To depressed to talk about Health Care reform or the recent SCOTUS ruling, and there are wiser people then me doing it to death this weekend. So just a couple of links.
Hey everybody! Arlen Spector is a sexist idiot! So glad to have him on our team. You know you have issues when your main problem with bat-shit insane Bachman is that she's not acting lady-like enough for you.
Your right-wing psychological projection tactic of the day. There's a lot of resentment towards Wall Street right now, you'd be a fool not to play on it (which is exactly why the Republicans have been going at it in full populist mode all year). But this is how you do it, guys. The populist talk from Republicans is all very lovely, and very void of meaning. Start pitting legislation against their supposed values, and see how quickly they shoot themselves in the foot. They can't help themselves when it comes to protecting their corporatist buddies.
Video clips and transcripts of the late Dr. George Tiller explaining why he is an abortion doctor have been released in time for the start of his killer's trial (and the anniversary of Roe v Wade)
If only in my dreams.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Lessons from Massachusetts
Based on what I'd read about each of the candidates in Massachusetts, watching the White House's non-reaction as the race got close, and topped off with the underlying tone of doom in some of Nate Silver's posts as of late, I pretty much figured that Massachusetts would elect a Republican to the Senate this week. I knew Coakley was done the second she made that Fenway Park crack, while Brown was revered by the villagers for his "drivin' 'round in yer pickup truck to visit the folks" campaign style. You really couldn't have a more stark example of the big Washington elitist liberal against the good old boy that just wants to represent the common man's needs. And not only did the Brown campaign play that up to the fullest extent, the idiots in Coakley's campaign played right into that character game instead of focusing on policy, which would ensure their own success. The White House, meanwhile, sat on it's hands and did nothing, because it's Massachusetts, right? Who are you fuckers going to vote for, a Republican?
Apparently so.
Oddly enough, I'm not that upset. Yes, it's a damn shame that the seat that Kennedy once held is going to someone who will (probably) help obstruct health care reform. Yes, it's a damn shame that I'll be forced to listen to crowing about how this special election shows that Republican policies are what the people want and that Democrats better act more Republican if they want to keep their seats. Yes, it's a damn shame how one state's special election will be portrayed as some all out mandate against health care reform.
But I'm a bit hopeful that this may be a wake-up call to the Democratic party. We can't blame Republicans for this one, this was an all out, all levels involved, complete fuck-up on behalf of the Democrats. And there really is no one reason why this election played out the way it did, you have a combination of a lazy campaign that took it's constituents for granted, you have an uneasy and angry populace that is less forgiving to anyone that reeks of old politics, and you have a very unmotivated liberal base. And perhaps now that the tiny insular Obama administration bubble (never thought I'd have to write a statement like that) is broken, they might start paying attention to, you know, the people that they are supposed to be serving. Here are some lessons that I would hope the Democrats can take from this:
Lesson One: Drop the Bi-Partisanship shtick, it hurts more then it helps.
The Republicans hate you and want you to fail. Why this isn't completely obvious at this point is beyond me. One might think (I'm thinking that this is what the White House is banking on) that eventually the Republicans can't help but come around, because of the negative image they are giving themselves with their obstructive tactics. But so far, we've yet to see this happen, no matter how many times the administration reaches out. Why? Because Republicans have absolutely nothing to lose from being obstructionist assholes. They actually gain from it.
The Republican image of the rough and tough gut-trusting cowboys softens the observation that they are acting like spoiled children when it comes to obstructing policy, if anything, it reinforces the notion that they are a strong, take no prisoners party. Add that to the recent attempt to paint themselves as populist, and you get a strong, take-no-prisoners party that will fight to the death to defend the little guy. So no, Republicans haven't taken any hits for their behavior, and they won't.
But Democrats will, because what are their options at that point? They can whine about the Republicans' tactics, but until they actually manage to call their bluff and make them filibuster (and for the love of fucking god, make them filibuster), the public doesn't see obstruction, they see whiny little Democratic babies crying about those big meanie Republicansm which fits in nicely with their pre-set image that Democrats are whiny little babies.
Secondly, they can appease and appease and appease, which is what they've been doing. Again, not only does this make them appear weak, but it screws all of us by giving us crappy, watered down bills. And they keep this ruse up, because god forbid, if they actually fought for something that Republicans don't like, such as the public option, the netroots might be happy with them, and they might be tainted as (gasp!) Liberal. Which as we know, is the opposite of bi-partisan (conservative, however, is it's synonym).
And not only does this have an effect on the public's perception of the two parties, it is actually hindering legislation as well. The idea that soon we would all hold hands and sing and pass everything in a quick and efficient manner once we got over our partisan hostility has fallen flat. It is actually complicating legislation. If it weren't for the bi-partisan fetish, health care could have been done quicker. If it weren't for the bi-partisan fetish, you wouldn't have to add amendments into the Health Care bill that alienate certain groups. If it weren't for the bi-partisan fetish, we would have had a stronger stimulus bill. And the time it takes is taxing as well, how long did you waste trying to achieve that magical filibuster-proof pony, spend courting Senators Snowe and Lieberman only to have them turn around and slap you in the face?
And you know what that time spent chasing that unicorn has achieved? A lack of action on other bills we need. Bills that also are necessary to help out an increasingly unemployed and angry constituency. The economy is still shit, and unemployment is still at 10%. This are very real hardships that people are dealing with, and they do not move to the side in people's minds merely because you show them how nice you are by kissing the asses of Republicans. Someone that is unemployed and struggling right now cares fuck all about how nice you are, I assure you.
The people did not want us to fall into another great depression. The people have no problem with the government helping out with unemployment. The people wanted Health Care reform at the onset, and, when it wasn't phrased as a push-poll, responded favorably to the idea of a public option. The people want their leaders to be, well, leaders. There's a reason Bush was so popular when all of his policies were not - he owned that shit with an in-your-face attitude and never waved in the face of criticism. The guy stuck to his principles and it was never disputed that he was in charge. So this idea that the Democrats should meekly abandon the goals that got them elected in the first place, abandon the promises they made to the nation, and appease the Republicans no matter how important the issue is for the country is ludicrous.
