In response to recent stories about death threats and various other means of intimidation through violence visited upon members of Congress, James Joyner writes (h/t: Drum),
And, unlike Michelle Malkin, Dan Riehl, and others, I do think Republican leaders have some responsibility to condemn violence. No, I don’t think they’re directly responsible for any of it; we don’t yet even know for sure who’s making the threats. But we’ve had over a year of very heated rhetoric over the dire consequences that would flow from a government takeover of one sixth of the economy, death panels, legislation being rammed through with dirty tricks, and all the rest. That’s part and parcel of American politics these days and mostly fine. But, with signs that people are going off the rails evident, it’s time for leaders to calm their followers.
I agree, but let me take it one step further.
I’ve just finished listening to The Assault on Reason by Al Gore (yes, listening, I’ve started going to the gym again and so it’s better bad 90′s pop they play at the city fitness centre I frequent), in which Gore makes, to my mind, an impressively persuasive and comprehensive case about the damage that the Bush administration’s eight years in office inflict on the American political process. In particular, Gore spends a good deal of time diagnosing the diminished role that reasoning plays in political discourse, both among political elites and the electorate.
While I don’t necessarily swallow all of Gore’s analysis whole, I do think that his underlying criticism has a lot of fire power to it. I also thought that Gore did a good job of making the case — with what I thought was a pretty comprehensive cupboard of evidence — around the Bush administration’s rolling back of the norms surrounding the political process.
Of course, it always troublesome to make claims about “how bad things have gotten”. Invariably someone will come out and provide an example of how so-and-so got shot or beaten or what have you over this or that issue back in American democracy’s days of yore. And to be certain, things have gotten better over the span of a few hundred years, but there is no denying that the practice of politics in the country has gotten more rigid and infused with mindless hyper-partisanship of late.
In that regard, I am reminded of Matthew Ygleasias’ short article on the topic back in April 2008,
Since the 1970s, however, the significance of civil-rights conflicts in American elections has declined sharply. As older representatives left Congress in the 1980s, political divisions became cleaner. Ideologically moderate politicians have not disappeared, but relatively conservative Democrats like Senators Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu are, on most issues, now to the left of relatively liberal Republicans such as Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. The meet-in-the-middle overlap is gone.
From a journalistic point of view, the resulting system is tragically dull. Legislative outcomes become a simple matter of vote-counting: either a party has a majority or it doesn’t. There’s little room for journalistic sleuthing, and what stories there are to tell lack the color and drama of, say, Charlie Wilson’s War, in which an extremely hawkish Democratic congressman was able to persuade his party’s leadership to back a massive covert war in Afghanistan.
Yglesias goes on to make the case that this kind of rigidity bodes well in terms minimizing the impacts of lobbying and helps to stabilize and clarify things for voters. There is, I suppose, some truth to that. Though, the swarm mentality of the lobby class seems to have continued relatively unabated in present day back and forth, as the results of health care reform bear out.
And voters themselves seem increasingly disengaged and frustrated with a system that has little to nothing to do with them anymore. Stability is a poor consolation prize for irrelevance, it would seem.
Which brings us back to the present topic.
To some degree this lashing out is yet another sign of how angry and frustrated people are about the actions of their government. This is a sentiment for which I have some sympathy. But applying the Gore analysis, towards which I am more inclined than Yglesias’ take, the problem here is that, the norms and mores of political discourse so drastically malformed over the past eight years, instead of formulating well-reasoned and damning articulations of malpractice and misrepresentation, the common denominator seems increasingly debased to sheer and brute fear mongering.
Of course, lest I be accused of over-extrapolation, these types of tactics aren’t being employed by the majority of voters. And, as Ezra Klein humorously notes, “Nuts are nuts”. But, as Ezra and a host of others, Joyner included, note, the very participation of Republican and conservative activists in the year plus health care debate have been of a largely reason and fact free nature, underwritten by a reliance on hyperbole and and hysteria.
Which is to say that Republicans and conservative activists haven’t exactly assisted in addressing this problem and have, on more than a few occasions, thrown fuel on the fire, often to their political benefit. So while James might be shrewd in his cautious assignment of responsibility, there is a pretty strong case to be made that Republican leaders have certainly contributed to an environment where this type of activity had a greater likelihood of arising.
And so in refusing to condemn these actions, much the same way that Tea Party leaders are quick to point out that the ugliness that seems always to crop up at their events is merely an inaccurate and malicious caricature of their movement, yet remain reticent, as a result, to condemn the actions themselves, those recalcitrant conservatives and Republicans provide a tacit approval of the actions and further contribute to the degradation of a system that, to give credit where credit is due, House Republican leader John Boehner has described as, “not the American way”.
Ironically, it strikes me that this strategy is destined to hurt conservatives and Republicans in the long run.
I am further reminded of the twin graphs that Gallup produced in May of last year marking a decline in Republican Party identification across all demographics between 2001 and 2009,
Republicans and conservatives may have experienced a euphoric taste of resurgent popularity and shot of life with the emergence of charismatic and defiant personages like Sarah Palin and the win of Senator Scott Brown over what is broadly understood to be the dismal candidate of Martha Coakley. But the long term demographics line up squarely against Republicans and their conservative base and they have for some time.
Granted, there is some shorter term political mileage in running a campaign of intransigence against Democrats during a dour economic time that appeals to that narrow band of nervous independents and a broader swath of enraged populists. And playing those cards may well bring some seats back. It may even win the House back for two years.
But long haul, there will eventually come a time where the GOP and conservative leaders have to face a choice between pivoting on popular rhetoric or face the extinction of irrelevance. And when that time comes, it will be an exercise of reasoning with the base, the very thing that is being subtly and not so subtly undermined and swept aside, that those leaders will need to do. The more they shirk the obligation to address the maladies that afflict the system at present, thereby providing tacit approval for the furtherance of those tactics, the harder the job becomes down the line.
So those Republicans and conservatives with an eye to the future of their party and movement would do well to start the process sooner rather than later. Per the great American inventor, Alexander Graham Bell, “Sometimes we stare so long at a door that is closing that we see too late the one that is open.”
BlaiseP 
Jaybird 
Will Truman 
Russell Saunders 
Elias Isquith 
spivak 
Plinko 
Michael Drew 
Tim Kowal
{ 187 comments }
Did you catch Sullivan’s reality check? It was eye-opening to me. There hasn’t been a surge in Republican self-identification at all over the past year. The extent to which they have “revived” must therefore be considered a sign of voters letting off some steam. Interesting.
And to be certain, things have gotten better over the span of a few hundred years, but there is no denying that the practice of politics in the country has gotten more rigid and infused with mindless hyper-partisanship of late.
Friggin’ baby killer!
well, as a partisan Democrat, I feel the need to point out that my side hasn’t exactly covered itself with glory. While the President has largely kept above the fray, the partisan rhetoric from the blogs and some of the Reps has been pretty pointed. Making sure that the Republicans lose and feel hurt seems just as important, if not more so, that enacting good public policy.
A lot of the attitude may be in response to the whole with-us-or-against-us message of the Bush admin, but that’s an explanation, not an excuse. At some point both sides need to tone down the rhetoric and the volume, or we’re going to start saying and doing things that make compromise impossible on the next issue.
“Making sure that the Republicans lose and feel hurt seems just as important, if not more so, that enacting good public policy.”
Yes, that’s why we spent so many months trying to work with Republicans.
Well said, Scott.
The actions of Republicans – not just the rank-and-file, but the particularly the pundits and members of Congress – have made it next to impossible to have any sort of sane, reasoned debate on health care reform. There’s a lot there to discuss, and a lot to like and dislike, but discussing actual measures present in the bill isn’t possible when the other party just wants to yell about death panels, socialism, and “the government taking over 1/6 of the economy.” It shifts the political discourse away from reality and serious questions, so that instead you’ve got one side making ridiculously false claims, the other side debunking those claims, and nobody discussing whether actual measures in the bill are beneficial or not.
And yes, that’s to blame for the actions of radical right-wingers making death threats against members of Congress. When Republicans spend all their time telling people that this bill is the death of American liberty, then at least some people are going to believe them. If we’re heading into a dystopian future of government tyranny, isn’t stopping it worth a few bricks through windows?
And another thing – it’s incredibly tiresome to hear Republicans try to counterattack by talking about how much liberals hated Bush. Liberals hated Bush because he invaded Iraq on false pretenses despite the fact that it posed no threat; because he violated habeus corpus; because he instituted wiretaps on people without presenting any justification for suspecting them; because he had government agencies infiltrate and spy on peace groups; because he implemented a program of torture; because his administration and party demonized anyone who opposed these measures as enemies of America. And liberals extensively documented the facts about every one of these things; they investigated thoroughly; they presented the facts – and they were ignored, and laughed out of mainstream political discourse. And then, years after, the media kept discovering that, wait, those nutcases on the left with their silly “facts” were actually right.
And that is comparable to fact-free hysteria about “death panels,” comments like “Grandma isn’t shovel-ready [Bachmann]” and the mindless demagoguery of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck? NO. Just because one’s on the right and one’s on the left doesn’t make them comparable. Things like facts and evidence actually do matter.
“The actions of Republicans – not just the rank-and-file, but the particularly the pundits and members of Congress – have made it next to impossible to have any sort of sane, reasoned debate on health care reform. There’s a lot there to discuss, and a lot to like and dislike, but discussing actual measures present in the bill isn’t possible when the other party just wants to yell about death panels, socialism, and “the government taking over 1/6 of the economy.””
Oh gawd, can we please be spared from “intelligent” liberals.
The sum total expression of a typical liberal’s comprehension of contemporary economic issues is to write a hyperlink to a piece by Matt Taibbi or Paul Krugman (or Bruce Bartlett), a piece whose train of thought they can’t or don’t bother to understand.
Those are the “intelligent” ones. The stupider ones simply rationalize in terms of folk quasi-Marxism: “Bill Gates can afford to pay more to make sure underprivileged children have adequate medical care.”, etc, etc.
In both cases, their bitterness and animus toward Republicans keeps them from confronting or even acknowledging their own massive ignorance. As though being able to successfully manufacture a partisan parry in some political-cultural context is an adequate substitute for understanding the underlying issues.
While Ayn Rand is back in vogue for a moment, let’s do a little thought experiment and ask ourselves what if there really were no John Galt? In a lot of ways, the Galt scenario serves the psychological needs for both the liberal-collectivists and the Randians. The Randians get to take the ball and go home, and the liberals have a convenient object for blame. But what if they didn’t exist, what if the freeloaders, government time-servers, grad students and so on were the only ones around. If we avoid the drama surrounding the willingness (or lack of it) of the productive class to participate in the economy, what’s left? Is there anybody on the Left who can really internalize, a soup-to-nuts argument that the productive economy can adequately fund their social priorities? I’ve been following this game for a while and I don’t know of anyone.
“Intelligent” libertarians, on the other hand, seem unaware that John Galt was a fictional character, or even that, private companies being largely unwilling to fund basic research these days, much of the knowledge that the “productive class” eventually turns into moneymaking enterprise is being created by grad students and others funded by government grants. Hint: who developed this internet thingy we’re currently using? (Yes, I know you’re going to say “Not Al Gore.” Libertarians are so clever.)
I don’t think libertarians deserve the association you’re foisting on them Mike. Koz is a Bush Republican, not a libertarian.
Do you think that Rand is invoked more by Republicans than libertarians? That’s not my experience.
It depends on the context. But Pam Geller sure as hell ain’t no libertarian.
That said, Atlas Shrugged can certainly be worth citing as long as the person doing the citing keeps in mind that it is and was a work of fiction. It also helps if they understand Rand’s actual points.
Speaking of context, let’s note that I wasn’t citing Rand as much as creating an Atlas Shrugged counterfactual, if you will. In the book, John Galt really exists, and the dramatic arc is mostly about him and his compadres and all the ways they go about rejecting welfare-state collectivism.
