to visiting soccer teams as they walk on the field?
Or, at the very least, would you take my defense of the song on those merits at face value without wondering if I knew that the song had history beyond a little ditty that fans sing at German soccer games?
Okay, I’m going to have to go ahead and call Godwin’s Law on this.
So it’s not fair to compare the playing of the Soviet National Anthem during Lenin and Stalin’s reign to the playing of Deutschlandlied?
Do you have a song it might better be compared to?
I don’t know what Lenin/Stalin’s National Anthem might best be compared to, you see.
I just don’t think it’s particularly on point.
Thinking about it some more, how about the song “Dixieland”?
Sure, there are kids today who wear the stars and bars who aren’t racist and aren’t defending slavery. Hey, remember the “Sorry Miss Jackson” video? Andre was wearing a Confederate flag belt buckle! Are you now going to call Big Boi a racist for collaboration with a known Confederate sympathizer?
Of *COURSE* there are people who wear the Confederate flag proudly without being racist. When they talk about “States’ Rights”, they aren’t racist either.
They’re just pretty blind to the imagery they’re using to the point where you have to wonder about them.
I mean, sure, This Guy may do it without being racist… but the generation before him? Or before him? Or before him? You’re eventually going to have to deal with the whole “slavery” issue. And yelling “States’ Rights”? Well, you have to ask “States’ Right To What?”
They may dodge. “Secede”, they may say.
“Why would they Secede?”, you must ask.
“To choose their own destinies.”
And so on down the dodging trail until you get to the point where they are talking about how the States in question were fighting for the right to continue to allow some folks the right to *OWN* slaves.
That’s why the Confederate flag is very, very loaded.
The Internationale is equally loaded.
We aren’t talking about someone who says “I’m a Marxist” and some Randroid shows up and demands the discussion change to Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Cambodia.
We’re talking about someone who plays the National Anthem at the time of Lenin and Stalin who is being asked to defend the playing of Lenin and Stalin’s National Anthem for the USSR.
“But college students sang it too.”
“Sure they did. Why did they?”
“Because college students in the 90′s sang it because it was a song for socialists, communists, social democrats, and anarchists.”
“And why did college students in the 90′s sing it?”
“Because college students in the 80′s sang it.”
And back and back and back until you get to the point where the folks in the early part of the century were singing it because it was, in fact, the national anthem of the USSR under Lenin and Stalin.
Sure. A college kid could sing it without endorsing Stalinism, just like a college kid could whistle Dixie without being racist.
It’s when you’re no longer dealing with college kids and are dealing with the creators of propoganda that you get to ask “seriously? You choose *THAT* song?”
No, it’s not reasonable. There’s a reason “L’Internationale” has the name it does – it’s not representative of a nation, and certainly not of Stalinism, but of the international socialist movement.
And I say full speed ahead. The Left are the only ones in America who recognize that torture is wrong. That alone is enough reason to support them.
Indeed, it was the anthem of the USSR. A brotherhood of nations brought together for the glory of the revolution.
There are also a handful of nutty “other” or “third party” folk out there who are also opposed to government sponsored torture, indefinite detention without charges, etc. (For the record)
from the font of all knowledge:
The Internationale (L’Internationale in French) is a famous socialist, communist, social-democratic and anarchist anthem and one of the most widely recognized songs in the world.
The Internationale became the anthem of international socialism. Its original French refrain is C’est la lutte finale / Groupons-nous et demain / L’Internationale / Sera le genre humain. (Freely translated: “This is the final struggle / Let us group together and tomorrow / The Internationale / Will be the human race.”) The Internationale has been translated into many of the world’s languages. It is sung traditionally with the hand raised in a clenched fist salute. The Internationale is sung not only by socialists but also (in many countries) by communists or social democrats, as well as anarchists.
From 1922 to 1944, The Internationale was the de facto national anthem of the Soviet Union.
Is this one of those things where you look at it and say “see! this makes my point!” while I look at it and say the exact same thing?
beats me, all i originally said was the song was used by more then just soviet commies. Left wing politics/ideas/songs/slogans have existed in democratic countries. there is actually nothing strange about that. BTW what movie did he use it in?
The one that’s out now.
The one called “Capitalism: A Love Story”.
I’ll need to see it first, but my understanding was that it was used ironically.
You could well be right. I have long had trouble when it comes to ironic song listening.
Jaybird,
What do you believe playing “The Internationale” actually symbolizes in terms of Michael Moore’s evil objectives?