If the political landscape is forgiving to more moderate measures, fine. Be bi-partisan. But you cannot work with people that have indicated over and over again that they have no interest working with you. But go ahead, Charlie Brown, kick that football again. I'm sure Lucy won't pull it away this time.
Lesson Two: Find your goddamn voice. Here's a hint - it should be similar to the people's voice.
The public's approval of Health Care Reform has dropped considerably since last summer. I can cite two major reasons as to why this may be - first, you have the screaming teabaggers sending out catch phrase after catch phrase condemning it. And on the left, you have nothing but a massive pile of confusion as to what the Health Care bill actually is. It should never have gone down this way, as the catch phrase is not only easy, it was put out early and eagerly accepted by health care reform supporters: "No one in America should die because they can't afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick".
How much easier can it get? Yet Democrats sold this bill terribly. Part of it was when they buckled and sold out to the health industry. As they are Democrats, and they don't want to appear in bed with the lobbyists, much tricky language was used to hide this, and the goal of the bill became a bit foggy. I can't deny it's nice to have a political party that doesn't just all out lie about what the policy is (Healthy Forest Initiative, anyone?). But politics is made of soundbites, whether we like it or not. And the underlying goal of this bill was to prevent people from being dropped or denied. Stick with that, and the people will follow.
Perhaps you respect the people enough to try to explain things out to them rather then deal with soundbites. And that's a fine and noble approach. But your medium does not take that angle. Villagers want quick, simple, snappy, catchy little quotes to put on their news programs. This is what get's their audience's attention, and what gives them ratings. And if you don't provide them with a narrative that is simple enough, they will create their own, or borrow from the groups that are giving them a simple narrative - in this case, the Teabagging right.
Lesson Three: Respect your base
There's been a lot of infighting among moderates, liberals and progressives lately (okay, there always is, but it's been more vicious). Liberals and progressives are upset because they feel Obama hasn't fulfilled many of his campaign promises. The base in demoralized, and when they are so, they do things like claim to have no political home that represents them or or that they are sick and tired of politics as usual, and they stay home or send up a protest vote for your opponent. Liberals are excessive in this matter as they pride themselves on being above the normal wear and tear of politics and mentally individualistic. If you want their support, you need to cater to that stuff. No, it doesn't mean kill the health care bill because it isn't perfect. It doesn't mean using your administration for the sole goal of revenge for the past decade's shenanigans. But you have to stroke their egos a bit. This shit isn't that hard.
But Democrats seem to take liberal votes for granted. They've always held the opinion that these voters have no where else to go, so they will turn out every election to support them. They don't seem to understand that they must earn the votes of their constituents, they instead throw those constituents under the bus in favor of trying to earn the votes of those that will never, ever support them. Yes, Howard Dean's plan to strengthen the Democratic electorate by recruiting more conservative Democrats seemed to pay off at first glance, when Democrats won both houses and the executive branch. But now we are in a situation where bills that are put forth by Democrats are being derailed by the those same conservative Democrats, and only Democrats are taking the blame for their failures. Why should the Republicans even stick their neck out anymore, when they have congressmen like Bart Stupak, Ben Nelson, and Joe Lieberman to derail the Democratic agenda for them? So this strikes me as a pretty unproductive strategy. Things like Health Care reform are a pretty standard Democratic platform, yet we can't even get our shit together on that, and are alienating voters in the process. And as we've seen, the voters are tired of being taken for granted and are getting angry.
Look, I get that some liberals can irritate. I wish Jane Hamsher would shut the hell up as much as the next person. But the reason why Jane Hamshers exist as prominent voices is because they give you the base from which to start negotiations from. And you guys throw it away every. single. time. The public option was not the place on which to start debate. Single-Payer was. But that was never brought to the table, so instead you decided to compromise down from an existing compromise, because, why? Republicans might get angry if you first proposed Single-Payer? Have you not noticed that they just get angry no matter what you put on the table?
One warning that I've heard is that you can't cater too much to your base, because then you end up all insane like the Republicans currently are. This is true to an extent. But first off, Republicans seem to be doing just fine with their tea-baggers (when the alternative is big-government-corporate-crony Democrats, the populist wave of crazy seems not so crazy). They managed to dominate the airwaves and make themselves as a formidable opposition to Democratic policies. This will probably blow up in their faces in the long run. But when the right's base is catered to and the left's base shunned entirely, it has the effect of moving the discourse farther to the right. At this point, the debate is between the radical right and the moderates, liberal voices are left in the wilderness. And you cannot expect them to come home every few years after you've abandoned them.
Politicians have bought into the villiage narrative that the liberal base is unhinged and unreasonable, whereas the conservative base is legitimate and significant. And Democrats have helped push this narrative along, because they are terrified of being labeled as liberal - the backlash of the politics of the 60s has turned "liberal" into a dirty word. And as such, anyone that identifies with it or it's politics too closely are shunned by the Democratic party. Republicans, on the other hand, mainstream their crazy, they give them blow horns and soapboxes and a sweet-paying prime pundit spot on Fox News. What this leads to is an increase in conservative extremism in the mainstream and a decrease in liberal extremism. I should stress that this is not because there aren't crazy-ass liberals. There are. I've met them. But they will get no where near a major media outlet, because the party has purged them (and for good reason). Republicans, on the other hand, have felt no such pressure to do so.
Now the media has trouble with this. As they too fear the "liberal" label, they have taken on the practice of trying to present themselves as fair and balanced. And when you are dealing with crazy right-wingers and meek left-wingers, and the desperate need to treat both sides "equally", this creates an atmosphere of false equivalence. But the "left of the left" being pissed off about the lack of a public option is no where near marching on the capitol grounds because you want to keep the government out of your Medicare. Hating Bush for going into Iraq is nowhere near hating Obama because you think he has some secret socialist agenda. Wanting equal rights for American citizens is nowhere near claiming this country should be run in accordance with the bible. Expressing concern about excessive abuses of governmental authority is nowhere near quaking in fear that the brown people are going to steal our jobs/kill us all and need to be detained, tortured and bombed for our safety.
