by on

I know he did poorly in the debate last night, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if Herman Cain were the Republican nominee. His “9-9-9 plan”, based on this Tax Policy Center analysis that Krugman linked to, seems to be the last word in regressive taxation, and his ability to blend nearly Randian contempt for the poor with Christian rhetoric is something to behold.

He seems to me to be the most devout believer in Republican ideology of all the candidates. I hate to quote myself, but I wrote awhile back that “it’s impossible to honestly believe all of the things in the Republican party line without being a rather confused person.” Perhaps “confused” is not quite the right word; but what I mean is that people like Cain, who are capable of fusing the two very contradictory aspects of the party line with total confidence, as if it all makes perfect sense, are unusual and hence, very striking when they show up on the political scene.

by on

It’s always, ah, interesting to read the ultra-conservative blogs. For instance, I see Robert Stacy McCain (no relation to John) linked to this piece on “Women on the Left” at a site called “Alternative Right“.

The author, Alex Kurtagic, makes two basic arguments–the first, particularly, is a very basic argument, in much the same way that an abacus is a very basic supercomputer. This argument is this: liberal women are less attractive than conservative women. This argument is (a) not true and (b) irrelevant to the merits of the ideologies. It’s this sort of thing that gives internet political discourse a bad name.

But I’m not here to tell you that our conservative friends oftentimes say ridiculous things. You already know that. What I want to get to is Kurtagic’s other point, which is that the change from women being housewives to getting jobs is bad. He says:

“[W]hat the Left has done for women is trade one form of slavery for another… 

Some women certainly enjoy sacrificing everything for a remunerative career, and some even achieve those careers, but they comprise a minority. Most women, like most people, work only to pay the bills, and only tell themselves they enjoy their work because that is the only way they can stand it: most women, like most people, are bored by it and spend their weeks longing for the next weekend and dreading the following Monday.” 

Well, amazingly, I think this is probably true. It sounds plausible, anyway, which is more than you can say for the other claim. But I doubt it was because “the Left” is secretly a misogynist conspiracy and more of a case of poor estimation on the changes in wage rates over half a century. And of course, the fact that women asked for this freedom suggests they thought it was preferable to the current “find a man” model of the time.

The really interesting thing, though, is the quite devastating critique embedded in this article of capitalism and its effects on workers. It’s a pretty tough, but fair, in my view, assessment of the way business treats its employees. And yet, for all that, if somebody as mainstream conservative as R.S. McCain is linking to it, it likely means it is approved of by the free-market, supply-side crowd, even though I gather that “Alternative Right” is a site dedicated to pushing “social conservatism”.   Or, to use my preferred term, it is a site for nationalists.  (Kurtagic hints that laissez-faire capitalism is a flavor of liberalism, implying that it is bad.)

I bring this up only as one more data point demonstrating the incredible contradictions between the two wings of the Republican party.

by on

This article by Mike Lofgren has been generating much interest in the blogosphere, and with good reason, for there is a great deal of truth to it.

There is one problem I have with it, though. Lofgren thinks that a major reason for the Republican dominance is their use of language. He writes:

“Above all, [Democrats] do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? – can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative “Obamacare” won out. Contrast that with the Republicans’ Patriot Act. You’re a patriot, aren’t you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn’t the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme?” 

Maybe this is a factor. But I am skeptical, partly because I’ve heard many a Republican make precisely this same complaint about the Democrats–not politicians or pundits, but rank-and-file Republicans. They could be lying, of course, and Republicans do accuse the Democrats of things they themselves are guilty of. Still, I think Democrats overall are just as good at this kind of thing. (It’s not that hard.)

But my real problem with this argument is that I don’t think people in general are that stupid. Call me a hopeless optimist, but in my experience most people have enough sense to see through that kind of simple trick. I think the explanations for the Republicans’ behavior lie elsewhere.