But what if there were no John Galt? What if we all acquiesced to HCR, Hawaiian nationalism, ever-increasing public sector pensions and all the rest of it? What can the other team actually deliver on? Nothing, among other reasons because they can’t even make a coherent argument for being able to deliver.
That’s my point: there is no John Galt. Never has been; never will be. You might as well ask “What if there were no Superman, and we all had to get along without X-Ray vision?”
See, I think a better point would be that the closest thing we have to John Galt endorsed Obama. Then I’d point out that this person is clearly the real deal rather than a fraud like James Taggart because his wife isn’t about to throw herself off a bridge.
Then I’d say that people who are even in that league are exceedingly rare. And then I’d say that most of the folks talking about “Going Galt” are, at best, Eddie Willers. There’s plenty of Eddie Willerses in the world. And, dude, Ayn Rand didn’t give a crap about the Eddie Willerses of the world. She left him crying in the middle of the desert next to some railway tracks.
John Galts, in the real world, end up with ice picks in their backs after a handful of interesting ideas are stolen from them.
Or die of yellow fever after they learn that in a contest of money and ideas, the rich guys wind up owning both.
“That’s my point: there is no John Galt. Never has been; never will be.”
Oh yes there is. Not the mythical/fictional superman maybe, but the idea of deliberately or otherwise withdrawing from the mainstream culture/economy and leaving it to collapse under its own weight is very real. As I’m sure you know, a lot of reactionary-minded libertarians explicitly speak of going Galt.
But more important is that, real or not, liberals are completely afraid of it. That’s why the lib-Demo’s are always looking to raise taxes, why we see all these complaints that the Tea Parties are racist and all the rest of it. It’s the fact that they always have some Glenn Beck, John Galt, Tea Party bogeyman out there to soak up their energies that they avoid confronting their culpable massive ignorance.
For me one way past this is pretty simple: arguendo all our base really do belong to you. Now what? What can you deliver on?
As I’m sure you know, a lot of reactionary-minded libertarians explicitly speak of going Galt.
“Go. Write if you find work.”
“Intelligent” libertarians, on the other hand, seem unaware that John Galt was a fictional character,…”
You can ask Mark Thompson or Jaybird (or North for that matter), I think they’ll vouch for the fact that I’m not a libertarian. I’m more of a libertarian-inclined mainstream conservative.
As far the rest of your reply goes, many examples of contemporary liberal political-cultural thought are false on their own terms, irrelevant anyway, and highly self-serving.
In your case, it’s more or less laughable to think the problems with our economy at the moment have to do with a lack of basic research (leaving aside the issue of whether grad students solve this problem or not). My point about grad students was something else entirely. Typically graduate school serves as a place where reasonably intelligent young people can pursue their cultural agendas without running the gauntlet of uncertainty associated with having to earn a real living. I have no doubt that describes a significant number of contributors and commenters on this site. The motivation for that is easy to understand but we have to be able to internalize the idea that we collectively can’t afford that now. The same with government employees and others whose primary economic motivation is to insulate themselves against any meaningful form of accountability.
Ie, if we avoid the drama and simply look at the issue straight up, how are we supposed to afford the welfare state that the other team wants? We can’t afford it, of course, and the other team really never tries to make an argument that we can.
You can read the comments pages here as a case in point. Whenever something like this was brought up in the context of health care, the answer almost always was something about how it was GWB’s fault for Medicare Part D, like at least 90 times out of 100. Whatever substantive problems there are with that, it ought to be clear that that argument is not responsive to anything except political blame games. It doesn’t make the Demo’s attempt at health care reform any more affordable. A moment’s thought ought to be sufficient to realize it goes the other way.
I suppose to you a hyperlink to Paul Krugman is as valuable an intellectual move as a hyperlink to Matt Taibbi.
I do. Whatever the differences between Krugman and Taibbi, the hyperlinks serve the same point. A liberal wants to score a point related to some economic issue without confronting his basic ignorance in the subject, so he pastes a hyperlink in lieu of engaging any real thought in the matter.
You’re right that a link doesn’t demonstrate competence. But the argument linked to may nevertheless be more or less germane to whatever discussion is being had (the more germane, the more likely the person linking in fact understands it). And it may be a better or worse argument, and the person making it may have more or less authority in the subject matter. And in that sense, i think such links can be of differing intellectual value. And I think it’s preposterous to suggest that a link to Matt Taibbi is likely to be as valuable as one to Paul Krugman, though everything will depend on the specifics, of course. Your argument is something of a reductio, wherein a link to Milton Friedman would be still equally valueless. I don’t see the point of singling out who is being linked to in that case.
First of all, the main point of that argument was about the thought process of liberals relating to economic issues. Paul Krugman v. Matt Taibbi is something of a side issue. Viewed in that context, I think Taibbi is actually more valuable. Most liberals will internalize at least a little bit of a Taibbi piece: a Goldman partner said X, SEC regulator did Y, a debt instrument price went to Z. The majority of Krugman’s readers get anything at all from him except ammunition for partisan food fights.
Koz – I’ll answer your question, but here’s one for you: Prior to February 25th which partisan Republican politician, activist or pundit proposed a serious alternative, or modification, to the Democrat’s reform proposal that would have resulted in a program they would have voted or advocated for? Unless I’ve missed something, the answer explains why many partisan Democrats are pissed.
Regarding John Galt – there is no John Galt. There is no Wesley Mouch either. Or rather, the characters in Atlas Shrugged are pure archetypes. Real people are much more complex. Most people have something genuinely productive they’re capable of doing. Most people are also parasites, to some extent. The true part of Rand’s argument is that if you divert too many resources from voluntary uses to involuntary ones, it makes people less productive and encourages parasitism. The false part is that this applies only to some tiny, heroic, victimized minority.
I’m not sure what it means to say that the “productive economy can fund [liberal's] social priorities.” Liberals vary in what they want the state to do, governments fund programs not priorities, and the private economy doesn’t fund the government in any straightforward sense, rather government diverts resources from where they’d otherwise have been used. Personally my “social priorities” consist only of a minimal, uniform level of availability of necessities and could easily be funded by ending some programs much beloved of conservatives (crazy jail sentences, wars, drug prohibition) and scaling back some others beloved of almost everyone (medicare, ag subsidies, intellectual property). This is why I’m not in politics – it would the most unpopular program ever. I might achieve a negative vote tally.
“Prior to February 25th which partisan Republican politician, activist or pundit proposed a serious alternative, or modification, to the Democrat’s reform proposal that would have resulted in a program they would have voted or advocated for? Unless I’ve missed something, the answer explains why many partisan Democrats are pissed.”
There’s a big difference between an alternative and a modification, and we shouldn’t confuse them. There was no indication, either before or the Ryan plan, that Obama and the Congressional leadership was ever willing to consider anything except a coverage-mandate-subsidy clusterf**k.
Certainly Republicans, either some dissidents or the party as a whole, could have gotten their own Cornhusker kickbacks if they were willing to trade their vote in return for them. But what could they have gotten that would have been worth forfeiting their right to express the overall awfulness of the bill?
In reality I don’t think most Republican pols think the mandate/guaranteed issue/subsidy combo is awful. Obviously I can’t see into their minds, but back when they were still talking openly about what reform might look like, some of them proposed exactly this, and now its a done deal, some of them are backing away from opposing the guaranteed issue part. But as I’m sure you know you can’t actually do that – to have guaranteed issue without a mandate just means more subsidies, and to have guaranteed issue without subsidies means no more health insurers.
That to one side, there were 2 possible additions to the bill that the Democrats could never have passed alone, which would have made it better. The first is to remove the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance and replace it with a tax credit. Democrats can’t do it alone because the unions hate it, but privately they’d admit its necessary. The second is tort reform. Add those to the current plan, and you’d have had a workable system.
Simon K – that’s a good point. Most of the conservatives I know felt like a healthcare mandate would mitigate the cost of being forced to cover high-risk patients with pre-existing conditions.
I think the Right is using the madate as a way to force a court challenge. It’s not that they really hate it that much, they just don’t have any other options.
They could recognise when they’ve been outmanouvered and play better next time? Too much to hope for, I know.
See, for example, Prop 8?
Touche. But, I actually agree. I’m in favour of gay marriage, but I’m not in favour of allowing it without popular support. If they win in court now (which I think is unlikely, but possible), the anti- side will be able to claim the superior democratic ground for the next 30 years. See, for example, Roe v Wade.
“In reality I don’t think most Republican pols think the mandate/guaranteed issue/subsidy combo is awful.”
If they didn’t before they do now. Whatever enthusiasm they had for it once upon a time was weak in the first place. They believe in the idea of compromise for it’s own sake.
“But as I’m sure you know you can’t actually do that – to have guaranteed issue without a mandate just means more subsidies, and to have guaranteed issue without subsidies means no more health insurers. “
Ok, so don’t do either one.
“That to one side, there were 2 possible additions to the bill that the Democrats could never have passed alone, which would have made it better. The first is to remove the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance and replace it with a tax credit. “
I don’t see why they couldn’t have passed it alone. They could have gotten R votes for whatever the unions took away on the D side.
“I don’t see why they couldn’t have passed it alone. They could have gotten R votes for whatever the unions took away on the D side.”
Flat out incorrect, Koz me lad. The GOP are on record as stating that nothing the Dems could have added or ammended on the existing HCR would have earned any votes from them at all. Assuming that they wanted to pass the bill the Dems were politically incapable of tacking either of those items.
Katherine:
So everything said about Bush was justified by the fact that people didn’t take liberals’ accusation seriously? Sorry, Bush’s actions didn’t warrant all of the ugly thing said about him. Keep drinking you Blue kool-aid.
Statements that Bush was violating civil liberties, having people tortured, and started a needless and unjustified war were justified by the fact that they were true.
Katherine:
You seem to be purposelessly ignoring all the ugly personal comments made about Bush which had nothing to do with substantive policy. Comments regarding his alleged drinking and drug abuse. I remember seeing Bush referred to by names like Chimpy McCokespoon or the Chimpernor. I guess not all your liberal pals are as civil as you but you do seem to have a short memory of the vitriol during those years.
You know what, I’m just going to be really pedantic here and point out that the cult members at Jonestown drank poisoned Flavor Aid; not Kool-Aid. I don’t know why, but that always bugs me.
Algore must have an IQ of around 56. The commie-Dems personify evil..it’s actually quite simple.
If the Dems personify evil Bob then shouldn’t all good human beings be out exercising their 2nd amendment rights and shooting them? Evil only flourishes because good men do nothing and all that?
If you’d like to zip out to Minneapolis I know a good bar-b-que place here we could eat at and then have some pistols at dawn. I never learned to shoot anything more than a rifle in Canada so I think your odds would be good.
STop the violent talk, you’re just fanning the flames of those eager to engage in revolution….it’s better to discuss politics rationally! I’m really surprised NOrth, it’s not like you?
Well what is the appropriate response to personified evil Bob?
A 3% surcharge with the proceeds going towards rehabilitation programs.
Really? Personified evil? 3% eh? I’m writing that down.
Keep in mind that JB’s a libertarian. As a Marxist, I’d propose a graduated tax with a marginal rate of 11% for the highest concentration of evil.
Just some links to remind that it’s never just one side when things get heated:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/89065-gop-lawmaker-now-reports-threat-over-healthcare-stance
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/03/richmond_pd_investigating_cant.html
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/03/video-seems-to-confirm-no-spitting-on-congressman.html
Well said!
Absolutely.
I agree with what you’re saying. But my sense is that what’s out there is not really two “sides”, but what we might call a “crazy base” that’s not rigidly liberal or conservative and they’re pretty much just as pissed at Republicans as they are at Democrats. I don’t think some liberal tried to shoot Eric Cantor because they’re happy that health care reform passed.
Re Cantor:
A police statement this afternoon said that a preliminary investigation shows that a bullet struck a window, landing on the floor about a foot from the window. The round struck with enough force to break the window but did not penetrate the blinds.
This is why there’s no need to be afraid of liberals. They’re so anti-gun, they can only attack their enemies by throwing bullets underhanded.