No one is asking Obama to join the Animal Liberation Front's next attempt at bombing out a animal-testing facility. But it probably wouldn't hurt to read Paul Krugman once in a while. Painting those that diverge from the center-left as extremists of the wingnut variety that must be avoided at all costs is merely playing into the narrative that the Republicans created decades ago to win elections. They have no plans to support you once you cast the liberals out, so by avoiding your base you have nothing to gain but a smaller voter pool. Cut it out.
Lesson Four: Stop listening to the goddamn villagers.
A quick survey of the major news sites this week finds that the prevailing meme out there is once again that the Democrats didn't appease the "center-right" leaning constituents enough, saying that this was a mandate on the existence of Health Care Reform, on those pesky whining leftists that keep picking on poor Obama for not doing what the country really wants him to do (be a Republican), on "Big Government" liberals, or on the "overspending" and "out-of-touch" Democrats. They even busted out Karl Rove, man of the people, on Fox to talk about how this is all a rebuke of liberal philosophy as a whole. Move more right, they urge. If you would just be more like Republ...er... "Moderates", the country will love you. We promise.
Except, that is the lesson the villagers send out no matter what happens. Perhaps it's time to face a solid fact: The village only represents the village. So as far as the general population goes, they really have no fucking clue as to what they are talking about. These are the guys that jumped on the Iraq war bandwagon. These are the guys that allowed Bush to get away with every civil rights violation because they felt it would tar their image if they actually pointed out how fucked up some of the post-9/11 polices were. These are the guys that stood in awe of Sarah Palin and touted her as a political revolution. These are the guys that loved McCain's barbecues too much to point out that he wasn't so much of a maverick then an self-serving, bitter old man. In short, these guys are idiots. They have been wrong, dead wrong, about pretty much everything they've "covered" as "news". But for the Democrats, no media cycle hissy fit is too small to address, no gossipy opinion columnist too petty to suck up to.
The media does not represent the people, they merely represent themselves, because they are narcissists that have created this fantasy that the world cannot survive without the input of their esteemed opinions. But the reality is that they are self-serving fools, so perhaps it's time to stop listening to them. The Republicans did a long time ago, and the result was the village falling all over themselves to prove they are worthy of Republicans attention. Not only does this in turn cause the Republicans to win pretty much every news cycle, it also boosts their populist credibility among everyone because if there's one thing people of all political stripes can agree on, is that everyone hates the goddamn villagers.
Lesson Five: Start challenging conservative dogma
I believe we live in a center-left nation. But our political discourse is argued in a center-right frame. Republicans are very effective at getting out their message, and as it has been left unchallenged for decades, those messages dominate every political discussion that we have.
A large problem with selling bills like the stimulus and health care reform is that you never challenged the under-lying assumption - that that things like heath-care reform and stimulus packages are necessary evils, government involvement is always bad, spending can only be harmful to the country. That is the problem with the mindset of this country, after decades of being told that government is the problem and worshiping at the alter of Reagonomics, it's become undisputed dogma. Never mind that the majority of Americans have no problem with increased spending for programs that will help them. Never mind that Social Security and Medicare are still very popular programs. Never mind that the truly great things in this country, those times that we look back on with a touch of teary nostalgia, happened because we, the people, loved our country so much that we were willing to invest in it's future. And never mind that the Republicans spend just as much as Democrats do, they just spend on adventures that won't lower governmental costs in the long run and add it onto the country's tab for the next administration to pay off.
Challenging a frame that is accepted as universal truth is not easy. Coming out and saying that government is the solution will be rejected by and large. But it's time to take some baby steps and start chipping away at these themes. The Bush administration gave us ample opportunity to do that, yet we seem afraid to point out what exactly caused their failures. And we cannot keep doing this, because we can never win if we are arguing withing the frame of right-wing dogma.
Left-wing narratives are popular with the public, this is why the right keeps stealing them. How quickly did they jump on the persecution bandwagon? How quickly did they re-invent themselves as a populist party? How quickly did they latch onto the value of Medicare and Social Security? How long have they taken the importance of "moral" values and twisted them to work within their own means? Right-wing psychological projection is so common these days that it's a constant source of humor. Pretty much everything that the left is accused of is something that the right is already doing or attempting to do. And perhaps it's time that we start pointing these things out, not for revenge, but for the simple fact that there are occasions when the liberal idea of government helps. There are occasions when it is beneficial to invest in our society. We have the evidence to back this up, so why not base our platforms on historical accuracy, rather then fantasy?
Support equal rights for the gay community and expose the Republicans preference for certain specific beliefs over others. Present a jobs bill with a populist slant and see how quickly the Republicans abandoned "real 'Muricans". Point out the success of liberal policies like Social Security and see how quickly the Republicans throw the AARP crown under the bus. Point out the value of helping those less fortunate in society and see how long it takes for the Republicans to show their sociopathic tendencies. And above all, point out how Republicans have been wrong, wrong, dead wrong about everything for the past decade, about the war, about deregulation, about tax cuts in a time of increased spending, about the very issue of what our nation stands for in the world (hint: not imperialism and torture) and start playing at their startling lack of consistency in their own messages.
Or, we can just keep playing within this frame, we can keep moving to the right, we can keep letting Republicans pummel us with conspiracy theories, we can keep presenting ourselves as weak and indecisive, we can keep stifling voices that promote actual change, and we can keep towing the line for the most privileged in our society.
If history is any indication, I'm sure that will work wonders for us in the next election.
Apparently so.
Oddly enough, I'm not that upset. Yes, it's a damn shame that the seat that Kennedy once held is going to someone who will (probably) help obstruct health care reform. Yes, it's a damn shame that I'll be forced to listen to crowing about how this special election shows that Republican policies are what the people want and that Democrats better act more Republican if they want to keep their seats. Yes, it's a damn shame how one state's special election will be portrayed as some all out mandate against health care reform.