Still, it’s a great article, and I highly recommend reading it.

by on

So, according to Wikipedia, that song was made at the request of the President’s Council on Physical Fitness, performed by Robert Preston and written by Meredith Willson. This was in 1961.

First of all, I will admit that I can’t hear that song without thinking of the part in Orwell’s 1984 where Winston Smith is forced to exercise by the severe woman on the telescreen. But the real point is that government health initiatives are not exactly new.

I think most people have a certain aversion to being told what to do by anyone–or feeling like they are–even if they know it is the right thing to do. The old Libertarian in me understands this impulse. But that said, I think the Republicans really ought to get over their visceral hatred of Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign. I am becoming quite tired of them saying things like “she’s telling us what to eat”, and trying to paint her as a hypocrite over nonsense like this.

What I wonder is: did anybody complain about that Robert Preston song at the time?

by on

A reader of Andrew Sullivan’s blog writes in to him, saying:

“I just had a revelation that may seem obvious, but I think I now really understand the difference between liberals and conservatives. The former perpetually live in the 1960s… while the latter live perpetually in the 1970s…

How can we move both groups into the 1980s and 1990s, when both sides accepted a lot of what was right about what the other side had to say?… Why is it that the history of 40-50 years ago seems to impact on people’s thinking so much more than the history of 20-30 years ago that ought to be fresher in their minds?”

It’s a good point, but here’s my answer: both sides didn’t “accept” what the other side said, they merely made necessary compromises. The 1970s and especially the ’60s are when the conservative and liberal parties we know today first emerged, and hence it is there that we may see them in their purest forms.

As for why they don’t compromise–well, nobody likes to see the pure form diluted, do they? And this makes sense, because it’s standard negotiating practice to ask for more than what you actually expect to get.

by on

I am becoming increasingly inclined to think that Rick Perlstein is a genius. His books are both very excellent, and I have just got through reading his fascinating article on the lies the Republicans tell. Like all he does, it’s a sprawling piece, covering many people and incidents, but what interested me most was his contrasting the supposedly very honest-but-gloomy Jimmy Carter with the lying optimist, Ronald Reagan. Perlstein writes: “The Gipper’s inauguration ushered in the ‘Don’t Worry, Be Happy’ era of political lying.”

Now, yes; Reagan is associated very much with optimism. (The word “sunny” often immediately precedes or follows the popular press references to him.)  Still, this isn’t all the Republicans are about. Paul Ryan’s whole budget plan is predicated on the idea of him being a man willing to tell the “tough truths” we need, but don’t want, to hear. (To hear the veracity of this claim questioned, see this, or anything Paul Krugman has ever written about Paul Ryan.)

So, the point clearly isn’t that Republicans sugarcoat everything; sometimes they say optimistic things and other times they say pessimistic things. The reason for all this, I think, goes back to the American exceptionalism thing; the Republicans don’t believe much stuff about America being flawed; they want to talk about the flaws introduced by those who are in some way “alien” to America.

The issue Perlstein explicitly raises is the matter of Climate Change–why are Republicans saying the science demonstrating it is false? One answer I can see is that they are all beholden to oil corporations. Another is that, as Perlstein says, they don’t want to hear they can’t use all the damn resources they please, if that is their wish. They feel, as the Governor of Louisiana said, that “Americans can do anything”.

You might say that the Republican version of events is optimistic and blithe. “We can use all the resources we want, at whatever rate we like, as intended by God.” is their view–correct me if I’m wrong. On the other hand, the fact that people complain of climate change requires, in the Republican version of things, a conspiracy of international Socialists and Dictators who control the Universities, the Democratic party, and many media outlets. This is not optimism.

Incidentally, I’ve written about this issue before, and I’ve always wondered: how many of the Republicans think of themselves as “lying for a cause”, and how many think it’s all completely true?

by on

Republican Congressman Allen West has some hints for the modern woman (video here):

“What made the Spartan men strong, it was the Spartan women. Because the Spartan women at the age of nine gave up their male sons… when they were finally ready to join the Spartan army, it was not their father who gave them their cloak and shield, it was their mother… and she said: ‘Spartan, here is your shield. Come back bearing this shield, or being borne upon it.” 