When someone plays Dixieland I’d probably think they would like to oppress black folk. Do you think Moore wants to send you to a Gulag or something?
I think that he’s arguing that Communism, if done right this time, would end up working. I think that he thinks that the people (like me!)who would oppose such a thing would qualify as “wreckers”.
A gulag? Probably not. I do think that he sees me as someone who would benefit from re-education, however.
I’ve never seen a Moore film, don’t plan to start, but I think you might just be missing the irony gene. In Seattle’s eccentric Freemont neighborhood there’s a bigger than life statue of Lenin, a cold war rocket, as well as a giant troll. It also bills itself as the center of the universe. I don’t think any of these things are meant to be taken seriously.
The most obvious differences to me between the first year of W. and the first year of O. is how the left challenges its leaders and the right falls in line behind its leaders.
In W.’s first year (even in his first 2-3 years), none of your examples on the right (Freidersdorf, Dreher, Frum, Bartlett, or Sullivan) talked about disagreeing with the leaders on the right so much that they wanted to primary Republicans in the next election. In fact, all of those examples talked about the opposite: W. was like Churchill, we HAD to go to war to protect our
precious bodily fluidsfreedom, etc. It was not until things started to go horribly (and obviously) wrong that these righties started disagreeing.The difference is that the left is always ready to disagree with their leaders. This is one of the reasons why people like to say that the Democrats are always in disarray. I think this misses the point: the left is always willing to challenge it’s leaders. The right? Not really. Party solidarity is much more important. Just look at how the right has conducted purity tests for the past 8 years (and thrown much of the party overboard in the process).
JHG, a good point. I have some additional thoughts, but not the time right now to provide them. I’m horrible for saying this and then not following through, but I’ll attempt to come back and offer a response later.
Suffice to say, though, that I would love to get at least Conor and Rod’s responses, as I know they both happen to peruse the site.
Does the Club for Growth count?
They did stuff like support Mark Sanford over Peeler in 2002 (see how *THAT* turned out) and Toomey over Spectre in 2004.
I don’t know how *RIGHT* (as opposed to merely corporatist or anti-tax) they are but if you, like me, would snort if someone else said “the Club for Growth is non-partisan”, I think that they’d make a good example of right-leaning folk who called vigorously to primary insufficiently Conservative (for some definitions of Conservative) politicians.
The Club For Growth is a perfect example. Of those that were conducting the purity tests and dumping any who failed to be conservative enough (according to their definition). This is why there are no more liberal Republicans or moderate Republicans in Congress anymore.
There’s a big difference between a PAC conducting purity tests and voters/activists trying to unseat politicians who stand in the way of their party enacting their platform. Democratic activists are supporting the primary of Sestak over Specter – not some left-leaning PAC. Same for Lamont over Lieberman, and the current discussions about Baucus and Conrad (et al).
I would even go further and say that the Club For Growth was falling in line behind the leadership. W. (and others) pushed Republicans very far to the right and the Club For Growth was following that. They weren’t disagreeing with their leaders.
Would you say that the people the left are trying to get rid of are more in line with Obama or are they trying to get rid of the blue doggy types?
Both.
Have you read anything that lefty’s have written about Rahm Emanuel (last time I checked, he was White House Chief of Staff)?
I actually haven’t. All of the vitriol I’ve seen have gone toward blue dogs and democrats who have been otherwise acting like blue dogs.
Got a link for me?
Don’t have time at the moment, so this will have to suffice (lefty blogs have been criticizing Rahm since before he went to the WH).
From the Great Orange Satan:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/8/21321/11676
From a diary (rant) linked in the above story:
So isn’t the vitriol against Emanuel precisely that he’s protecting the moderates/Blue Dogs, and that he is a “Blue Dog Breeder” or something like that?
That’s not really what I’ve read. The disagreements with Emanuel seem to fall into these categories:
- He rejects the new activism: 50-state strategy, listening to the grassroots, new media, etc.
- He thinks that the numbers (of elected Democrats) are the only thing that’s important (this is what you term “Blue Dog Breeder”). And a corollary, passing legislation is what is important, not what the legislation does (or doesn’t do).
- He thinks liberals/Democrats should not criticize Democrats in office, under any circumstances.
- He holds grudges and is vitriolic himself, and this is unhelpful to enacting legislation (or even thinking clearly, at times).
- He is beholden to corporate interests.
Here’s a more recent example, though in this they’re targeting Reid (for some of the same reasons they are attacking Emanuel).