A pretty much insipid piece of moral preening. It just contributes to the very degradation of political discourse its imaginary high-mindedness imagines itself combating. To quote Al Gore on this is over the top. If anyone has lowered standards in this country, it’s him.
Katherine’s litany of anti Bush talking points is a living example of this utter hypocricy: when we dehumanize the other, we’re doing god’s work because we have eternal reason on our side. The other, however is just some kind of rabid dog who deserves whatever he gets.
Just take one example of the many. The Patriot Act was supposed to usher in some bogus form of fascism (remember Bushitler, Chimpy etc etc?) but none of this ever happened. With the new age of light and reason that the Obama has brought us, the Patriot Act is no longer a problem although it’s essentially unchanged from the Bush years. On the other hand Congress has just passed a law that allows government intrusion into private life that makes the Patriot Act look mild by comparison. That’s all right and good though because now government consists of people legislating the Will of the People. This cannot possibly be considered fascism. To do so is “hate speech” and it must be stopped for the common good.
Considering we’re dealing with Marxist epigones the level of political discourse here ain’t all that bad, though its the libertarians et al on this site who, I think, are more responsible for that.
We should be glad we don’t live in Canada though you gotta think that proper speak is in our future.
It’s always a disappointment when Algore is cited, it lowers the standards of this site and just destroys the seriousness of the issue being discussed.
*applause*
The Patriot Act is still a problem and does need to be repealed. What I’m arguing against is blind moral equivalency: the idea that attacking a politician for things that they are actually doing is different from attacking one on the basis of things that are made up. It is not a matter of “eternal reason” – it is a matter of SOLID, VERIFIABLE, FACTS, or lack thereof. The existence of a systematic US policy of torture under the Bush Administration can and has been proved by extensive research; thus, it is not the equivalent of accusations about death panels that have not been proved because they were never true.
All the Republicans say health care reform is a massive infringement on their liberties, but nobody explains why. How is this more extreme than Medicare? Than Social Security? Than requiring the purchase of car insurance? It’s a combination of regulating insurance companies and subsidizing health insurance for the middle class. Yes, I consider that less problematic that the government having the right to spy on anyone it chooses to without any oversight.
Explain how your rights are being protected by forcing you to buy health insurance you don’t want. How did govt get the right to force people to buy a particular service? Auto insurance is no analogy since nobody is forced to buy or drive cars. That in itself is more invasive of the private sphere than anything Bush ever did, let alone the rest of the much more invasive provisions of the health care bill.
This is just to show that all your talk about Bush’s “shredding the Constitution” was partisan babble. Obama is doing it in all caps and you defend it as doing the will of the people.
Would it make a real difference if they just increased income taxes and bought health insurance for you?
“But the long term demographics line up squarely against Republicans and their conservative base and they have for some time.”
This is the conventional wisdom, and it may be correct, but on the other hand the waves of immigration (both external and internal) that filled the Democratic party machines at the turn of the 20th century did not permanently marginalize the Republican party. (It was no doubt a factor in their substatianal marginalization in the first half of the 20th century esp when compared to the second half of the 19th)
“But long haul, there will eventually come a time where the GOP and conservative leaders have to face a choice between pivoting on popular rhetoric or face the extinction of irrelevance”
If one distinguishes between ‘GOP leaders’ and ‘conservative leaders’ (whose interests overlap but are by no means congruent) I have little doubt of the former group to pivot in a self-preserving manner (as that is what politicians are best at) and also little doubt of the ability of the latter group to embrace being a perpetual ‘voice in the wilderness’ and making a comfortable living from it. (it works for libertarians :)
I find it amazing that anyone could have followed politics during the Bush years and watched them over the last 2 and claim that somehow the Republicans have had their Waterloo and it’s all downhill from there. It seems to demonstrate an incomplete grasp of American politics as a cyclical beast. If you recall, the GOP kicked ass in 2004. Democrats lost their Senate majority leader, a bunch of seats in Congress, Bush got re-elected, etc. It was so bad that I literally watched people crying about the results the next day in Martha’s Vineyard and I was waiting for Air America to put Janeane Garofalo on a suicide watch. Four years later a supposed libby-lib was elected and the GOP got housed.
I know every time I bring this up it gets dismissed by liberals as a poor analogy, but the GOP behavior during the healthcare debate was only marginally worse than the way liberals acted about social security (which, by the way, Megan mcArdle has recently been documenting the economic fragility of).
The GOP power, Then they will lose it. Then they will get it back. To suggest this cycle is going to change is to really, really not understand American politics.
Well Mike, a minor difference may be that the social security reform proposals the republicans had never even managed to crawl out of committee. So that’s a pretty huge difference. Nor am I aware that any Democrats were on the record as opposing the reform simply to deal political damage to Obama irrespective of the merits of the reform plan (the use of Waterloo for instance in the current discussion actually came from a Republican memo stating that it was politically in the Republicans interest to turn HCR into “Obama’s Waterloo” regardless of what was in the plan). So if the Republicans behavior during this discussion was marginally worse, well that’s a rather wide margin.
Personally though I don’t consider their behavior necessarily bad. They made a calculated gamble; to loose any control or input into the substance of the bill in exchange for a chance of killing it all together. Unfortunately for them they lost and now they’ve had no input into the bill going into law. If HCR catches fire and explodes as some think it will then the GOP may still benefit from their complete disassociation from it. The only point where I’d say they’ve behaved badly is their caviling about the lack of bipartisanship. It is a bit rich for an opposition party to scream about a lack of bipartisanship when they are on the record as being committed to opposing the bill regardless of its content.
All of that aside I agree with you 100% on the overanalyzes of the defeat or the dreadfully premature declarations of the death of the GOP. The worm turns and things will doubtlessly come around again. Democratic overreach is pretty much inevitable in politics and the backlash is equally inevitable. The only question in my mind is how long the pendulum will take to swing back. Looking at the GOP bench I’d say the party is in a pretty weak position over all right now. Then again Obama pretty much came up from nowhere so it’s entirely possible that some GOP Governor or Senator can rise from the background and catapult the party back into power.
Wouldn’t you say that the lack of progress on SS was an unwillingness by the GOP to use the same end-run tactics that have been employed by the Left on HCR? Plus they also did not have as large a majority.
I would disagree that complaining about a lack of bipartisanship is silly. A more nuanced view would be that the offers of bipartisanship were fairly disingenious. The starting points offered by the Left were so far away from reality that it was impossible for the GOP to even get in the game. With that said, I DO think Democrats made a serious concession on abortion, though I believe this was a favor to Blue Dogs, not Republicans.
Well you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence Mike. They were never had the option of passing a bill with a supermajority so that limited the GOP’s options. That said when you can’t get your bill out of committee that means that you haven’t even convinced your own party of the merits of the bill if you can even say there was a bill to vote on. The parallels between the GOP’s HCR opposition and the Dems social security opposition seems pretty stretched when the GOP couldn’t even muster their own legislators to vote it out of committee.
I’m unfamiliar with the end-run tactics that you’re referring to on HCR. The Democrats spent most of 2009 franticly courting GOP votes. Hell, Snowe was given every concession that she asked for to the point that the only objection that she could use as a fig leaf for her ultimate reversal and no vote was that it was “happening too fast”. The fact that the bill is policy wise essentially the child of the 1994 Republican health care proposal and that the left was apoplectic about its formulation also undermines the argument that this was some unrealistic far left bill. Maybe you’re thinking about different starting points than I am?
As for bipartisanship, if I go to the newspapers and my fellow legislators and say “There’s no way we’ll vote for this bill. Even if I agreed with what it does I wouldn’t vote for it because I want Obama to be defeated. This will be his Waterloo.”
How seriously is anyone supposed to take that same person if they then start yelling;
“How dare you pass this bill without my vote!?! You’re throwing away bipartisanship!” ?
The GOP were on the record as stating that they wouldn’t vote for it. If one side will not vote for it no matter what then bipartisanship has been made impossible by that side. Blaming the other side then for being unbipartisan is hypocrisy of the highest order.
And yes, conservatives (but not Republicans) should probably fall to their knees and thank whoever for blue dogs. The blue dog democrats are the reason the bill got dragged so far to the political center.
The bipartisanship being offered though was not some high-minded atempt at working together. It was a calculated effort to get a few needed votes (thus the targeting of the senators from Maine) and a hope for the political protection a larger bipartisan vote would provide. I think that’s why the GOP complians now. There was never a serious attempt to court them as evidenced by the ‘compromise’ changes Democrats offered.
There was simply never any chance of a bipartisan bill at the level you’re talking about. North is right — in a game theory box, a bipartisan health reform bill, no matter how much suckitude (or awesomeness) it entailed substantively, was the +10D, -10R box. It was just not going to happen – absolutely no upside for R’s. A fig leaf was all that could ever have been gotten by Obama, and he did indeed do everything he could to get it, but the leadership was just too strong 9and probably right, assuming they made political argument to Snowe). I don’t blame them, but the wailing now just cannot be taken seriously. Moreover, despite the total lack of votes, GOP bigs (Grassley) are nor bragging about the “good” parts of the bill THEY WROTE. So there was substantive bipartisanship — like rats they just denied their votes in exchange.
I agree certainly. But when you’re on record as stating off the bat that you’re not going to help pass HCR no matter what is offered to you are your opponents then the mindless partisans for taking you at your word and proceeding without you?
And stepping back to the policy of the bill again, this bill isn’t single payer, it’s not any direct government capture of health providers. This bill is, if anything, a corporate healthcare bill. It isn’t immensely free market but it sure as hell isn’t left wing. How can we say that it was started off with ideas alien to the GOP when most of its principle ideas and functions have been cribbed right out of the GOP policy books? Romney? Dole?
There was certainly nothing high-minded about it. This is politics, after all. However, the GOP could have reacted to the calls for bipartisanship by producing a decent plan. The right-wing think tanks after all had no lack of ideas. The resulting “compromise” that this would have forced on the Democrats would have produced a better resulting bill.
Wouldn’t you say that the lack of progress on SS was an unwillingness by the GOP to use the same end-run tactics that have been employed by the Left on HCR? Plus they also did not have as large a majority.
No. HCR is supported, at least, by a majority of Democrats. SS privatization was unpopular even among Republicans.
When you look at national polling – the numbers for healthcare right now are about where they were for Bush on SS reform.
You can get a solid majority in favor of “reform” of almost anything. Almost all actual bills that go through the full meat-grinder of partisan conflict are quite unpopular when they emerge, blood covered and limping from the process or finally whimper and die. This is more a reaction to the process than to the bill, which few people ever understand.
I think that’s a really good point about the cyclical nature of American democracy. One of the reasons I can’t stand CNN is this tendency to say, “Today President Obama is down five points in the polls. Our experts will be here to tell us if this means that we’re all Republicans now.” Indeed, it seems to me that most of my adult life has been spent listening to people either tell me that the Democrats are now consigned to the dustbin of history, or the Republicans have been consigned to the dustbin of history. Usually, rumors of their demise on either side have been greatly exaggerated.
Exactly – it’s why I feel the impulse to dismiss any serious analysis of American politics beyond the next 18 months.
Or the way all our my local news media reported breathlessly that Meg Whitman, who has been spending ad money like a drunken sailor, has overtaken Jerry Brown, who hasn’t even begun to campaign yet, without making that point or placing the numbers in any context whatsoever. It’s the sort of story that (without exaggeration) has no effect expect to make the audience that much more ignorant.
The comments on this post delineate (very clearly to me, anyway) exactly the point that Mr. Payne tries to make, I think.
Ordinary Conserva-men: Libruhls r stoopid! They were mean to W! I hate them, hate them, HATE THEM! And, Al Gore is FAT!!!1!!! Also.
Ordinary Libera-men: Liberals said mean things about Bush because Bush lied, just like the Republicans are lying now. And, liberals didn’t threaten anyone with nooses, saliva, gunsights,or calling anyone “N*gger!”
Ordinary Glibertaria-men (the largest group here, by far): I got mine! F**k you!