But I'm a bit hopeful that this may be a wake-up call to the Democratic party. We can't blame Republicans for this one, this was an all out, all levels involved, complete fuck-up on behalf of the Democrats. And there really is no one reason why this election played out the way it did, you have a combination of a lazy campaign that took it's constituents for granted, you have an uneasy and angry populace that is less forgiving to anyone that reeks of old politics, and you have a very unmotivated liberal base. And perhaps now that the tiny insular Obama administration bubble (never thought I'd have to write a statement like that) is broken, they might start paying attention to, you know, the people that they are supposed to be serving. Here are some lessons that I would hope the Democrats can take from this:
Lesson One: Drop the Bi-Partisanship shtick, it hurts more then it helps.
The Republicans hate you and want you to fail. Why this isn't completely obvious at this point is beyond me. One might think (I'm thinking that this is what the White House is banking on) that eventually the Republicans can't help but come around, because of the negative image they are giving themselves with their obstructive tactics. But so far, we've yet to see this happen, no matter how many times the administration reaches out. Why? Because Republicans have absolutely nothing to lose from being obstructionist assholes. They actually gain from it.
The Republican image of the rough and tough gut-trusting cowboys softens the observation that they are acting like spoiled children when it comes to obstructing policy, if anything, it reinforces the notion that they are a strong, take no prisoners party. Add that to the recent attempt to paint themselves as populist, and you get a strong, take-no-prisoners party that will fight to the death to defend the little guy. So no, Republicans haven't taken any hits for their behavior, and they won't.
But Democrats will, because what are their options at that point? They can whine about the Republicans' tactics, but until they actually manage to call their bluff and make them filibuster (and for the love of fucking god, make them filibuster), the public doesn't see obstruction, they see whiny little Democratic babies crying about those big meanie Republicansm which fits in nicely with their pre-set image that Democrats are whiny little babies.
Secondly, they can appease and appease and appease, which is what they've been doing. Again, not only does this make them appear weak, but it screws all of us by giving us crappy, watered down bills. And they keep this ruse up, because god forbid, if they actually fought for something that Republicans don't like, such as the public option, the netroots might be happy with them, and they might be tainted as (gasp!) Liberal. Which as we know, is the opposite of bi-partisan (conservative, however, is it's synonym).
And not only does this have an effect on the public's perception of the two parties, it is actually hindering legislation as well. The idea that soon we would all hold hands and sing and pass everything in a quick and efficient manner once we got over our partisan hostility has fallen flat. It is actually complicating legislation. If it weren't for the bi-partisan fetish, health care could have been done quicker. If it weren't for the bi-partisan fetish, you wouldn't have to add amendments into the Health Care bill that alienate certain groups. If it weren't for the bi-partisan fetish, we would have had a stronger stimulus bill. And the time it takes is taxing as well, how long did you waste trying to achieve that magical filibuster-proof pony, spend courting Senators Snowe and Lieberman only to have them turn around and slap you in the face?
And you know what that time spent chasing that unicorn has achieved? A lack of action on other bills we need. Bills that also are necessary to help out an increasingly unemployed and angry constituency. The economy is still shit, and unemployment is still at 10%. This are very real hardships that people are dealing with, and they do not move to the side in people's minds merely because you show them how nice you are by kissing the asses of Republicans. Someone that is unemployed and struggling right now cares fuck all about how nice you are, I assure you.
The people did not want us to fall into another great depression. The people have no problem with the government helping out with unemployment. The people wanted Health Care reform at the onset, and, when it wasn't phrased as a push-poll, responded favorably to the idea of a public option. The people want their leaders to be, well, leaders. There's a reason Bush was so popular when all of his policies were not - he owned that shit with an in-your-face attitude and never waved in the face of criticism. The guy stuck to his principles and it was never disputed that he was in charge. So this idea that the Democrats should meekly abandon the goals that got them elected in the first place, abandon the promises they made to the nation, and appease the Republicans no matter how important the issue is for the country is ludicrous.
If the political landscape is forgiving to more moderate measures, fine. Be bi-partisan. But you cannot work with people that have indicated over and over again that they have no interest working with you. But go ahead, Charlie Brown, kick that football again. I'm sure Lucy won't pull it away this time.
Lesson Two: Find your goddamn voice. Here's a hint - it should be similar to the people's voice.
The public's approval of Health Care Reform has dropped considerably since last summer. I can cite two major reasons as to why this may be - first, you have the screaming teabaggers sending out catch phrase after catch phrase condemning it. And on the left, you have nothing but a massive pile of confusion as to what the Health Care bill actually is. It should never have gone down this way, as the catch phrase is not only easy, it was put out early and eagerly accepted by health care reform supporters: "No one in America should die because they can't afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick".
How much easier can it get? Yet Democrats sold this bill terribly. Part of it was when they buckled and sold out to the health industry. As they are Democrats, and they don't want to appear in bed with the lobbyists, much tricky language was used to hide this, and the goal of the bill became a bit foggy. I can't deny it's nice to have a political party that doesn't just all out lie about what the policy is (Healthy Forest Initiative, anyone?). But politics is made of soundbites, whether we like it or not. And the underlying goal of this bill was to prevent people from being dropped or denied. Stick with that, and the people will follow.
Perhaps you respect the people enough to try to explain things out to them rather then deal with soundbites. And that's a fine and noble approach. But your medium does not take that angle. Villagers want quick, simple, snappy, catchy little quotes to put on their news programs. This is what get's their audience's attention, and what gives them ratings. And if you don't provide them with a narrative that is simple enough, they will create their own, or borrow from the groups that are giving them a simple narrative - in this case, the Teabagging right.
Lesson Three: Respect your base
There's been a lot of infighting among moderates, liberals and progressives lately (okay, there always is, but it's been more vicious). Liberals and progressives are upset because they feel Obama hasn't fulfilled many of his campaign promises. The base in demoralized, and when they are so, they do things like claim to have no political home that represents them or or that they are sick and tired of politics as usual, and they stay home or send up a protest vote for your opponent. Liberals are excessive in this matter as they pride themselves on being above the normal wear and tear of politics and mentally individualistic. If you want their support, you need to cater to that stuff. No, it doesn't mean kill the health care bill because it isn't perfect. It doesn't mean using your administration for the sole goal of revenge for the past decade's shenanigans. But you have to stroke their egos a bit. This shit isn't that hard.