There are many references I could make here. I could reference Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:

“‘In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were REAL men, women were REAL women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were REAL small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.'” 

I also could reference this song from Gilbert and Sullivan’s Princess Ida. (How can I not after West says “male sons” in this context?) This is but a sample; there were many such wise-guy quips I could think of.

But, after all, this does actually provide us with a little window into the Conservative mindset. It’s related to what I talked about in this post, although I think West is more militaristic than even your average Conservative.

What I need to find out now is how accurate his history is. I (shamefully) don’t know enough about this period to judge.

by on
I’m reading the book The Conscience of a Conservative, ostensibly by Senator Barry Goldwater, but actually by L. Brent Bozell Jr. Though Goldwater didn’t write it, I assume that, since it was under his name, it reflected what he wanted people to think he believed. If we grant this, it is so far reaffirming everything I suspected about Goldwater; to wit, that he was a Libertarian, not a “Conservative” in the sense we mean it today.
People often think of Goldwater as shaping the modern Republican party. Many credit–or blame–him for clearing the way for Ronald Reagan’s election. This is, from what I can see, a falsehood except in the sense that Reagan learned from Goldwater’s failure. Goldwater was the last gasp of the old Republican party, and the last attempt is naturally the most wild and desperate. Thus, Goldwater’s rhetoric was more extreme than any previous member of the old Republicans had been. After all, he really was serious about this small government idea. 
It’s true that the rhetoric used in Conscience of a Conservative is very Tea Party-like, but it is only one side of the alliance. The cultural aspects of modern Republican party are missing from the book that represents Goldwater, and from his rhetoric generally.
I’m not saying, as Liberals sometimes do, that he would be displeased by the Republican party of today. I have no idea what he would think of modern Republican policy. Whether he would have liked it or not is irrelevant, however. What matters is that he wasn’t talking about their modern issues, and thus can’t be held responsible for inventing their platform.
Barry Goldwater was the greatest, most successful, and probably most popular libertarian Presidential candidate this country has ever seen, and he lost badly. Perhaps that means something. Perhaps not.

by on

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl55.swf

For some reason, Conservatives like to theatrically ponder the question “why doesn’t President Obama release his birth certificate?” Liberals respond to this with incredulity that such a question is being asked, and usually imply that the reason it is asked is the hidden racism of the asker. The above video contains a clip from The View which contains a performance of this ritual.

It would profit the Liberals far more to simply say: “he has released it.” There are people who claim what he released was a forgery, but they have not actually proven this. Therefore, the burden of proof currently lies with them. Furthermore, whatever Donald Trump’s objections, the newspaper announcements of his birth would have required the participation of the hospital at which he was born and the Hawaiian government.

In short, if you think all these things are forgeries–for which there is no evidence–it means there was a massive conspiracy dating back to the 1960s working in his favor. If this is what you believe, then you are in total Deus Ex-style conspiracy territory, and really there’s no way you can believe anything anymore.

Anyway, though, that isn’t what I really want to write about here. The interesting thing is the debate Hannity and Springer get into about what is a “Conservative” versus what is a “Republican”. It’s important to understand that the people who call themselves “Conservatives”, meaning socially conservative, weren’t particularly Republican before 1965. Those Republicans, led by Barry Goldwater, were basically what we would call “Libertarians” today.

(Hat Tip to Little Green Footballs.)

by on

The Republicans are going into their annual “there is winter weather so there can be no global warming” mode.

It’s really annoying to me.

That is all, for now.

UPDATE: About the title, which I realize now probably doesn’t quite make sense given how I wrote the post: the idea was to convey that climate is just an average of weather. And another word for average is “mean”. But the more I think about it, the more I think it’s kind of an obscure–not to say stupid–pun that isn’t well set-up in the post. However, in my defense, it seemed very funny at 11 o’clock last night.