So pleasant to return to this site to read these high-brow, intellectual comments. Has this site been transformed into The League of Ordinary Tea Baggers? Are there any conservatives (or glibertarians) left that can even make an argument that does not devolve into name-calling and support for violent rhetoric?
You guys need to get out (of your cages) more often.
I wanted to see what The League had to say about this violent rhetoric coming from the Right. Mr. Payne seems to be the only one of the OG who dares to comment on this. Reading the comments, I think I understand the reluctance of the rest of the OG to discuss this with the regular commenters.
And, I think that says a lot.
JHG, dude! What’s up?
It’s been a while.
If you want this place to be less teabaggy and glibertarian, we need your voice in the comments.
If you won’t give your perspective in the comments, you oughtn’t be surprised when your perspective doesn’t show up in the comments.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
And welcome back.
Thanks for the welcome back, Jaybird. It has been a while.
You’re the first one I searched through the comments for.
Since you’ve responded, I’ll address my thoughts to you:
The biggest concern I have around people “going off the rails” (as Mr. Joyner writes) is that a lot of the defenses (coming mostly from authoritative voices – talk radio, Fox News, Republican Reps and Senators) focuses on “Don’t make Daddy mad!”.
By this, I mean that there have been a lot of these comments seem to be excusing the violent rhetoric by saying “they were asking for it!”. As an example, Graham said that the Tea Baggers got mad because they don’t like being called racist. Cantor said that it is the Democrats who are dangerously fanning the flames by suggesting that the violent rhetoric is being used as a political weapon.
The group that this most closely resembles (IMHO) is what a wife-beater says when confronted: “She shouldn’t have made me so mad!”
There are certainly kooks of all colors and stripes (even libruhl ones). But, anyone who is trying to equate what liberals said during the Bush years with what is going on now is not really being honest, I think.
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts, Jaybird. Have any?
JHG,
Isn’t the whole point of your two comments basically, “Conservatives are bad, liberals are good,” ?
Seems like you could have given us the Cliff Notes version in a lot less words.
Thank you for your editorial direction, Mike.
Of course, you are correct that I could have used fewer words. I’ll try here (let me know how I do!):
The Left certainly said some crazy things during the Bush years, but it never involved threats of violence at the level we are seeing right now coming from the Right. And the rhetoric is being defended by elected representatives, talk radio, and Fox News (which was not the case with the Left).
So it’s not that liberals weren’t threatening Bush it’s just that more conservatives are doing it to Obama. Well crap. If I knew it was just a numbers game I would have switched party affiliations years ago.
BTW, when people call in those death threats or send those mailings with all the letters cut out of magazines, do they usually mention their political leanings, or is it just implied? I’m asking because most of the racist jokes and comments I’ve heard in the last 35 years have come from registered Democrats…assumptions are so confusing sometimes.
I said nothing about numbers.
I did say that the rhetoric is being excused and supported by authoritative voices. In some cases, the rhetoric is being encouraged. This did not happen during the Bush years.
And, again, you’re using the “Democrats do it too!” excuse. It’s lame if I use it and it’s lame if you use it.
Of course you used numbers. I quote:
“The Left certainly said some crazy things during the Bush years, but it never involved threats of violence at the level we are seeing right now coming from the Right.”
How do you measure levels? I mean, obviously you have to quantify that data somehow, right? Is it based on a sliding scale of distasteful rhetoric or do you give each comment a 1-10 rating? What you’re saying is that liberals acted like crazy buffoons during the Bush years (they did) but because conservatives say more violent things, we are soooo much worse. Again – have you ever watched a WTO protest? I think you’ve been engaging in some selective research. Let me help you out.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/violence-breaks.html
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31394
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4660503.ece
Dude, don’t get me started.
I look at everything and see how friggin’ *CIVIL* it is.
We used to fight wars over this stuff. We used to fight duels. We used to throw people in prison for pamphlets. We used to call in the National Guard.
Now? We go on television and complain that someone else called us a name or are using “fiery rhetoric”. (And that’s not even getting into the whole “didn’t I see this column, in slightly different form in 2002/1998/1994/1988/1984/1974?)
We’re going to see this same column, in slightly different form, in 2036 asking us why we can’t be more like we were in 2010… because some protesters had a sign calling body modification types (extra arms, that sort of thing) “inhuman”.
We’ll see, I guess.
It will stay “fiery rhetoric” as long as it stays rhetoric.
This certainly hasn’t been confirmed, but cutting the gas line to someone’s home seems to go beyond “fiery rhetoric”. The last time there was this violent rhetoric like this (coming mostly from militia groups) a federal building was bombed by an American terrorist.
Maybe I missed all the terrible insults?
And saliva a threat? Really? Ever seen a WTO protest?
Regarding saliva, that was supposed to be a sarcastic comment about liberal comments (since I also made sarcastic comments about the conservative and libertarian comments).
Oh hi, err… are we reading the same comment thread? The conversation seems spirited if polite to me. The again the bars in my cage may be obstructing my view.
Whenever more than 10 words are spent in a comment thread discussing the positive and negative aspects of Atlas Shrugged, I consider that a sign that the comments are not focusing on intelligent conversation (unless, of course, the article is about Atlas Shrugged).
I’ve also been away from The League for some time now, so perhaps I’m a little sensitized to the rhetoric. Previously, I valued many of the comments and discussions here, and even got into some heated discussions myself. However, I’m seeing the same kind of excuses about this violent rhetoric in the comment thread, which consists of 2 points:
1. The Liberals did it too!
2. Don’t make Daddy mad, or suffer the consequences.
I don’t think that’s healthy, in general. Beyond that, I really didn’t think it was something I would see on this site. I haven’t been back for long, and this comment thread could be an outlier, but I expect much – MUCH – better from this site.
I think what you’re seeing from conservatives is not excuses but sort of a “Give me a break,” attitude. There are literally millions of people in the country that self-identify as conservative. If a couple of dozen of them goes whacko is this really symptonmatic of anything other than randomness? I suspect you could do a random sampling of people who eat Cheerios and get higher numbers of people prone to violence or violent rhetoric.
(trying to use fewest words possible)
How many liberals have bombed federal buildings?
How many liberals have stockpiled guns in their compounds?
How many times during the Bush years did liberals openly carry weapons at town hall meetings?
You are excusing the rhetoric by saying “it’s only a small group”. If that’s true, why isn’t it being condemned by talk radio, Fox News and Republican Reps and Senators?
How many conservatives have?
No, they just stockpile weed and Grateful dead albums. I stockpile weapons in my basement. I call it a hobby.
How many times did conservatives use those weapons?
Because it’s not really their responsibility to condemn every misguided soul in the country.
You’re still making excuses for the behavior.
Republican Reps have told their supporters to get “armed and dangerous”. Palin has her crosshair Facebook page, tweeting “Don’t retreat, instead – RELOAD!”. Boehner calls the passage of HIR “Armageddon”.
But, it’s not their responsibility to condemn every misguided soul in the country. You’re sooooo right!
I don’t make excuses – I just acknowledge that .00001% of a group is not worth losing sleep over. I’m not prone to hysterics. Must be the warm sense of safety created by all those guns I have stockpiled.
If PETA blows up a KFC tomorrow I’m not going to try and make it into a larger point about liberals. That’s called ‘perspective’. That’s also why I didn’t blame the DNC when Joe Stack crashed his plane.
Personally I stockpile Asti champagne and Liza Minnelli albums… and… uh…
I think I’ve said too much.
So wrong….
North, stop the violent talk! I see the lovely and vivaciously Lisa has put on a little weight?
Step carefully Bob, my friend, on the subject of Liza we could easily find ourselves back to pistols at dawn. Liza is never overweight or underweight. Whatever weight she is at is the appropriate weight. She is never early or late, she arrives always exactly on time. She never sings off key; the key may be off Liza but that is the keys fault not hers. She once sang New York New York with Pavarotti and the world shook. Microsoft Office knows to correct misspellings of her name. She is a goddess among us mere mortals.
When Liza steps on a scale it doesn’t measure her weight, it measures the weight of all things non-Liza.
I knew you understood Mike.
North, you know it’s n’er my intent to cause pain! Does this Lisa thing have to do with her mother…you’ll have to tolerate me, I’m not up on these things. BTW, Lisa and I are the same age…the question is, Did we date, back in the day?
Oh no, Bob, I love Liza just for herself. I’ve loved her songs, her singing persona and her humor ever since I moved to the US and started learning about American pop culture (about ten years ago). Also All of my circle of acquaintances in the “community” have patron divas and mine happens to be Liza.
Though certainly the fact that her Mother was Dorothy doesn’t hurt.
If the first Nazi reference in this thread is a reference to Cabaret, I’ve gotta say that I’m disappointed.
But pleased that I get to be the one who makes it.
You’re a trooper Jay.
How many liberals have stockpiled guns in their compounds?
How many times during the Bush years did liberals openly carry weapons at town hall meetings?
Since when are either of those thing illegal? You might like them to be illegal but they aren’t and liberals are free do them as well.
As for blowing up buildings, liberals did plenty of that in the 60′s, so I’m not sure what your point is.
My point is that the “rhetoric” has become entirely about intimidation. It was the only reason for the openly carried firearms.
There is a clear precedent in common law regarding assault.
In regards to stockpiling guns, I referred to “compound”, which is not a word that most people would use to refer to their house/apartment/hovel/shanty. I refers to places like Waco, or Ruby Ridge. But, I forgot that those guys were liberals! Sorry about that!
Can we get a count on roughly how many people carried firearms to political rallies last year? Hundreds, thousands?
What matters is not how many. What matters is how people view it and react to it, especially what elected reps say. They (reps) can either excuse it, condemn it, or ignore it. At the moment, the Republicans are excusing it (a few are ignoring it), but they are not condemning it, except in the most tepid manner.
Of course it matters how many. We live in a country with roughly 309 million people. If a dozen misguided souls bring a gun to a rally then maybe it is just a dozen misguided souls and we shouldn’t try to make more of it. Let’s keep in mind that Jim Jones talked nearly 700 adults into killing themselves. Would you say that was a symptom of American culture, or a terrible anomally?
The urge to sensationalize and exaggerate the importance of random acts is not a new one, but it certainly seems to be a more popular one in our info-driven culture. You keep looking for some person in power on the Right to condemn these things…because of course that gives them more importance than it should. It aides the Left because they can say, “See, things are so bad that Congressman Doe had to issue a statement of condemnation.” Cheap political points, but I guess I understand why some people would find it appealing.
There is no assault if my openly carried firearm is in a holster or even if it is in my hand but pointed away from you. As for “compounds”, don’t the Kennedy’s have one? I wonder how many firearms they have stored there. Maybe none, but they have plenty of booze and cars which can be deadly in the hands of a Kennedy.
Well it’s a harsh thing to condemn the entire league just because one commenter raised the subject of Rand. Also it’s an even harsher thing to condemn the entirety of the leagues commentariat because of Koz of all people. He drives me crazy but he does represent the significant mainstream republican point of view that’s currently pretty much running the GOP so there surely is value to having his positions aired.
Plus I believe a lot more people are visiting the league now than before so the opinions may
But then again I’ve violated one of my own personal rules by responding to a meta-post that is worried about the quality of the comments in general so maybe the situation is getting bad. To the catacombs!!!
Please forgive my “goosing” of the League with my comment.
As you say, it IS entirely unfair of me to tar and feather the whole League with my comment (who was it that just talked about wanting to bring back tarring and feathering?). My only explanation (not an excuse, mind you) is that the excuses and defenses being made about this violent rhetoric (et tu, Jaybird?) is unfortunate, though understandable.
Shorter JHG: You guys are butt-heads, because you’re writing idiotic comments that don’t mean anything. And, my idiotic comment proves it!
All is forgiven dear sir. My Asti Champaign is open to you should you come round the neighborhood more (but not my Liza, she belongs to me alone).
That guy who flew a plane into the IRS building? Now *THAT* was worth a post condemning violence!
This stuff? Eh. It wouldn’t even make a decent Walker Texas Ranger movie of the week.