But Democrats seem to take liberal votes for granted. They've always held the opinion that these voters have no where else to go, so they will turn out every election to support them. They don't seem to understand that they must earn the votes of their constituents, they instead throw those constituents under the bus in favor of trying to earn the votes of those that will never, ever support them. Yes, Howard Dean's plan to strengthen the Democratic electorate by recruiting more conservative Democrats seemed to pay off at first glance, when Democrats won both houses and the executive branch. But now we are in a situation where bills that are put forth by Democrats are being derailed by the those same conservative Democrats, and only Democrats are taking the blame for their failures. Why should the Republicans even stick their neck out anymore, when they have congressmen like Bart Stupak, Ben Nelson, and Joe Lieberman to derail the Democratic agenda for them? So this strikes me as a pretty unproductive strategy. Things like Health Care reform are a pretty standard Democratic platform, yet we can't even get our shit together on that, and are alienating voters in the process. And as we've seen, the voters are tired of being taken for granted and are getting angry.
Look, I get that some liberals can irritate. I wish Jane Hamsher would shut the hell up as much as the next person. But the reason why Jane Hamshers exist as prominent voices is because they give you the base from which to start negotiations from. And you guys throw it away every. single. time. The public option was not the place on which to start debate. Single-Payer was. But that was never brought to the table, so instead you decided to compromise down from an existing compromise, because, why? Republicans might get angry if you first proposed Single-Payer? Have you not noticed that they just get angry no matter what you put on the table?
One warning that I've heard is that you can't cater too much to your base, because then you end up all insane like the Republicans currently are. This is true to an extent. But first off, Republicans seem to be doing just fine with their tea-baggers (when the alternative is big-government-corporate-crony Democrats, the populist wave of crazy seems not so crazy). They managed to dominate the airwaves and make themselves as a formidable opposition to Democratic policies. This will probably blow up in their faces in the long run. But when the right's base is catered to and the left's base shunned entirely, it has the effect of moving the discourse farther to the right. At this point, the debate is between the radical right and the moderates, liberal voices are left in the wilderness. And you cannot expect them to come home every few years after you've abandoned them.
Politicians have bought into the villiage narrative that the liberal base is unhinged and unreasonable, whereas the conservative base is legitimate and significant. And Democrats have helped push this narrative along, because they are terrified of being labeled as liberal - the backlash of the politics of the 60s has turned "liberal" into a dirty word. And as such, anyone that identifies with it or it's politics too closely are shunned by the Democratic party. Republicans, on the other hand, mainstream their crazy, they give them blow horns and soapboxes and a sweet-paying prime pundit spot on Fox News. What this leads to is an increase in conservative extremism in the mainstream and a decrease in liberal extremism. I should stress that this is not because there aren't crazy-ass liberals. There are. I've met them. But they will get no where near a major media outlet, because the party has purged them (and for good reason). Republicans, on the other hand, have felt no such pressure to do so.
Now the media has trouble with this. As they too fear the "liberal" label, they have taken on the practice of trying to present themselves as fair and balanced. And when you are dealing with crazy right-wingers and meek left-wingers, and the desperate need to treat both sides "equally", this creates an atmosphere of false equivalence. But the "left of the left" being pissed off about the lack of a public option is no where near marching on the capitol grounds because you want to keep the government out of your Medicare. Hating Bush for going into Iraq is nowhere near hating Obama because you think he has some secret socialist agenda. Wanting equal rights for American citizens is nowhere near claiming this country should be run in accordance with the bible. Expressing concern about excessive abuses of governmental authority is nowhere near quaking in fear that the brown people are going to steal our jobs/kill us all and need to be detained, tortured and bombed for our safety.
No one is asking Obama to join the Animal Liberation Front's next attempt at bombing out a animal-testing facility. But it probably wouldn't hurt to read Paul Krugman once in a while. Painting those that diverge from the center-left as extremists of the wingnut variety that must be avoided at all costs is merely playing into the narrative that the Republicans created decades ago to win elections. They have no plans to support you once you cast the liberals out, so by avoiding your base you have nothing to gain but a smaller voter pool. Cut it out.
Lesson Four: Stop listening to the goddamn villagers.
A quick survey of the major news sites this week finds that the prevailing meme out there is once again that the Democrats didn't appease the "center-right" leaning constituents enough, saying that this was a mandate on the existence of Health Care Reform, on those pesky whining leftists that keep picking on poor Obama for not doing what the country really wants him to do (be a Republican), on "Big Government" liberals, or on the "overspending" and "out-of-touch" Democrats. They even busted out Karl Rove, man of the people, on Fox to talk about how this is all a rebuke of liberal philosophy as a whole. Move more right, they urge. If you would just be more like Republ...er... "Moderates", the country will love you. We promise.
Except, that is the lesson the villagers send out no matter what happens. Perhaps it's time to face a solid fact: The village only represents the village. So as far as the general population goes, they really have no fucking clue as to what they are talking about. These are the guys that jumped on the Iraq war bandwagon. These are the guys that allowed Bush to get away with every civil rights violation because they felt it would tar their image if they actually pointed out how fucked up some of the post-9/11 polices were. These are the guys that stood in awe of Sarah Palin and touted her as a political revolution. These are the guys that loved McCain's barbecues too much to point out that he wasn't so much of a maverick then an self-serving, bitter old man. In short, these guys are idiots. They have been wrong, dead wrong, about pretty much everything they've "covered" as "news". But for the Democrats, no media cycle hissy fit is too small to address, no gossipy opinion columnist too petty to suck up to.
The media does not represent the people, they merely represent themselves, because they are narcissists that have created this fantasy that the world cannot survive without the input of their esteemed opinions. But the reality is that they are self-serving fools, so perhaps it's time to stop listening to them. The Republicans did a long time ago, and the result was the village falling all over themselves to prove they are worthy of Republicans attention. Not only does this in turn cause the Republicans to win pretty much every news cycle, it also boosts their populist credibility among everyone because if there's one thing people of all political stripes can agree on, is that everyone hates the goddamn villagers.