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/progressives-prepare-to-pressure-reid-to-include-public-option-in-senate-health-care-bill.php
No purity test, but a real test of leadership. “Lead, follow, or get out of the way” certainly seems to apply in this case.
(I think Reid needs to be dumped, and not just for health care reasons).
And now I’m reminded of the response to Dennis Hastert.
I appreciate your position here, but it seriously seems to me like a movie I’ve seen before.
And now I’m reminded of the response to Dennis Hastert.
Republican activists primaried Hastert and forced him out?
I didn’t see that movie. I saw the one where Hastert stepped down because of the questions about how much he knew about Foley and young male pages.
I’m very confused.
Sorry, you’re right. Hastert was not primaried. I do recall reading that he ought to be, however, given his lack of ability to “get things done”.
If Reid is primaried, I will stop seeing this case as analagous.
Curious: What “things” did Republicans/conservatives think that he didn’t get done?
He was Speaker from 1999 until he resigned in 2007. An awful lot “got done” during that time that I would think Republicans/conservatives would really like.
You’d be surprised how the movement conservative perspective of the last 8 years thinks otherwise. They really were not happy with quite a bit of what “got done” (budget deficits, NCLB, Medicare D, BCRA) and were quite unhappy about what didn’t (SS Reform comes to mind most obviously).
I used to think that too.
I was on Redstate during the (Republican) primary season and Huckabee came in first in Iowa, I think it was. One of the social conservatives crowed in a front page post something to the effect of “now the Republican Party knows that it can no longer take the social conservatives for granted!!!”
Well, my head exploded. “WHAT IN THE HECKING HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT” is a good paraphrase of the first draft of my reply but I said, wait a second, think about this. Did the guy have a reason to write what he did?
And I looked back at what the social conservatives had won at the hands of the Federal Government due to the Bush Administration.
All I could come up with was a veto of funding for stem cell research and official opposition to gay marriage. Abortion? Squat. “Protecting the borders”? Squat. Euthanasia? Gonzales v. Oregon! On and on down the list. The social conservatives got shafted by Bush’s administration about as completely as the fiscal conservatives did. There was a bone thrown here or there (yay! online gambling is illegal! Wait, what? That was regulatory capture on the part of brick&mortar casinos???) but nothing that would stay or that wasn’t poisoned.
Only the hawks got what they wanted from Bush. The other two legs of the stool got shafted.
Didn’t Bush fill a lot of appointments from the religious right? He might not of enacted policy but didn’t he secure their presence in the bureaucracy.
Sure. And he signed a bill on preserving the sanctity of marriage with Ted Haggard standing right there (shout to to my Colorado Springs brethren! WOO!!!).
But, at the end of the day, what was *ACCOMPLISHED*?
Squat. When I came to that conclusion, I almost felt sorry for the socons. Almost.
I’ll take your insight into this, but it’s very strange to me.
NCLB – signed in 2002
Medicare part D – signed in 2003
BCRA – signed in 2002
So, conservatives weren’t happy with some of what “got done” prior to 2004, but still re-elected Republicans (and a Republican president)?
It has been said that there are no longer any moderate Republicans left on Capitol Hill. Outside of Maine, this is largely true. I would submit that the above are a not-insignificant explanation as to how that came to pass.
As for Bush, well, by the time 2004 rolled around he had that GWOT going full-swing, which he got to take credit for. This was a not-insignificant factoid for conservatives (and, sadly, many independents – the GWOT was pretty popular and dominated the national consciousness at the time). Plus, liberals weren’t too happy with Dem spinelessness on the GWOT at the time. Still, I know that by 2004, many of the more libertarian-leaning movement conservatives were abandoning ship. FWIW, in the circles in which I traveled at the time, which was before I was a self-described libertarian, a clear majority of libertarian-leaning movement conservatives either stayed home or voted for Kerry.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, Mark Thompson, but it sounds like you are saying that “WAR!” trumped everything else for conservatives. At least, in regards to re-electing W.
That is a sad commentary on America, if true.
As for “liberals weren’t too happy with Dem spinelessness on the GWOT at the time”, this is very true. I was one of them. The result was that Terry McAuliffe finally got booted (and, there was much rejoicing!) and Howard Dean replaced him. Dean was able to push the 50-state strategy right when online activism was taking off. So far, it’s been very successful.
As to your discussion on libertarian-leaning cons, I think this was the beginning of the exodus from the Republican Party that we are still seeing now. But, they are so far into the wilderness now that it will be a painful and difficult road back to being a national party again. I recall Sullivan was very vocal about this at the time (supporting Kerry, reevaluating the rationale for war, libertarian-stuff). Even though he’s been wrong about some really big things, he’s also been right about some really big things. I’m not sure what that says about him, though.