Shorter Jaybird: Andrew Sullivan and James Joyner are wusses for condemning this stuff. Chuck Norris rocks!
No, I’d say that shorter Jaybird would be “it’s a pity that they’re trying to wring so much partisan advantage out of something that wouldn’t even be interesting enough to entertain people who don’t have anything better to do on Saturday nights.”
Wake me up when people have tar and feathers.
Move along. Nothing to see here…
(warning, second Godwin reference above. Jaybird got there first, though)
Dude, is that an automated phone poll?
If I got a phone poll asking me to press 1 if I thought that Barack Obama was secretly Doctor Doom building a modern Latvia out of our United States, I would press 1.
In a heartbeat.
If the followup question was “Do you think Barack Obama is secretly Spiderman?”, I would press 1 again.
Then we could see you questioning the sanity of people who think that Doctor Doom is Spiderman.
I’m so relieved, Jaybird! That totally explains it.
(Online poll) and everyone thought the exact same thing that you did. Except, that they didn’t answer yes to all the questions, just some of them. But, there is totally some explanation for that – like they meant to click yes, but accidentally clicked no for some of them.
No, wait, wait! It was actually Democrats who filled out the poll to make Republicans look bad. But, not TOO bad, just a little bad. They couldn’t answer yes to every question. They’re so sneaky and conniving…
What a relief!
Not exactly what I am saying but let me ask you this:
Let’s say it’s 2004, within a few days of Bush trouncing Kerry and the Republicans picking up more seats in Congress and in the Senate.
I’m pretty sure I’d be able to find some questions that would be easily flipped around and deliberately written in such a way that we’d be able to point to how crazy the Democrats are for believing that Bush is taking us down a Christian Fascist road and for, can you believe it?, doing things that are, gasp, UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! (like, for example, signing statements and not giving a crap about state laws for medicinal marijuana? Stuff like that?) or that he does what Wall Street Bankers tell him to do (like Greenspan? Bernake?) or any of the stuff in the second half of that.
I remember people questioning whether we’d have elections *AT ALL* in 2008. Remember that?
I called those people crazy but not my kind of crazy.
And now, once again, the shoe is on the other foot.
I’ve no doubt that the next time Republicans find themselves with a majority, we’ll see similar polls questioning whether Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney want women barefoot and pregnant.
I rather think the point is that the craziness is significantly more widespread. More crazies equals greater odds of one of them doing something crazy.
Which brings me back to my original thoughts.
We used to fight wars over this stuff. Like, actual wars.
Right now? We’re dealing with people talking on the internet and holding up signs in Acacia park talking about how we have to TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!!!
Hippies did more damage in 1968 before breakfast was on the stove. Granted, it was 2PM by that point…
Ok, Jaybird.
You think that those who are decrying the violent rhetoric are wrong, because this happens all the time.
I think that those who are decrying the violent rhetoric are right, because this happens all the time (when Democrats are in power).
You’re not going to change your opinion to mine; and I’m not going to change my opinion to yours.
I’ll take the company I’m in (cons: Joyner, Sullivan, Frum, et al. libs: just about everyone) with this opinion.
What Mark Thompson said. Also.
You’re overstating my position. I think that those who are decrying the violent rhetoric are playing a recognizable game.
It’s recognizable from what Republicans said when Bush was in power in 2004-2006 about the folks protesting this, that, and the other. “Can you believe that they’re comparing Bush to Hitler? You know that they’re just salivating over the thought of someone trying to assassinate him! They are making movies about snipers trying to kill the president! Can you believe it???”
And, of course, the left was explaining how important it was to allow free expression and the thought of silencing dissent is something that isn’t surprising at all from a fascist like Bush.
Note: I am not saying “THEY DO IT TOO”. I am saying “This is a game and the people on the bottom are playing the role they always, without exception, play. The people on top are playing the role they always, without exception, play. And we will see this essay again, written by someone on the right, the next time the Republicans have power.
If I believe anything, I believe that “fiery rhetoric is part of free expression and the thought that it be suppressed for fear of violence reminds me more of Bush than you probably want to remind me of Bush.”
Do you suggest “Free Speech Zones”?
I’m not saying you need to stop playing the game, either. You play it well. I’m just hoping you remember this exchange the next time you find yourself explaining away someone burning an effigy.
And to clarify:
Violence against property or persons is illegal and ought be investigated to the fullest extent of the law. The guy (I assume it was a guy) who cut the hose to the grill was exceptionally stupid and could have killed somebody. If that was his intention, he should be tried for attempted murder. Throw the book at him.
With that said, “fiery rhetoric” is another way of saying “political speech”.
With that said, “fiery rhetoric” is another way of saying “political speech”.
Until it isn’t “speech” anymore. Tiller is an example of what happens when someone moves past “speech” to “action”, because O’Reilly (and Dornan) used some untrue (and potentially violent) rhetoric against him. After Tiller’s murder, there were many authoritative voices that supported the murder (and the excuse was the same that you are making: “he shouldn’t have made Daddy mad”). This had the effect of giving permission to the crazies that take matters into their own hands.
Similar things could be said of McVeigh.
But, as you say, it’s just “political speech”.
“I remember people questioning whether we’d have elections *AT ALL* in 2008. Remember that?”
Yeah, no s**t. While we’re going into the wayback machine from that era, let’s also recall that in the runup to the reelection of GWB that the D’s and progressive opinion makers told us that GWB was going to reinstitute the draft. Now most of that was scaremongering crap but not all of it. It’s part of the weird dementia/schizophrenia of modern liberalism that a significant number of liberals actually believed those things even though they knew they were false.
“Until it isn’t “speech” anymore. Tiller is an example of what happens when someone moves past “speech” to “action”, because O’Reilly (and Dornan) used some untrue (and potentially violent) rhetoric against him.”
Oh that’s just bullshit.
Speech is speech. Action is action. I condemn violence in the name of ideology. Hell, I condemn the initiation of violence in general.
If I start accepting that, hey, you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, then I have to understand that maybe the people who threw Charles T. Schenck in prison had a point.
That’s not a price I’m willing to pay.
Pardon me, that came out stronger than I probably intended.
What is your suggestion for what needs to be done about O’Reilly and Dornan?
Jaybird, you seem so far down the rabbit hole that I’m not sure you can get back out again (or, that I can get out again, if I venture down this rabbit hole…).
You seem to be saying that there should be no limits on freedom of speech whatsoever (or, perhaps, you are saying that no one should be punished by the state for things they say or write). I’ll just leave that alone.
If you are saying that anyone should be allowed to yell “fire” in a theater and not be punished by the state, then it is pointless for me to discuss what needs to be done about O’Reilly or Dornan. I wouldn’t say that the state should intervene, but a populace invested in a civilized society should do something. But, ultimately, this is the same as intervention by the state, which I assume you would disagree with.
So, let’s party! Everyone can say whatever they want, with no consequences. Woo-hoo! Anarchism is sexy!
It doesn’t matter anyway. Society is not invested in correcting what O’Reilly says (or anyone else). This is why people continue to believe things that are patently false. They don’t want to correct O’Reilly (or anyone else) because their beliefs are more comfortable than the hard truths of reality. This is why television exists.
“You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” was used as justification for imprisoning socialists for distributing pamphlets against WWI.
Pointing out how people might get hurt if you yell “fire” in a crowded theater is one of those things that always irritates me in a discussion about “free speech”.
“I wouldn’t say that the state should intervene, but a populace invested in a civilized society should do something.”
Watch out, there. This sounds like it could be interpreted as a call to violence.
“So, let’s party! Everyone can say whatever they want, with no consequences. Woo-hoo! Anarchism is sexy!”
I find it far sexier than the thought of Charles T. Schenck in prison, myself.
“You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” was used as justification for imprisoning socialists for distributing pamphlets against WWI.
Watch out, there. This sounds like it could be interpreted as a call to socialism. ;-)
I would rather deal with the downsides of people being allowed to be wrong than with the downsides of them not being allowed to be wrong.
Isn’t that called Somalia, Jaybird?
To clarify: there is no greater defender of the right to be wrong than I.
I am not advocating that people’s speech be suppressed by the government. I am saying that it is the responsibility of the society to set boundaries on what is considered acceptable by that society. If we abdicate this responsibility to some sense of “anything goes”, then we have stopped defending free speech in favor of laziness.
If every statement has equal value, than nothing has any meaning anymore. “I have a dream” = “Tarquin Fintimlimbimlimbimwhimbimlin Bus Stop Ftang Ftang Olay Biscuit Barrel”
(WARNING: dangerous Monty Python reference above…)
Somalia is libertopia in the same way that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a worker’s paradise (see, for example, Walter Duranty’s investigative journalism).
One major distinction I’d make is that libertarians don’t argue that Somalia is libertopia (though some might point out that the anarchy they have now is better than the central control they had before the anarchy) while the USSR was, in fact, claimed as a worker’s paradise by socialists… while the libertarians were screaming about freedom of speech and other glossolalia.
“I am saying that it is the responsibility of the society to set boundaries on what is considered acceptable by that society.”
You might find yourself arguing against gay marriage if that’s your guideline. Hey, if you want to do whatever you want, move to Somalia, right?
If I could sort of take the middle ground between Jaybird and JHG, I would say that society should not inact formal rules prohibiting free speech in most cases, however, I have no problem with other people using their right to free speech to try and shut them up. This might mean booing a speaker at a rally off the stage or it might mean *shudder* carrying a gun to a protest. So long as someone’s rights are not violated and so long as no violence takes place, that’s free speech. On that front jaybird and I are probably in closer agreement. Where we diverge is on, for example, how much crap the police have to take from someone and still call it ‘free speech’.
Jaybird, the point I’m making is that – when it comes to social norms – it is unimportant what I say or believe. What is important is what society – as a whole (or as a majority) – says and believes.
I may think that gay marriage is a right, and loudly voice my support for it. But, this is unimportant, when looking at our society, since my voice is only 1/300,000,000th of our society.
I am not saying that all members of a society must defend the majoritarian beliefs of that society (hence, no need for me to argue against gay marriage). But, we – as a society – should be able to call a spade a spade and a trough a trough. Unfortunately, our society (and this comment thread) is consumed by moral equivalence: Everyone does it, so we can’t really say that one group does it more or in a more dangerous fashion. QED, my point about all speech becoming meaningless.
Mike, I understand your point. Thanks for explaining it. However, I request some additional information (from Mike and Jaybird):
- Are you against the Miller Test (obscene speech)?
- Should libel and slander be acceptable forms of free speech?
- Are you against the “Imminent Lawless Action” test (inciting the immediate violation of one or more laws, which supplanted the test in Shenck)?
- Are you against restrictions on speech in the pursuit of Commerce (should tobacco companies be allowed to advertise on children shows)?
These are a few of the current tests, and none of them violate anyone’s rights and no violence takes place.
My basic rule is that if the speech doesn’t A) violate someone’s privacy B)Call for violence or C) Spread libel (lie about a business, for example, which might affect their profits… I’m pretty okay with just about anything else.
Jaybird, the point I’m making is that – when it comes to social norms – it is unimportant what I say or believe. What is important is what society – as a whole (or as a majority) – says and believes.
You and I differ on this. I firmly believe that it is possible for me to be right and for society to be wrong. This is why it is so very important to allow speech and not silence it because, golly, it may incite violence. Perhaps what you say or believe *IS* unimportant. This is why I think it’s important that you be allowed to say it.
I may think that gay marriage is a right, and loudly voice my support for it. But, this is unimportant, when looking at our society, since my voice is only 1/300,000,000th of our society.
Sure, fair enough. I think you ought to be allowed to exercise it without having to worry about drawing violence down upon your head.
I am not saying that all members of a society must defend the majoritarian beliefs of that society (hence, no need for me to argue against gay marriage). But, we – as a society – should be able to call a spade a spade and a trough a trough. Unfortunately, our society (and this comment thread) is consumed by moral equivalence: Everyone does it, so we can’t really say that one group does it more or in a more dangerous fashion. QED, my point about all speech becoming meaningless.