Lesson Five: Start challenging conservative dogma
I believe we live in a center-left nation. But our political discourse is argued in a center-right frame. Republicans are very effective at getting out their message, and as it has been left unchallenged for decades, those messages dominate every political discussion that we have.
A large problem with selling bills like the stimulus and health care reform is that you never challenged the under-lying assumption - that that things like heath-care reform and stimulus packages are necessary evils, government involvement is always bad, spending can only be harmful to the country. That is the problem with the mindset of this country, after decades of being told that government is the problem and worshiping at the alter of Reagonomics, it's become undisputed dogma. Never mind that the majority of Americans have no problem with increased spending for programs that will help them. Never mind that Social Security and Medicare are still very popular programs. Never mind that the truly great things in this country, those times that we look back on with a touch of teary nostalgia, happened because we, the people, loved our country so much that we were willing to invest in it's future. And never mind that the Republicans spend just as much as Democrats do, they just spend on adventures that won't lower governmental costs in the long run and add it onto the country's tab for the next administration to pay off.
Challenging a frame that is accepted as universal truth is not easy. Coming out and saying that government is the solution will be rejected by and large. But it's time to take some baby steps and start chipping away at these themes. The Bush administration gave us ample opportunity to do that, yet we seem afraid to point out what exactly caused their failures. And we cannot keep doing this, because we can never win if we are arguing withing the frame of right-wing dogma.
Left-wing narratives are popular with the public, this is why the right keeps stealing them. How quickly did they jump on the persecution bandwagon? How quickly did they re-invent themselves as a populist party? How quickly did they latch onto the value of Medicare and Social Security? How long have they taken the importance of "moral" values and twisted them to work within their own means? Right-wing psychological projection is so common these days that it's a constant source of humor. Pretty much everything that the left is accused of is something that the right is already doing or attempting to do. And perhaps it's time that we start pointing these things out, not for revenge, but for the simple fact that there are occasions when the liberal idea of government helps. There are occasions when it is beneficial to invest in our society. We have the evidence to back this up, so why not base our platforms on historical accuracy, rather then fantasy?
Support equal rights for the gay community and expose the Republicans preference for certain specific beliefs over others. Present a jobs bill with a populist slant and see how quickly the Republicans abandoned "real 'Muricans". Point out the success of liberal policies like Social Security and see how quickly the Republicans throw the AARP crown under the bus. Point out the value of helping those less fortunate in society and see how long it takes for the Republicans to show their sociopathic tendencies. And above all, point out how Republicans have been wrong, wrong, dead wrong about everything for the past decade, about the war, about deregulation, about tax cuts in a time of increased spending, about the very issue of what our nation stands for in the world (hint: not imperialism and torture) and start playing at their startling lack of consistency in their own messages.
Or, we can just keep playing within this frame, we can keep moving to the right, we can keep letting Republicans pummel us with conspiracy theories, we can keep presenting ourselves as weak and indecisive, we can keep stifling voices that promote actual change, and we can keep towing the line for the most privileged in our society.
If history is any indication, I'm sure that will work wonders for us in the next election.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
A brief lesson in right-wing psychological projection
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Fin.
Republicans are crowding the blogosphere with fears that a close election could trigger the same type of recount process that saw former GOP Sen. Norm Coleman's lead over then-challenger Al Franken steadily evaporate in Minnesota.
"Actual vote stealing will occur" on Tuesday, Fund told Newsmax. But he expects it will be reduced "because ACORN is discredited and adrift and there are serious anti-fraud efforts being mounted."
Exhibit B:
A software engineer in Cambridge says he was handed a fishy ballot at the polling station in a local firehouse — it already had the bubble next to Scott Brown's name filled in.
A second voter — Julia Volynskaya, a 34-year-old social worker from Brighton — is now reporting the same experience.
Fin.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Eating their own
Interesting Op/Ed in the New York Times this weekend regarding the growing scam that is the Tea Party populist movements:
I've always amused myself by holding the opinion that most right-wing for-profit-pundits are former liberal elitists that just got fed up with trying to fight the wingnut hype machine and decided to focus on their own finances instead. One can only bang your head up against the willful ignorance and hypocrisy so may times before the cynicism takes over you and you decided to just use their flaws for your own benefit instead. We will never be free of the idealogical zealots, their audience will never see the forest for the trees, so why not just accept that fate and turn it into profit for yourself instead?
I just say so because I've been jokingly tempted many times myself to reinvent myself as a wingnut pundit, for the sole reason that I'd be good at it. I know what makes them tick. I know where to hit them (or actually, hit their opponents) in a manner that is pleasing to them, and could adapt depending on the target. I know they are desperate for younger voices, and I know they love individuals willing to hate on their respective demographic (if the recent right-wing sites I read are any indication, only way you can get a gig as a female or minority pundit is to dogpile on women and minorities constantly). I know all their talking points and soundbytes. I know how to cater to the media ego at large to get those things heard in the next news cycle. And I also know how the public at large is often not paying attention to the details so I can pretty much get away with spewing whatever bullshit I feel like, so long as I identify with the right.
It would be so easy (and profitable!) to play that part. The main difficulty I would have is adopting the "Fuck you, I got mine" mentality that is often necessary when you sell your integrity up the river and sell out those that are hurt by you. So far, I couldn't rid myself of my nagging little conscious enough to do that. And maybe that's something you can never shake. But seriously, give me a few more years dealing with this horrible joke of what passes for political discourse in our country and I might be game.
But Palin and Steele represent a different sort of beast in the sense that they seem to believe their own dogma on a certain level (as in, I think they really do believe they are populist heroes), but yet are still using it to swindle their idealogical peers. I suppose it remains consistent in the larger movement conservative theme, it's been a cynical play on the people's sensitivities from the get go, when the first cries of "Keep the government out of my Medicare" were heard across DC. And they are by no means first to do so, I'd say they've been taking their cues from a lot of the pseudo-religious spokespeople that came before them, who quickly learned how to harness their constituents leanings to make a quick buck. But still, it's a bit baffling how they can balance both the sincere and the cynical in their own minds. I'd love to know what is actually going on inside their heads when they play within this large contradiction they have created for themselves, if anything does.