NCLB – signed in 2002
Medicare part D – signed in 2003
BCRA – signed in 2002
Imagine, if you will, an alternate universe in which Gore was elected and the Federal Government deliberately insulted our ally Saudi Arabia and violated the civil rights of 19 Arab-American immigrants who were here on student visas with some bullshit story about how they were going to fly some planes into the WTC like it was some episode of The Lone Gunmen (with boxcutters!!! Like it’s illegal to own a copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator).
Imagine him coming out with those 3 bills.
Can you imagine what the Conservatives would have said in response to those bills?
That’s what the outcast conservatives were saying at the time.
That’s what the outcast conservatives were saying at the time.
But, then in 2004, a vast majority of conservatives re-elected Republicans and a Republican president who were responsible for those bills.
If they felt that strongly (as you allude to in your hypothetical), then they shouldn’t have voted for as many Republicans as they did vote for. Something caused them to still vote for those responsible for things they (strongly) did not like. Either they didn’t feel as strongly as you allude to, or they felt strongly but something else caused them to still vote for politicians who did things they didn’t like.
It still looks to me like Power was more important than anything else.
“I’ll vote for this no-good Republican and hold my nose, because if I don’t then Democrats might get into power and that would be much worse.”
I still don’t understand it.
“I don’t want to put words in your mouth, Mark Thompson, but it sounds like you are saying that “WAR!” trumped everything else for conservatives. At least, in regards to re-electing W.”
Indeed.
This is where I’m going to say something that everybody disagreed with when I said it back in 2004. Let’s see if it’s as worth disagreeing with today.
John Kerry was even worse than Dukakis when it came to campaigning. He was an awful, awful, awful candidate. Bush was not only beatable but likely to be beaten had the Democratic Machine gotten behind someone like Gephardt.
Instead, the Democrats decided to make the election about Vietnam, of all things, ran Kerry as “A Decorated Vietnam Veteran” in, presumably, an attempt to get the coveted Vietnam Veteran vote (despite the whole stuff he said before Congress), said stuff like “I voted for it before I voted against it” in the midst of being called a flip-flopper, and had an exceptionally uncharismatic wife who claimed to be African-American in front of a group of African-Americans. It’s like the Democrats were going out of their way to lose.
On top of that, days before the election, Dan Rather did everything in his power to scream “THE MEDIA IS DOING EVERYTHING IN ITS POWER TO GET KERRY ELECTED” before crashing and burning.
Kerry, and Dan Rather, screwed the Democrats hard and this resulted in the Republican base being fired up despite itself, the swing voters leaning Republican despite themselves, and the Democratic vote (remember how Howard Dean was treated?) depressed despite itself.
And Bush still won by only 3%.
It wasn’t that the Republicans won. It’s that the Democrats lost. Bush wasn’t promising a Permanent Republican Majority. It’s that Kerry had negative coattails.
John Kerry was even worse than Dukakis when it came to campaigning. He was an awful, awful, awful candidate. Bush was not only beatable but likely to be beaten had the Democratic Machine gotten behind someone like Gephardt.
I wouldn’t have disagreed with that in 2004, in fact I said many of the same things in 2004. I still agree with it now.
And, let’s remember that Terry McAuliffe was still head of the DNC. This unbelievable loss is part of why he got booted (and there was much rejoincing!). There are many sports analogies in there about the Big Coach losing the unlosable game…
Interesting theory – it’s at least as plausible as my more conventional theory. That’s the funny thing about Presidential elections in particular – it just takes a small swing to turn an election from a squeaker into a landslide, a winner into a loser. I tend to take the view that for the most part Presidential election results are relatively preordained, a rough combination of the state of the economy and any wars going on, with candidate quality having some small effect on the margins. If the economy is going well and/or the party in power is administering a relatively popular war, then it will have a well-motivated base, the opposing party will not, and the party in power will do at least ok with independents, which is usually all that is necessary to win. When things are going poorly economically or the country is embroiled in an unpopular war, then the party out of power will have the more motivated base and will do at least ok with independents.
Quick addendum: when you have a poorly motivated base, I suspect you’ll also get weaker candidates.
comparing Moore to Limbaugh/Beck is silly. Moore puts out a movie every year or two, does the occasional interview/op-ed.