It’s not that “everyone does it” anywhere near as much as “it’s intrinsic to the political process”.
Remember those guys at the anti-war rally carrying a sign that said “we support our troops when they shoot their officers”? (If not, know that it is googleable.) My response to this sign is not to wonder whether “everybody does it”. I DON’T FREAKING CARE IF EVERYBODY DOES IT. IT IS SPEECH.
Mike, I understand your point. Thanks for explaining it. However, I request some additional information (from Mike and Jaybird):
- Are you against the Miller Test (obscene speech)?
- Should libel and slander be acceptable forms of free speech?
- Are you against the “Imminent Lawless Action” test (inciting the immediate violation of one or more laws, which supplanted the test in Shenck)?
- Are you against restrictions on speech in the pursuit of Commerce (should tobacco companies be allowed to advertise on children shows)?
These are a few of the current tests, and none of them violate anyone’s rights and no violence takes place.
I am against the Miller Test.
If I listened to 2 Live Crew’s album, would I come to the conclusion that it was “obscene”? Probably. I’m pretty square.
I don’t trust myself to decide what is and is not obscene. Why in the hell should I trust you? Hell, why in the hell should I trust a judge who was nominated by a guy who was elected by a completely different demographic than the one who is electing guys who nominate judges now?
Should libel and slander be acceptable forms of free speech?
If we accept that truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander, then I can see a point to making libel and slander civil offenses.
Here’s why: I suspect that it will be far more likely that libel and slander, as laws, will be wielded against the press and/or little guy a lot more often than the little guy will be libeled/slandered. Hell, if the government comes out and says “so-and-so is a terrorist”, so-and-so won’t be able to sue for slander/libel (indeed, that’s probably the least of his worries). Indeed, it’s more likely that someone in the press will say “the government caught the wrong guy and is engaged in a cover-up” and then the *GOVERNMENT* will sue the paper for libel.
Whenever a little guy sues for libel/slander, the attitude will be “hey, de minimis non curat lex”… only the slander/libel against The State will be assumed to be anything but a trifle.
And that, in a best case scenario, will result in the attitudes of the British Newspapers where everybody knows that “unwell” means “drunk” and “bachelor” means “gay”. (I remember reading about a story where a British MP had an interview where he explained that he wasn’t unwell, he was ill. He was on ‘tussin or something and, he wanted it known, he was not unwell.)
Are you against the “Imminent Lawless Action” test (inciting the immediate violation of one or more laws, which supplanted the test in Shenck)?
I am okay with it *ONLY* if the cops have videotape. No videotape, no evidence of “Imminent Lawless Action”.
I’d also appreciate it if the “Imminent Lawless Action” was put on a standard stronger than the one allowing cops to shoot, say, a dog.
Are you against restrictions on speech in the pursuit of Commerce (should tobacco companies be allowed to advertise on children shows)?
This is almost a commons question… but sure. I’ll bite the bullet. It’s not obvious to me that them buying time on a show ought to be illegal (surprisingly, I’m okay with the MPAA saying that smoking is an automatic “R” rating). I recently went back to Michigan to visit relatives and my mom told me a story that involved her running across the street to pick up a pack of smokes for my grandad. She was, like, 9. If I am asked whether this strikes me as inappropriate, I don’t know. “Run across the street (yes, yes, look both ways, etc) and get me a pack of smokes” seems like it shouldn’t be illegal… or, at least, it seems silly to think that my mom/grandad/guy in the Mobil station ought to have been arrested.
Which now makes me think of a commercial where a cartoon character says “hey, when your dad sends you down the street for some cigarettes, get him some Chesterfields!”
To answer your question, it’s not obvious to me that this should be illegal.
Thanks for the clarification, Mike. I assume by your item B) that you are not ok with the current rhetoric inciting violence, but, at the same time, think that this happens all the time and those (like me) who are decrying the violent rhetoric are just playing politics. I’m not sure I understand how these can be compatible, but I’ve probably misunderstood your position. Please educate me.
Jaybird, I think you misunderstand my point. I agree with you that it is possible for me to be right and the government to be wrong. In fact, it’s happened many times during my life.
The point I was trying to make in that quote is that my own views are unimportant, because I don’t make the rules – society makes the rules. So, what’s important is what society thinks. My voice can (hopefully) nudge society in the right direction, but my own views are unimportant in regards to freedom of speech.
“It’s not that “everyone does it” anywhere near as much as “it’s intrinsic to the political process”.”
It may be intrinsic to some small degree, but not at the level it is now. Waco, Ruby Ridge and Oklahoma City didn’t happen because a bunch of liberals were mad at government. They happened because a bunch of conservatives were mad at government. You’re trying to use the moral equivalence argument, and it just doesn’t fly.
De minimis does not apply to the state, but I think you are saying that you think libel and slander laws are unnecessary.
Regarding restrictions on free speech of Commerce, I have similar stories of my own. My mother sent my brother and I countless times to the store to buy her cigarettes (from the age of 9 to 13). All I needed was a note. When we were in our tweens, we realized that we could forge a note from a parent and buy smokes for us (which we did a few times). I think it was pretty common back then.
But, as to your point, I don’t understand the difference between an automatic R-rating and advertising on any show. The shows are rated (TV-G, for example, on a children’s show). Shouldn’t the advertisers be limited in the same way (or, alternatively, shouldn’t the shows with R-rated ads be rated TV-R)? I don’t see where you’re drawing the line on this one.
Ultimately, if I might paraphrase, it seems that you are saying there should be no limits on free speech, except in very specific (and defined) circumstances. If there were more people who acted like adults in this country, I’d agree. Alas, there are many more “children” than adults, and, so, I can’t agree. The best rules are those that protect us from ourselves.
“Waco, Ruby Ridge and Oklahoma City”
I’m pretty sure you only meant to use the last one.
The first two were examples of the government slaughtering citizens.
“If there were more people who acted like adults in this country, I’d agree. Alas, there are many more “children” than adults, and, so, I can’t agree. The best rules are those that protect us from ourselves.”
My suspicion is that if we put together a commission to help parent the most childish, that I will be sorted into the “most childish and in need of the most parenting” group. More than that, I suspect that a hell of a lot more people will be sorted into that group than I suspect you suspect.
Moreover, I suspect that a tendency of The State to treat people like perpetual adolescents will result in the peoples’ perpetual adolescence.
I’m pretty sure you only meant to use the last one.
The first two were examples of the government slaughtering citizens.
Yeah, except for the child abuse, statutory rape, and the murder of federal agents in Waco, it was, like, totally the government’s fault! And, except for McVeigh saying that he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City because of Ruby Ridge, you’re totally right!
I think I’m done with this thread now, but, please don’t let me stop you.
There are a *LOT* of assumptions of guilt in there that were not determined in court of law based on assertions made by people with a vested interest in making people believe that the government did nothing wrong.
You trust the government a hell of a lot more than I do.
Did you when Dubya was President, out of curiosity?
“It also probably wouldn’t do much, if any, good, for the simple reason that the base has simply stopped listening to any GOP pols not named Palin or Bachmann. That said, what actually would do some good would be for Palin, Bachmann, and especially certain talking heads to tone things down.”
This is quieter now, but maybe I shouldn’t raise it from the dead, but I don’t think anybody has really gotten the particular nature of leadership in this situation. Nobody is going to listen to Boehner telling the base to “tone it down,” frankly I don’t think Palin or Bachmann would be much different.
The essence of political violence (or the lack of it) is the people’s willingness to accept the legitimacy of the actions of the political process. That willingness isn’t completely gone because we’re not Beirut yet. But the actions of the Obama Administration, especially wrt HCR has weakened it to the greatest degree I’ve seen in my lifetime. As I see it, both sides are willing to escalate at least a couple of steps that haven’t been taken yet.
Sorry to butt in here, but I just wanted to say that your presence around here was greatly missed, JHG.
Thanks, Mr. Thompson, for the kind words. However, I am grounded firmly in reality and recognize that my contributions to The League are insignificant (as are my contributions in most areas).
For a few hours, the glow of your words will inflate my already over-inflated ego. So, thanks for that!
Have you written about this issue (other than the few comments I’ve seen)? I really am interested in hearing the myriad opinions from the Ordinary Gentlemen (OG) on this. In a general way, the OG seem to hold Joyner and Sullivan in some regards; and they’ve both written directly on this issue – do you agree, disagree, no comment?
For me, this issue reminds me of speech by Twain:
Playing with fire; reaping what you sow, and all that.
“For a few hours, the glow of your words will inflate my already over-inflated ego. So, thanks for that!”
Heh.
Personally, my time has been limited to an unprecedented degree, both in terms of writing and following the news, the last month or so. This leaves me a bit behind, and particularly on this specific issue.
There does seem to be a certain amount of formulaity (is that even a word?) to all this, but in terms of the violence of the rhetoric it seems tough to dispute that such rhetoric is far more prominent today than it was 7-8 years ago. Certainly, the number of people who were convinced that Bush would prohibit elections in 2008 are a tiny fraction of those who are convinced that this health care reform is clearly the worst form of tyranny, like, ever.
I don’t think the rhetoric will often translate into violence and definitely not into any kind of widespread problem, although I can see it being a final nudge that pushes a crazy person into an assassin. But to some extent, that’s the price of free speech, and a price I’m more than willing to pay.
Anyhow, I think Joyner’s posts on the topic are mostly spot-on, at least based on the limited facts of which I’m aware. My big disagreement with him is in his assumption that the Boehners of the world are in any sense conservative leaders with pull amongst the base. Sarah Palin? Definitely. But the official GOP leadership hasn’t shown any willingness to actually “lead” in any sense of the word for quite some time, and they’re about as respected by their base as Ringo Starr. So all of a sudden condemning that base won’t accomplish anything beyond losing some votes come November. There’s a weird dynamic going on with the GOP right now, and I can’t quite put my finger on it much as I’ve tried over the last two years or so.
Oh – and I should throw out there that guest posts are always welcome around these parts.
Thanks for the further detail, Mr. Thompson.
Agreed that there is a formulaic quality underlying this issue. Further agreed that violence is a price that we pay for freedom of speech.
However, I’m not advocating limits on freedom of speech. As they say, the first step is to admit there is a problem. That’s what I’m advocating. Judging by the comments (here and elsewhere), we’re a long way away from admitting that this is a problem that should be addressed.
I agree that Boehner (et al) have limited influence, but this does not release them from their responsibilities. In fact, they have done the opposite and supported (and incited) some of this rhetoric. Since we are all a part of society, it is the responsibility of all of us to voice our opposition (loudly, if necessary) to this type of violent rhetoric. If enough people do it, the rhetoric dissipates because it can only survive on rage (blind, if possible).
I agree that there is a weird dynamic going on with the GOP – and it’s been going on for decades. For me, the explanation is simple: Republicans don’t like government, so when they have power they don’t govern (which causes a lot of problems). Democrats like government, so when they have power they actually try to govern (which causes a different set of problems).
They’re all human – which is the worst thing you can say about anyone (IMHO). Twain also covered this ground:
From JHG:
“I agree that there is a weird dynamic going on with the GOP – and it’s been going on for decades. For me, the explanation is simple: Republicans don’t like government, so when they have power they don’t govern (which causes a lot of problems). Democrats like government, so when they have power they actually try to govern (which causes a different set of problems).”
I would disagree with that. Most honest Republicans will admit we DO like the government, we just like the idea of a smaller and more efficent one than what we have now. I think the impulse to hate the government (which is often faux hatred from GOP politicians) comes from the infusion of a certain kind of hard-Right Republican/libertarian influence. Call it the Grover Norquist strain of conservatism, if you will.
As for how Republicans govern verses Democrats, the GOP usually spends much of it’s time in power correcting perceived over-reaches of liberal governance. That’s where you get the ying-yang effect. Liberals reach too far, conservatives pull back. Liberals reach too far, conservatives pull back. The idea is that as a society we still move forward (which irks some conservatives) , but it’s at a safer pace than the Left is comfortable with.