Steele is representative of a fascinating but little noted development on the right: the rise of buckrakers who are exploiting the party's anarchic confusion and divisions to cash in for their own private gain. In this cause, Steele is emulating no one if not Sarah Palin, whose hunger for celebrity and money outstrips even his own. As many suspected at the time, her 2008 campaign wardrobe, like the doomed campaign itself, was just a preview of coming attractions: she would surely dump the bother of serving as Alaska's besieged governor for a lucrative star turn on Fox News. Last week she made it official.Both Steele and Palin claim to be devotees of the tea party movement. "I'm a tea partier, I'm a town-haller, I'm a grass-roots-er" is how Steele put it in a recent radio interview, wet-kissing a market he hopes will buy his book. Palin has far more grandiose ambitions. She recently signed on as a speaker for the first Tea Party Convention, scheduled next month in Nashville — even though she had turned down a speaking invitation from the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, the traditional meet-and-greet for the right. The conservative conference doesn't pay. The Tea Party Convention does. A blogger at Nashville Scene reported that Palin's price for the event was $120,000.
The entire Tea Party Convention is a profit-seeking affair charging $560 a ticket — plus the cost of a room at the Opryland Hotel. Among the convention's eight listed sponsors is Tea Party Emporium, which gives as its contact address 444 Madison Avenue in New York, also home to the high-fashion brand Burberry. This emporium's Web site offers a bejeweled tea bag at $89.99 for those furious at "a government hell bent on the largest redistribution of wealth in history." This is almost as shameless as Glenn Beck, whose own tea party profiteering has included hawking gold coins merchandised by a sponsor of his radio show.
I've always amused myself by holding the opinion that most right-wing for-profit-pundits are former liberal elitists that just got fed up with trying to fight the wingnut hype machine and decided to focus on their own finances instead. One can only bang your head up against the willful ignorance and hypocrisy so may times before the cynicism takes over you and you decided to just use their flaws for your own benefit instead. We will never be free of the idealogical zealots, their audience will never see the forest for the trees, so why not just accept that fate and turn it into profit for yourself instead?
I just say so because I've been jokingly tempted many times myself to reinvent myself as a wingnut pundit, for the sole reason that I'd be good at it. I know what makes them tick. I know where to hit them (or actually, hit their opponents) in a manner that is pleasing to them, and could adapt depending on the target. I know they are desperate for younger voices, and I know they love individuals willing to hate on their respective demographic (if the recent right-wing sites I read are any indication, only way you can get a gig as a female or minority pundit is to dogpile on women and minorities constantly). I know all their talking points and soundbytes. I know how to cater to the media ego at large to get those things heard in the next news cycle. And I also know how the public at large is often not paying attention to the details so I can pretty much get away with spewing whatever bullshit I feel like, so long as I identify with the right.
It would be so easy (and profitable!) to play that part. The main difficulty I would have is adopting the "Fuck you, I got mine" mentality that is often necessary when you sell your integrity up the river and sell out those that are hurt by you. So far, I couldn't rid myself of my nagging little conscious enough to do that. And maybe that's something you can never shake. But seriously, give me a few more years dealing with this horrible joke of what passes for political discourse in our country and I might be game.
But Palin and Steele represent a different sort of beast in the sense that they seem to believe their own dogma on a certain level (as in, I think they really do believe they are populist heroes), but yet are still using it to swindle their idealogical peers. I suppose it remains consistent in the larger movement conservative theme, it's been a cynical play on the people's sensitivities from the get go, when the first cries of "Keep the government out of my Medicare" were heard across DC. And they are by no means first to do so, I'd say they've been taking their cues from a lot of the pseudo-religious spokespeople that came before them, who quickly learned how to harness their constituents leanings to make a quick buck. But still, it's a bit baffling how they can balance both the sincere and the cynical in their own minds. I'd love to know what is actually going on inside their heads when they play within this large contradiction they have created for themselves, if anything does.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Open Season
Keep an eye on this one. The defendant in the George Tiller murder case will be allowed to attempt to argue down to a voluntary manslaughter charge, citing his belief that he was trying to save unborn babies. If sucessful, it would lessen the sentence from life to about five years. I'm really hoping that the judge is doing so in order to make a precedent at how wrongheaded this defense it is, which he might be, as he had previously ruled that the defense was not to be used in court. But if not, it's pretty irresponsible.
It will have some dire effects for those that provide abortion services. Five years is nothing compared to what some of these anti-choice fundamentalists would face to "protect (or let's be more realistic, "avenge") the unborn. You already have Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder fully prepared to accept life in prison or death, much like suicide bombers for Islam, they see themselves as martyrs to their faith. If this turns out to be a successful justification, it goes without saying that we are going to see many more attacks on abortion providers. Find salvation at the low cost of half a decade? Sounds like a deal to me.
I worry about it popping up in other defenses as well. You could argue that a woman walking up to a clinic could be fair game. A woman stating to her partner that she is going to end the pregnancy would be fair game. And with some easily placed calls or booked appointments, it might not matter if abortion was being seriously considered. Homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant women, the whole "she was on her way to kill my child" is going to be an awesome defense for abusers.
Regardless of the outcome, it has to be a pretty big moral blow to some of these abortion providers that it's even being considered, particularly the ones that are constantly under siege. I've always held much respect for providers like Drs Carhart and Hern, and the late Dr. Tiller. It has to be rough to be ostracized for doing what is, in the end, the right thing. Although anyone that actually pays attention to the reality of the need for these services can see why the existence of these men are necessary, the majority does not pay attention to the need (these are the folks that assume abortion is a want and not a need), or rejects it outright (your anti-choicers). And there just isn't much help, the level of harassment that these providers endure is oddly condoned because the topic is so "controversial". Anti-choice extremists have been pretty sucessful at chasing people out of this field, and now not only does one have to deal with the reality that they could be shot in the back of the head at any moment, they have to deal with the idea that our court system may give justification for doing so. It would be so easy for these providers to just turn away and let it be someone else's problem ( like the majority of the country does), you are not only putting yourself in danger, you put your family and friends in danger. It always amazes me that they don't. But I think we'll see less and less of them as time goes on.