Limbaugh/Beck bellow day after day, non-stop. They’ve got so much time to fill that it’s no wonder they make it up.
Moore is nothing but a fat grandstanding hypocrite. He criticizes capitalism but is himself a millionaire. Why doesn’t he give his millions away to those poor unemployed UAW workers that he loves so much?
From the Balloon Juice Lexicon—“Michael Moore is fat…”- Attempting to discredit one’s opponent by accusing them of ‘hypocrisy’, usually meaning character flaws not related to the argument in question. Thus, Michael Moore’s protests against the Second Iraq War should be discounted by reason of his obesity, Al Gore’s efforts to bring attention to global warming are moot because he “lost” the 2000 presidential campaign, and Al Franken isn’t a “real” senator because he used to be a professional comedian. A form of the ad hominem logical fallacy that it attacks the writer’s motives without addressing his or her argument.
I could that it is possible to criticize capitalism while still believing it to be the best overall economic system.
Well played. That caught my eye, as well.
greginak:
I haven’t noticed from any of his work that Moore believes that capitalism is the best economic system. Yes, I called Moore fat but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s made millions while bad mouthing capitalism and this country. I thought it was nice how you seemed to concentrate on the “fat” remark, maybe you can’t deny the other.
Scott,
The best politician we’ve had – in terms of securing relief for the least fortunate among us – Franklin Delano Roosevelt was born into a fabulously wealthy family.
Was FDR also a fat hyprocrite? Is a sense of noblesse oblige impossible?
The political terrain is shifting. I agree with JHG that the left is notorious for fragmenting (disagreeing with their leaders) perhaps Moore is the current example of this. I think that both parties are also bleeding members toward a new party or ideology. I was fascinated to see the response to Ron Paul in Seattle. Usually conservatives are met with hostility when they go to downtown Seattle (vs. the more conservative suburb of Bellevue). Paul attracted a lot of lefties and no demonstrations.
both parties are also bleeding members toward a new party or ideology
I’m not sure that I have seen evidence of this. Certainly, Republicans have been bleeding members for the past few years (most have become independents). But, have Democrats really been bleeding members?
I can’t find a more recent example, but here is a graph:
http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/773-2.gif
from this article: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans
In 2002, there was near parity (34% Dem, 33% Rep, 32% Ind). In March 2008, the numbers were 36% Dem, 27% Rep, 37% Ind. And, of the Independents, 15% lean Dem, 10% lean Rep (so the overall results were 51% Dem/lean-Dem to 37% Rep/lean-Rep).
I just don’t think it is accurate to say that “both parties are…bleeding members”.
And, is Paul really considered a conservative by most conservatives? I don’t know the answer to that.
“And, is Paul really considered a conservative by most conservatives? I don’t know the answer to that.”
It depends on the leading issue of the moment. Right now, I think the answer is “definitely, yes.” A year and a half ago, the answer was “absolutely not! He’s a radical, pinko, leftist who wants to surrender to TEH MOOSLIMS!”
Curious: what is this leading issue that makes conservatives like Paul right now?
Anything economics: stimulus spending, bailouts, health insurance, etc.
This is why I can never really understand what motivates conservatives (generally speaking).
Most of the bailouts, spending, housing boom/implosion, deficit increases, and Fed money printing happened when Republicans were in charge of the entire government. But, now that Republicans aren’t in power, they stand in solidarity with Paul.
There is no logic to this, unless Power is the only thing that is important.
Oh, movement conservatives opposed all those things at the time (opposition to the bailouts if you’ll recall was something that actually united the most conservative and most liberal members of Congress). They just took a back seat to the GWOT. There were a lot of rumblings in 2006 about how the GOP lost badly that year not because of the GWOT and Iraq, but because of deficit and pork spending. You may remember the seemingly absurd meme of “Republicans lost because they’ve behaved like Democrats.” That’s what they were referring to (of course, at the time, deficit spending still wasn’t on most people’s radars because there was something kind of big going on that pissed a lot of people off at Republicans, so deficits and spending had nothing to do with it).
Again, I’ll take your insight into this.
I’m still curious, and thanks for taking the time to satisfy my curiousity.
1. What principles does a “movement conservative” follow as a political philosophy today? Or, to flip the question over, what principles must a person follow to be considered a “movement conservative”? There doesn’t seem to be a consistent list that I’m aware of, if you count what Republicans actually DO once they are in power.
2. They just took a back seat to the GWOT. Assuming that the GWOT was one of those principles, does this mean that the things which movement conservatives opposed (listed in the comment above) were considered less important than the GWOT, or do you mean that the movement conservatives “took a back seat”? (I’m not sure what “They” refers to).
3. Do movement conservatives really stand against deficit spending? Because, from my vantage point, Reagan/Bush I quadrupled the deficit, Clinton kept the deficit level, and Bush II doubled the deficit again. If the principle is “no deficit spending” then why do movement conservatives want to elect Republicans when they have shown to increase deficit spending much more than Democrats? (Of course, this is an oversimplification of the situation, but it will have to do).
They just took a back seat to the GWOT.
Here’s my experience with this.
“What about issue that is important to me?”
“I appreciate you care about that issue but nothing else matters but the war on terror. Until the Islamic Threat is neutralized, none of us are safe and it is far more important that we protect our women and children than deal with your silly little issue.”
On question 1: I’m hesitant to answer because I’m definitely not a movement conservative. But that said, nowadays movement conservatives are often likely to tell you that their guiding philosophy is simply that “liberals are wrong.” When they’re in or near power, though, it’s just the nauseatingly standard refrain of the whole three-legged stool thing. The problem, as I see it, is that the movement conservatives fail to understand that it is impossible to be all three legs of the stool at once post-Cold War. So, amongst other problems, when they complained about government spending, they ignored that the biggest spending problem of all was that whole defense spending/war spending thing, instead focusing on drops in the bucket like earmarks. They pretended that being pro-PATRIOT Act, anti-gay marriage and pro-Drug War was totally consistent with limited government, tax cuts totally consistent with fighting a war, etc.
2. I was referring to other principles, not to movement cons themselves.
3.The importance of the Cold War in forgiving Reagan-era deficits probably shouldn’t be under-emphasized. There you had not only an enemy, but an enemy that was both a credible existential threat and one aligned with Godless Communism rather than a religious-based terrorist organization having nothing to do with a totalitarian government and/or economic system. But with the fall of the Wall, I think you did see Bush I get pretty heavily punished by movement conservatives for deficit spending/tax increases. IIRC, Limbaugh quite openly refused to back Bush I for re-election. On Clinton, I think movement conservatives would tell you (with some justification) that his record on the deficit was at least equally (well, they would say far more, I say equally) a result of Republican in Congress as it was of Clinton himself. The reality of course is that over the last 60 years or so, government deficit spending is pretty good with a Dem Prez and GOP Congress, tolerable with a GOP Prez and Dem Congress, pretty bad with a Dem Congress and Prez, and absolutely abysmal with a Republican Congress and Prez.
Regarding 3: This doesn’t seem to make sense, when you consider that the existential threat of the GWOT was much more palpable and visceral to the population than the nebulous threat of the Cold War. Even if the Cold War and the GWOT are not equivalent, surely the value of the Cold War in the calculus of forgiving deficits is not more than 4 times the value of the GWOT. Even so, I think Bush I got saddled with a lot of the fallout that was really because of Reagan.
And, within this calculus that you refer to, Reagan’s forgiveness for the Cold War was more valuable (to gaining the sympathy of conservatives) than the budget surplus from Clinton? If true, it reeks of partisanship and myopia – exactly what the Republicans are suffering from right now.
Regarding your estimations of deficit spending over the past 60 years, they may be true, but are not the real problem. The real problem is the connection each party has to corporate interests at that particular point in time. That is the ultimate cause of deficit spending. “Special interests” is just a way to say “corporate interests that I don’t like”.
Well, I suppose it depends how one evaluates the threats. One key here though is that anti-Communism was an ideologically unifying theme in a way that anti-terrorism cannot be. That’s not to say that anti-terrorism can’t be a viable unifying theme for a political movement, just that it’s not such a good theme for uniting the particular groups that created the infamous three-legged stool.
As for the rest, you won’t get much disagreement from me.
The fact that many of the arguments that current Republicans are picking up because they are not only convenient but because many in those presumed to be the activist base (read: tea partiers) respond so well to them.
The tea parties would have been seen as aid/comfort to the enemy in 2006.
Today they’re seen as The Real America and people on the left are (fairly) asking where in the hell the tea partiers were prior to Obama’s inauguration.
The former Vice President had them locked up in a toolshed behind the Whitehouse.
Depends on the conservative, I suppose. For me, it’s the foreign policy and states rights.
You’ve got me there. I only have anecdotal evidence of people I’ve met on line or at the Rally/meetups.
Where can I find the performer of the Internationale during the closing credits?
Comments on this entry are closed.