Honest Republicans. Where have they been for the past 9 years? Where were they when the Free Speech Zones became standard practice under Bush? Where were they when we invaded another country based on
liesfaulty intelligence? Where were they when hundreds of people were held for years as “enemy combatants”? Where were they when Republicans increased the deficit by trillions? Where were they when Republicans enacted Medicare part D? Where were they when Republicans enacted NCLB? Where were they when the Republicans bailed out Wall Street?You’ll forgive me if I think that the breed of Honest Republicans went extinct a long time ago.
I do agree that government moves forward and backward to find the correct level of involvement, and I agree that society progresses steadily forward. Twain discussed this, as well:
To me, liberals are proactive, conservatives are reactive.
I saw your clarification above after I posted this – so my apologies for misinterpreting your point about restrictions on free speech.
Anyhow, I agree that it would certainly be a good thing for the Boehners of the world to try to denounce the rhetoric; I just think that as a practical matter it’s sort of like expecting a robot to denounce its programmer. It also probably wouldn’t do much, if any, good, for the simple reason that the base has simply stopped listening to any GOP pols not named Palin or Bachmann. That said, what actually would do some good would be for Palin, Bachmann, and especially certain talking heads to tone things down. This would be good for us as a country. It would, however, be terrible for ratings and book sales and celebrity status. And those of us hoping for a denunciation aren’t in the target audience.
As for the GOP’s problem being a hatred of government, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Say what you will about hatred of government, but at least it’s an ethos. The GOP’s hatred of government, however, has long been somehow both scattershot and selective at the same time. They claim to be in favor smaller government, but have no idea what areas of government they think ought to be smaller, while somehow simultaneously thinking that a larger Department of War and more government intervention in the bedroom and in personal behavior are perfectly consistent with smaller government. Meanwhile, a party that believed its claims of wanting smaller, more limited government would actually try to take significant steps towards making government smaller and more limited when it has power. Instead, we tend to get the opposite, and REALLY get the opposite when the GOPers have a stranglehold on power.
I guess the other way to look at it is this – if one is not an anarchist, one can still believe quite firmly that government would be a force for good if it was appropriately limited to certain types of tasks, and focused thereon. Instead, my belief is that the GOP coalition on the national level is so completely incoherent at this point that when it gets into power it is incapable of competent governance because it can’t figure out what areas of governing are worth cutting or are worth emphasizing. It’s governance by platitude.
Very well said, Mr. Thompson.
I think we are actually in agreement regarding my comment about hatred of government. By “when they have power they don’t govern” I mean exactly the point that you make: “It’s governance by platitude”. By definition, this means that they do not have a plan for governing, which I wrote as “when they have power they don’t govern”.
You make excellent points. I agree with them all.
My favorite recent example of what you discuss are the signs and exhortations: “Obamacare is Socialism! Keep government out of my Medicare!”
It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.
Indeed.
JHG:
Re: honest Republicans.
I’m fairly sure that a sizeable number of Republicans don’t believe there is an honest Democrat in the land. What I am saying though is that the real thinkers on the Right do not believe the small government nonsense. Personally, I’m a Teddy Roosevelt/Progressive Republican, so I know govt can be a major force for good. But I’m also not in office. There’s a major disconnect on BOTH sides of the aisle between the politicians and the people who actually use their brains.
Mike, I’m sure there are a very sizable number of Republicans who don’t believe there is an honest Democrat in the land.
Here’s a simple example of the difference between honest Republicans and honest Democrats:
For the past year, the Obama Administration has been attacked relentlessly from the left about Guantanamo, government secrecy, habeus abuses, etc. For 8 years of the Bush Administration, I heard very few voices from the right attacking the Bush Administration about the same problems. I heard a lot of voices from the right saying that any disagreement with Bush policies (especially war) was tantamount to treason (including Mr. Hyperbolic himself – Andrew Sullivan). I don’t hear liberals saying that Tea Partiers are treasonous – just dangerous, stupid and ridiculous.
You like to tar BOTH sides, but there is an ocean of difference between how those sides act when they have the power to do something and when they do not.
I don’t hear anyone on the Right giving Obama a hard way to go on Guantanamo, habeus corpus, etc. Sounds like they are being intellectually honest as well by remaining consistent across two presidencies, just like the liberals you reference.
But we both know that wasn’t your point. You are defining honesty as, “Someone who holds the same positions as the myself on any given issue.” Since you are a liberal, that means that ‘honest’ Republicans can only be those whom have seen the light and embraced liberal dogma. Under that standard of course you haven’t seen an honest Republican in 10 years.
When I say ‘honest’ I mean someone who is able to point out the very real flaws in their own party’s ideology. I’m not just talking a poor stance on a given issue, i’m talking core philosophy. I can point out with complete honesty that my party’s stance on small government is neither realistic nor intelligent. Can you undertake a similar exercise for Democrats? Judging for the in-the-tank tone of your other comments, my inclination is to believe it will be extremely hard for you.
I’m talking about the rule of law, Mike. I’m talking about upholding the Constitution. This is something that Republicans talk about all the time – upholding the Constitution. Republicans are dishonest because they do not want to uphold the Constitution when it conflicts with things like suspending habeus on
“enemy combatants”people with brown skins who are not Christian.Your arguments have become laughable, Mike, but I don’t think that is your intent. Republicans are not being consistent – you can’t support the Constitution and then support suspending habeus. It’s not possible to do that and say you are being “honest”.
JHG – but couldn’t I list a bunch of issues that liberals aren’t consistent or honest on? Education is a good place to start. They say they care about kids, that they want schools to be better, etc but you all resist any real attempts at reform, protect bad teachers, refuse to change bad policies, tinker around with racial integration, etc. Let’s take another example: the environment. Libeal enviornmental groups do very little to actually help the environment meanwhile conservative-leaning conservation groups protect millions of acres of wilderness every year and have been the leading force in the restoration of wetlands, animal populations, native habitats, etc. So again, by your standard, liberals are guilty of dishonesty.
We can go around and around like this for hours – but again, it still seems like your definition of honesty means someone accepting liberal dogma as gospel, because, y’know, how can you be intellectually honest and not believe liberalism is where it’s at?
Libeal enviornmental groups do very little to actually help the environment meanwhile conservative-leaning conservation groups protect millions of acres of wilderness every year and have been the leading force in the restoration of wetlands, animal populations, native habitats, etc.
Yikes! Where’s my tinfoil hat…..
JHG:
Conspiracy theory? Really? I think you just jumpred the shark…but feel free to prove me wrong.
Mike, when you start comparing “conservative-leaning conservation groups” with “liberal environmental groups” I think we’ve stopped talking about politics and entered the Twilight Zone.
If this is me jumping the shark, then this is me jumping the shark.
So be it.
JHG:
Compare the track records of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club to groups like Ducks Unlimited and tell me I’m wrong.
a decent Walker Texas Ranger movie of the week.
Talk about a self-canceling statement.
Amen. Liza could kick Norris’s ass any day of the week.
“My only explanation (not an excuse, mind you) is that the excuses and defenses being made about this violent rhetoric (et tu, Jaybird?) is unfortunate, though understandable.”
I don’t know what country you want to live in, but this tut-tutting against politically/culturally motivated violence is horrifically misguided. Why do we think this is something we can assert control over by having various poohbahs of the Establishment decry this or that? Back in the middle 90s we had Tim McVeigh, Ruby Ridge and David Koresh. I expect us to get there very quickly and surpass it.
This time around we only had that one guy who flew his plane into the IRS building. The changes that are going to happen over the next few years are going to create big big losers and not all of them are going to go away quietly. What’s going to happen when California state employees figure out that their pension is going to get paid at 27 cents on the dollar? What’s going to happen when a law student with $170K in nonbankruptable student loans figures out that his maximum earning potential is somewhere around $30/hr? What do you want them to do?
I don’t know who is going to be committing acts of violence or why, but it’s a decent bet that somebody will.
If our country is going to have a decent chance, somehow liberals will have to find a way of confronting their massive ignorance to be able to see where we are, economically and culturally.
Koz, since I am one of the stupider quasi-marxist that does believe that Gates could exist with several billion dollars less and can’t seem to confront my massive ignorance I would appreciate it if you would shed some light America’s economical problems. The only problem I see is that it has devolved into a corporate controlled nightmare that refuses to see that the Galts of the world are nothing more than plumed princes whose love of self supercedes all other concerns. I see an America where right wing jerks can justify violence by saying, “The liberals made me do it.” Your thinking is as silly as believing that the south’s intense racism was caused by the reconstruction.
….since I …. can’t seem to confront my massive ignorance I would appreciate it if you would shed some light America’s economical problems.”
Simple. What we know from 150 years of more or less uninterrupted economic history is that robust property rights are the key to economic growth.
Now, like most rights, property rights are not absolute. The government or the king or the marketplace always takes a piece. In an ideal world this is mitigated by two things: the government or whoever takes out as small a piece as possible, and does no for specific reasons and no other. Ie, collective control of property is the exception, not the rule.
Modern liberalism is the inversion of this, to make a rule out of the exception, ie the belief that property in general ought to be subject to collective control. Economically speaking, this is like trying to revoke the law of gravity. They say, that if they can assert control of capital base, that they can use the money to satisfy our social needs. The problem is, this is rarely if ever stated directly but more often works as underlying assumption to a hundred other things. If they were forced to confront it directly, as a hypothesis that is either true or false, it would quickly become apparent that it’s not true, never been true, and liberals have no plausible ideas for engineering it into becoming true.
But because the ignorance has been so calcified over time, it becomes more and more difficult to make the spiritual/psychological effort to see things as they really are.
First, ask the Navahoes about property rights during our “manifest destiny” period.
The second paragraph I agree with entirely.
The third paragraph is a problelm because I think I am a semi-socialist and I love my libraries, I love my national parks, I love the local fire department. I think you are wrong saying I want collective control, what I want is balance. And I think you are wrong to give any political thought the same weight as a physical theory. Political leaning is a belief system based, at least partially, on one’s a prioris. You come at the problelm from a different space than I do.
The rest is reality. I am a southernman that works construction. Please tell me one thing that the right wing has done for me since Dwight built interstates that has benefited me. Please don’t say tax cuts, the stupid wars, or the massive bailouts for the corps.
…I love my libraries, I love my national parks, I love the local fire department. I think you are wrong saying I want collective control, what I want is balance.
Now we’re getting closer. Where is the balance of which you write? Look at what you wrote for a moment and think about the issue in a substantive way. We already have commitments at various levels of government for public parks and fire control and national defense and interest on debt, etc., etc., commitments we intend to keep. Why does it then follow that we should also make a commitment to provide health coverage for uninsured people? It stands to reason that these additional commitments takes the role of government out of balance.
“Please tell me one thing that the right wing has done for me since Dwight built interstates that has benefited me. “
Simple. Following my prior note, the Right in America has created or maintained the conditions in government and the culture to create an environment of economic growth and almost everything useful in America depends on that.
Koz: Simple. Following my prior note, the Right in America has created or maintained the conditions in government and the culture to create an environment of economic growth and almost everything useful in America depends on that.
This is really hard for me to see. From the Left Coast it seems that it’s the rural conservative areas both locally and nationally that are draining our coffers. Wealth is created in the dynamic city corridors that are mostly liberal We can’t do what we want for our own people because the cowboys, bankers and trailer-parks are using all of our resources. We need to allow for States Rights. We need to let those screaming “Socialists” to start to pay for themselves. The mistake of the liberals is that they are unilaterally insisting that we’re all in this together.
“Wealth is created in the dynamic city corridors that are mostly liberal”
Well sort of. Wealth is created in our major cities because the United States has developed overall a robust culture of property rights, not because the inhabitants of them are liberal.
To the extent that liberals get to exercise some power over the local economy, they tend to use that power to assert collective control over private property, which destroys wealth. The current California crisis is a case in point. Check these out if you haven’t already.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00612-death-california-dream
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001274-what-happens-when-california-defaults
It’s important to be able to understand the spiritual connection between liberalism and destitution, or alternatively between property rights and prosperity. Some sage once wrote that human desire is a chasm that is never filled. Once we have accepted that it’s ok to expropriate other people’s property for some politically favored end, we are strongly tempted to do it over and over again (frankly some jurisdictions like California don’t resist very hard).