''This judge has basically announced a death sentence for all of us who help women,'' said Dr. Warren Hern of Boulder, Colo., a longtime friend of Tiller who also performs late-term abortions. ''That is the effect of the ruling.''
It will have some dire effects for those that provide abortion services. Five years is nothing compared to what some of these anti-choice fundamentalists would face to "protect (or let's be more realistic, "avenge") the unborn. You already have Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder fully prepared to accept life in prison or death, much like suicide bombers for Islam, they see themselves as martyrs to their faith. If this turns out to be a successful justification, it goes without saying that we are going to see many more attacks on abortion providers. Find salvation at the low cost of half a decade? Sounds like a deal to me.
I worry about it popping up in other defenses as well. You could argue that a woman walking up to a clinic could be fair game. A woman stating to her partner that she is going to end the pregnancy would be fair game. And with some easily placed calls or booked appointments, it might not matter if abortion was being seriously considered. Homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant women, the whole "she was on her way to kill my child" is going to be an awesome defense for abusers.
Regardless of the outcome, it has to be a pretty big moral blow to some of these abortion providers that it's even being considered, particularly the ones that are constantly under siege. I've always held much respect for providers like Drs Carhart and Hern, and the late Dr. Tiller. It has to be rough to be ostracized for doing what is, in the end, the right thing. Although anyone that actually pays attention to the reality of the need for these services can see why the existence of these men are necessary, the majority does not pay attention to the need (these are the folks that assume abortion is a want and not a need), or rejects it outright (your anti-choicers). And there just isn't much help, the level of harassment that these providers endure is oddly condoned because the topic is so "controversial". Anti-choice extremists have been pretty sucessful at chasing people out of this field, and now not only does one have to deal with the reality that they could be shot in the back of the head at any moment, they have to deal with the idea that our court system may give justification for doing so. It would be so easy for these providers to just turn away and let it be someone else's problem ( like the majority of the country does), you are not only putting yourself in danger, you put your family and friends in danger. It always amazes me that they don't. But I think we'll see less and less of them as time goes on.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Saturday Mid-Morning Link Dump
Locals are are going nuts about a story of Minneapolis cop that committed excessively numerous armed robberies, citing it as more police corruption. I'm not really one to give the MPD a pass on this matter, but this seems to be overkill. The guy worked for them for three years, and doesn't appear to have used his status as an officer in the robberies. I'm more concerned about the ones that do, I suppose.
RNC 8 judge rules that evidence obtained through a warrantless search is admissible in court. We can't let a little annoying thing like the Forth Amendment get in the way of punching some hippies now, can we? Maybe instead of freaking out over one cop's love of armed robbery we should pay some attention to a court system that encourages and rewards system-wide abuse by authority instead?
Via Every Saturday Morning, a new Jesus-approved tactic for abortion clinic protesters - wearing vests similar to the vests that the clinic escorts wear in order to deceive clients coming to the clinic. Do I need to put my boilerplate response here at this point? Sure, why not. I'll never understand why a cause that touts itself as so noble and righteous feels such a strong need to lie to and deceive women.
According to Rudy 9iu11ani, Bush never had any terrorists attacks on his watch, only Obama has. As charming as watching him grudgingly admit that 9/11 actually happened was, the real kicker is his "Well, it might not have been a Muslim so it didn't count" theory on what defines real terrorism.
Well, I'm glad I'm not the only bra curmudgeon. I'm sorry, but I just can't buy into this whole "Post your bra color to raise awareness for breast cancer" trend on Facebook lately. You aren't posting your bra color to raise any awareness, you are posting it to titillate your audience. Which is fine, really, I'm a big fan of titillating my audience. Just stop dressing it up in some sympathetic cause to justify it, please? Via Tracy Clark-Flory over at Broadsheet, who aptly sums it up:
TPM notices that Michelle Bachmann hasn't been hating on the census lately, and theorizes why that may be. You know, as much as I hate to lose a seat in the house, I can't really cry over losing a seat held by the Tea-Bagger's Queen. Although I was curious how she would do next election, if her opponents advisers went with my "Just play clips of Michelle acting all batshit crazy for every campaign ad" plan.
Happy Saturday!
RNC 8 judge rules that evidence obtained through a warrantless search is admissible in court. We can't let a little annoying thing like the Forth Amendment get in the way of punching some hippies now, can we? Maybe instead of freaking out over one cop's love of armed robbery we should pay some attention to a court system that encourages and rewards system-wide abuse by authority instead?
Via Every Saturday Morning, a new Jesus-approved tactic for abortion clinic protesters - wearing vests similar to the vests that the clinic escorts wear in order to deceive clients coming to the clinic. Do I need to put my boilerplate response here at this point? Sure, why not. I'll never understand why a cause that touts itself as so noble and righteous feels such a strong need to lie to and deceive women.
According to Rudy 9iu11ani, Bush never had any terrorists attacks on his watch, only Obama has. As charming as watching him grudgingly admit that 9/11 actually happened was, the real kicker is his "Well, it might not have been a Muslim so it didn't count" theory on what defines real terrorism.
Well, I'm glad I'm not the only bra curmudgeon. I'm sorry, but I just can't buy into this whole "Post your bra color to raise awareness for breast cancer" trend on Facebook lately. You aren't posting your bra color to raise any awareness, you are posting it to titillate your audience. Which is fine, really, I'm a big fan of titillating my audience. Just stop dressing it up in some sympathetic cause to justify it, please? Via Tracy Clark-Flory over at Broadsheet, who aptly sums it up:
Hey, breast cancer exists and I'm wearing a bra! Or, seeing as the status updates mention nothing about disease, perhaps it translates to the more succinct: Breasts exist! Either which way, it isn't news to the vast majority of us.
TPM notices that Michelle Bachmann hasn't been hating on the census lately, and theorizes why that may be. You know, as much as I hate to lose a seat in the house, I can't really cry over losing a seat held by the Tea-Bagger's Queen. Although I was curious how she would do next election, if her opponents advisers went with my "Just play clips of Michelle acting all batshit crazy for every campaign ad" plan.
Happy Saturday!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)