It is the mainstream Right in America which carries with it the possibility of putting that particular genie back in the bottle. That’s why it’s important for civic-minded Americans to vote Republican. Because no matter how stupid Sarah Palin is or how many missions George W Bush accomplished and before anything else, we as individuals have to demonstrate to ourselves and anybody else who’s listening that we intend to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
Koz: “Wealth is created in our major cities because the United States has developed overall a robust culture of property rights, not because the inhabitants of them are liberal.”
Really? How does that work? It seems that the cities, at least on the Left Coast are prosperous because they are inhabited with educated folk that like to create. These folk also like livable neighborhoods which sometimes are created with an infringement of property rights. You can’t turn your farm into cheap housing on that flood plane, save it for our hundred mile diets. You can’t create that monster McDonald’s here; it messes with our aesthetics. No thanks Wally-World, try somewhere else… same goes for NASCAR tracks. They certainly don’t succeed because of some magic emanating from the bible belt.
California has many problems. Their political system has been broken for some time thanks in large part to politicians right along the lines of Palin. I found your first link odd. It argues that California’s salvation will be its huge immigrant inflows. Being more of a Paleo myself, I find this hard to swallow. I prefer Canada’s immigration policies to the open borders of California.
Voting for Shrub or Palin is being part of the solution? That’s really funny. Get off the kool-aid.
“Really? How does that work?”
Pretty much just how I mentioned in the last of entries on this thread. The US has developed over the decades, laws and traditions (traditions are important) in favor of private property. These laws and traditions (and the culture that upholds them) are the key ingredients to wealth. Of course, having motivated, intelligent and creative people helps as well, but that is downstream from the culture of private property. There are many places with intelligent and motivated people (a la Russia) which are not wealthy because they have no culture of private property.
As a very strong generality, such culture in America is upheld by the Republican Party, mainstream conservatives, and the millions of Americans who support both. If you are associated with this nexus, you are part of the cultural foundation for robust property rights in America, otherwise you’re not.
Koz: “Why does it then follow that we should also make a commitment to provide health coverage for uninsured people? It stands to reason that these additional commitments takes the role of government out of balance.”
You’re assuming that the current balance between public and private is the correct one. Its not self evident that this is true. In particularly its obvious that the pre-reform status quo in healthcare was unsustainable. This reform may not have helped, but regardless of that the grossly unequal, and state-created, way healthcare is distributed in the US demanded action.
I think you should think more clearly about what’s sustainable and what’s not. It’s an obvious fallacy to say that the current system is broken therefore anything I do is kosher (at least it ought to be).
The current balance between public and private is exactly what Obama told us didn’t change in his reform. The pre-status quo coverage and subsidies (or lack of them) absolutely were sustainable.
“First, ask the Navahoes about property rights during our “manifest destiny” period.”
This is a useful illustration of sloppy liberal thinking (complete with spelling error even).
Let’s note the form of this argument. It’s phrased as a parenthetical comment without any other context, as though the relevance and/or conclusion are supposed to be understood. But they’re not. The experience of the Navajo doesn’t say anything to clarify or contradict the centrality of private property to economic growth, which is what it was supposedly in response to.
If you had tried to make this argument with simple declarative sentences, this would have been clear. At the very least you would have had to make some explanation of its relevance.
Probably you wanted to make some polemical point against America in general, which is ok but a different subject. The upshot is, it’s very difficult for many liberals to really follow the cause-and-effect of an argument, to really understand or evaluate it. These little snarky points aren’t that big a deal, except that they give the illusion that the writer has made a point when he hasn’t.
Kos, I was not trying to snarky. You have more anger than is good for a soul and I am sorry that I started this conversion. I won’t make that mistake again. You have all the answers, know that I am merely a stupid liberal and the right wing is the best thing ever invented. I think you are wrong.
Well, it looks like I get the last word by default then. First of all, based on what you’ve written here it was entirely hasty of me to conclude that bit about the Navajo was intended to be a little snark. You were completely correct to call me out for that so please accept my apologies.
Let me also clarify why I should care about the matter, which probably seems odd at first blush because that bit about the Navajo was just one throwaway sentence anyway. The point being, that the willingness to concentrate on a chain of argument is in dreadfully short supply. If, somehow, we can overcome that our other issues might be pretty easy to handle by comparison.
I keep getting the feeling that “Republicans and conservatives with an eye to the future of their party and movement” might want to take a cautionary look at the Bloc Québécois.
Rufus! That’s a harsh comparison to draw… for the Bloq. Outside of their being comitted to breaking up the country and of course their being french they’re a pretty decent bunch.
I guess what I mean by it is that it’s very possible to be both a very pure expression of the feelings and beliefs of a good number of people and totally hem yourself in. The Bloc actually has had a number of good ideas, but they tend to be dealt with in the government a bit like the guy on the plane who nobody realized was crazy until they were in the air. You just sort of act very pleasantly towards them and try not to upset them or agree to any of their plans.
But yeah, you’re only ever going to capture so much of the vote with the promise, “Vote for us and we’ll break up the country (but not really)!”
I agree entirely, so yes. The GOP can learn a lesson from them. If you premise your party to some very specific dogmas and those dogmas fall out of favor with the public they’ll likely take your party with them.
Really? I gotta admit, that comparison would not have occurred to me. Care to elaborate?
What’s the caution for? Seems the Bloc has done pretty well negotiating for Quebec.
Yeah they definitely have. I just don’t see how that could be translated into a national agenda.
State’s Rights? Tenth Amendment?
I’m not sure what your question is. I’m saying the GOP should be wary of appealing too specifically to too small a segment of the electorate, and especially one that already sees themselves as an embattled minority because doing so could hem them in when they want to win national elections. Are you saying their national platform should be state’s rights?
The question is, aren’t State’s Rights analogous to the Bloc’s Federalism? The Bloc’s problem has been that it has only concerned itself with Quebec. It hasn’t left the option of co-opting similar feelings in other provinces. The GOP should use State’s Rights to escape its current self destruction. They should sell the ability to legalize or create environmental standards on the Left Coast. State’s Rights should be appealing across the board. The current system is broken, that should be apparent regardless of ones party affiliation. If the GOP could create credibility that it was serious in areas that weren’t self serving they could do an end run.
I guess that is possible. I’ve wondered if they might not want to take the states’ rights approach to gay marriage, just to prove they’re serious about it. It could work. I also think they could prove they’re more serious about fiscal conservatism than just using the phrase, because honestly, I think that’s the best tool in their box at this point.
In terms of the rhetoric, what bothers me (and this really is true of Democrats and Republicans) is that it’s hard for me to tell when, if ever, I should take what people are saying seriously anymore. There is an exaggerated rhetorical style that I often encounter on blogs and in conversation, and I know it upsets some people because it is so extreme, but it doesn’t bother me because I just assume the writer is just jawboning. The problem is, when should I start taking them seriously?
I used to have a reader at my blog whose blog I read in turn, and he got to be this way. He’d post these things like, “Those politicians who passed this bill don’t know what they’ve done. We’re mad as hell and we’re the ones with the guns!” and I’d think, “Okay, well, I don’t think he’s speaking literally here, so I’m not going to take him seriously on this one”. And, usually, if you respond to these sorts of statements with shock and horror, people indeed will say, “I didn’t mean that literally”. So, whew.
The problem is when you realize that you’ve been having a political conversation with someone who has not said anything you take literally, and thus seriously, for some time. At some point, there’s a difference between having a conversation and saying something sensational in order to get attention. Indeed, what I like about the League is that it tends towards the former, whereas many blogs tend way towards the later, and I think it’s really in an attempt to drive up traffic to their sites. So, if you write things like, “Republicans want sick people to die!” or “Liberals want to enslave America”, you get more attention and quick responses. And maybe it’s the gist of what you believe, if not factually correct. And this could be driven by a larger media environment in which noise and sensation has replaced any sort of seriousness. I mean, when, if ever, should we take Michael Moore or Glenn Beck seriously?
Of course, at some point, it becomes impossible to have a conversation with someone who you just can’t take seriously, because either they mean what they say, and really are that warped by their anger, or they don’t mean anything they say, which means they don’t really respect anyone listening to them, and their attitude towards truth really is that glib.
I’m talking about the rule of law, Mike. I’m talking about upholding the Constitution. This is something that Republicans talk about all the time – upholding the Constitution. Republicans are dishonest because they do not want to uphold the Constitution when it conflicts with things like suspending habeus on “enemy combatants” people with brown skins who are not Christian.
Your arguments have become laughable, Mike, but I don’t think that is your intent. Republicans are not being consistent – you can’t support the Constitution and then support suspending habeus. It’s not possible to do that and say you are being “honest”.
Regarding habeas, the 1977 case of Swain v Pressley has been interpreted such that the military can provide an adequate substitute to a habeas hearing and not trigger a violation of the Suspension Clause. The Military Commissions Act was an attempt to do create such a remedy. While I agree with the Court’s ruling in Boumediene, the four conservative justices believed that the procedures per the MCA were an adequate substitution for a habeas hearing. If the hearing is an adequate substitute, then there is no violation of the Suspension Clause.
That the Court ruled that the MCA does violate the Suspension Clause, it does not logically follow that Republicans want to violate the Suspension Clause because they had a good faith reason to believe that the MCA addressed that issue and no suspension of the writ took place. Perfectly kosher to them. I don’t agree with that assessment but I can understand the basis of those claims.
It would be nice if you could acknowledge that your ideological opponents may have good faith arguments for their views, especially in this field, which is one that is of great interest to me and one where I know my opponents’ arguments and cringe when you butcher them with your self righteous partisan hackery.
What do I know? After all, I’m just a “I Got Mine Fuck You” Glibertarian.
HCRA (2007) changed the law, Dave, as I’m sure you are aware. While it did not undo the damage of the MCA, it clearly defined the intent of the Legislative Branch. Boumedine offered a similar ruling.
Regardless of these facts (that I’ll guess you are aware of), a ruling of a court (even the Supreme Court) does not mean that the ruling is morally or ethically correct, nor that such a ruling might be overturned in the future.
The best part about our country is that we reserve the right to be wrong, and correct such wrongs at a future date. After all, “Americans can be counted on to do the right thing…..after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”
Get some better arguments before you challenge next time.
HCRA (2007) changed the law, Dave, as I’m sure you are aware. While it did not undo the damage of the MCA, it clearly defined the intent of the Legislative Branch. Boumedine offered a similar ruling.
What Boumediene did was provide detainees access to the federal courts on the basis that the substitute remedies were inadequate. That constituted a violation of the Suspension Clause. I fail to see how that ruling would have overturned or revised the core holding in Swain.
Regardless of these facts (that I’ll guess you are aware of), a ruling of a court (even the Supreme Court) does not mean that the ruling is morally or ethically correct, nor that such a ruling might be overturned in the future.
Why is this relevant to the fact that you accused conservatives of holding a position that many of them don’t? What does this have to do with your refusal (as I see it) to believe the other side may have good faith legal arguments for their positions?
Am I supposed to believe that those of the more liberal persuasion who disagree with the notion that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right are “shredding the Constitution” too?
What I find most amusing when a hear liberals tear into conservatives about their constitutional views is how alike judicial liberalism and judicial conservatism are since both seem to have a reliance on what is known as “Footnote Four” jurisprudence. Heck, the dismantling of the pre-New Deal doctrine of enumerated powers was done with much rubberstamping by the courts who simply deferred to the will of the majority.
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/03/new-deal-originalism/
Get some better arguments before you challenge next time.
Other than make yourself look like a complete ass, which by the way, you did a find job of doing when responding to Mike’s arguments as being “laughable”, I fail to see what you think you are going to accomplish with making stupid comments like this. Just in case:
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/commenting-policy/
Besides that, you telling me how to conduct myself when you failed to address my main points in a satisfactory manner is not good form. Just saying.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }