The economy is terrible. But this is a major improvement over what it was when bush left office. There is simply no accurate term to define the state of the economy in December 2008, maybe fall of Rome or black death could come close. In bizzaro world however, time began in January 2009 though and any attempt by reality-based commentators to point out that republicans blamed the first bush 43 recession (and every other calamity) on President Clinton is met with eyerolls from the tea bag crowd. Their excuses never really stick in anyone's mind, mostly because the same self-victimization/bullying/lying strategies are used any time these trolls need to explain something away and try to "revise" history. "Just keep lying, eventually they'll see things our way." Unlike hysterical humans in the present though, historical humans leave a trail. Just use a condescending tone and pretend everybody knows that 2+2=5 and the objectors will wander off to a Starbucks. If you never let reality intrude, this big lie formula is the gift that keeps on giving.
So what happens when they slip up and a little reality does enter the conversation? Steve K at Salon.com wrote a bit on this inconvenient event today, while his usual hack job leaves holes big enough to drive a supertanker through, the sliver of sunlight is worth checking out.
Basically, Romney's mole people have been pulling his strings to say "Obama bad, Obama not doing anything about it" for every issue. Let's leave aside republican obstructionism for a moment and state flat out that no, Obama hasn't done nearly enough to change the permanent depression faced by the 99%. "It’s a simple game plan: Take whatever issue is on the table, connect it to the economy, and blame Obama for not fixing it. Rinse and repeat." Thanks Kornacki, you're worth every penny for that analysis.
But if the president is presiding over an economy that voters believe is improving, the magic vanishes. Which explains the awkwardness the Romney campaign faced this morning, when the most encouraging jobs report of Obama’s presidency was released. With a net increase of 243,000 jobs in January, the unemployment rate is now down to 8.3 percent, marking the fifth straight month it fell and bringing it to its lowest level since Obama’s first full month in office.
Faced with such obviously good economic news, the Romney team took its time responding, first churning out a press release on an unrelated topic (“President Obama’s attack on religious liberty”) then finally putting out a statement that read in part: “We welcome the fact that jobs were created and unemployment declined. Unfortunately, these numbers cannot hide the fact that President Obama’s policies have prevented a true economic recovery. We can do better.” A series of negative economic statistics then followed.
Besides the acknowledgement that “jobs were created,” the statement was no different than anything Romney has been saying for the entire campaign. But juxtaposed against the big news of the morning, it read as petty, and almost absurdly comical. If — and, to be clear, it’s a very big if — the good economic news continues in the months ahead, Romney’s rhetoric will only fall flatter.
Clearly, Leviathan got wired crossed somewhere. MMFA reported that the right wing water carriers stayed on message, but Romney's people let a squeaker out in the crowded elevator. Though I'm sure it will get cleaned up in the spin cycle. For bizzaro world to work, THE PUPPETEER MUST NEVER ADMIT HE DOESN'T CONTROL ALL THE STRINGS. The passive voice "jobs were created" is really puzzling, why did they spend all that time prattling on about "job-creators and their onerous taxes" if you attribute job growth to nature?
So what is a gloomy historian to do? My first thought was that "holy cow, in spite of everything the business cycle still exists." It seemed for a moment that jobs were actually being created despite the best efforts of the "job creators." After all, for a couple years it looked like the fortune 500 finally and for all time had the economy locked down. DC was open for business, even if the Ds were superficially in charge, and handouts for billionaires were forthcoming aplenty with borrowed money. Profits were stratospheric and the astroturf pitchforks were aimed at... teachers. Huh? Government spending is the problem, unemployment insurance makes people lazy and not yet desperate enough to sell themselves into slavery, and the financial collapse was the fault of unions. "Look at all these redneck beerbellies with tea bags on their silly costumes, it must be how the whole country feels, maybe I just don't get it."
Back to the real world. Coincidentally, the water carriers have had no trouble remaining in lockstep on this aspect of bizzaro world. The emergence of OWS, a movement that may be disorganized but at least they have their pitchforks pointed in the right direction, has the scaredy-cats going into paroxysms of horror. Evidenced by the massive misinformation campaign (no, they really aren't all pooping on cop cars) and intense police brutality. What if it is not enough?
If I am to maintain my rep as the gloomiest member of OAH this situation calls for some heavier speculation. It came to me as I recalled how gas prices magically went down just in time for election day the last few times around. What if, and I am simply trying to place myself in the 1%'s sinister shoes for a moment, the positive economic news is just a concession to defuse all the real anger out there? If we employ a few ringleaders, the rest of the serfs will simply melt away. The right-wing noise machine can drown out any residuals.
Alternatively, these positive jobs numbers could just be a way of raising expectations before crushing them again. Marlin fishing. Let the monster run after you've hooked him so he's all tired out before you pull him in. So many OWS protestors have a protrusion of barbed steel somewhere, bad health, credit cards, underwater mortgage, student loans on their final deferral. Sometimes the angler lets you run a bit; feel a bit of confidence that this time the job is real, stable, and long-term; before crushing your head agains the rocks. Repeat this cycle long enough and we'll be begging to sell ourselves into slavery.
At least I can laugh at how clueless Romney and his minions are today.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Saturday, February 4, 2012
"The Cold War's over, it was all a mirage."
Jello Biafra spoke those words on his seminal "Die for oil, sucker" spoken word piece. Like many things he said back then, a response to the 1991 Gulf War, it is more poignant today then when he first said it. One of the many conventional wisdom sayings of the Cold War era was that "politics stops at the water's edge" or that foreign policy was nonpartisan, and Democrats and responsible Republicans agreed on the basic idea that communism was a threat that needed to be confronted. They may disagree over strategy and tactics, containment versus rollback and so on, but national security was an issue that needed to be taken seriously and not a partisan club to thump your opponents.
But like all sayings and slogans, bipartisan foreign policy was something that sounds good but is more of an aspiration than a rule. In relative terms though, especially compared to years before and after the Cold War, the saying did hold up fairly well. It was only during times of crisis, and usually by inexperienced, opportunistic, or generally psychopathic politicians that the long knives came out. JFK's "missile gap," and refusal to condemn Joe McCarthy was somewhat due to the first, mostly to the second, but certainly not the third. McCarthy's reign of terror leaned on the third heavily, but he was mostly a drunken bully who resembled the first two as well.
It is appropro that Matt Duss, policy analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, dragged ole tailgunner joe in to introduce our latest "stab in the back" refutation of grown-up politics aspiring to live up to bipartisan foreign policy. "Who lost China?" is certainly a good comparison, but Duss neglects the more poigant comparison that still colors what passes for political debate in America, namely the aftermath of Vietnam.
Iraq's legacy is likely to have less real impact than China, but more than Vietnam. It may even show signs of undeniable reality that can pull goldfish bowl-dwelling teabags out from their world of make believe, or at least the more sober members of the republican establishment.We have heard an awful lot about this fabled establishment lately. It would be an incredible coup at this point to get some of the clowns in high places to realize the limits of American military power. At the very least, they would have to make a choice. The free ride is over. You can pursue the unadulterated tax cuts and hollowing out the economy course, or you can pursue the imperialist perogative, but not both. A decade of massive deficits has all but ensured this. Eventually you reach the limit of social program spending cuts that the public will stand, and raising taxes on the vestiges of middle-class America won't go over very well, nor would it raise enough revenue to expand the empire.
Excuse the digression. There are some superficial similarities between Iraq and Vietnam. I like to think I am a good enough historian to avoid bad generalizations though. After all, Iraq was engineered by very smart, if short-sighted and evil, draft-dodgers to avoid the pitfalls of Vietnam. That is another story however. Vietnam's legacy in public consciousness and political calculation is the relevant comparison here.
While in the 1970s there was a generalized warweariness that restrained politicians from more open-ended military adventures. Concurrently, there was an underground feeling among many that Vietnam could have been won and this manifested itself most openly in the slew of "revenge" films in the 1980s such as "uncommon valor," "missing in action," and "rambo: first blood part II." It was evidence of the enduring power of nationalism in certain parts of the populace. In Vietnam as in Iraq it was a minority that actively opposed war. Much ink has been spilled to this day for the self-interest involved in Vietnam protestors, which leads into accusations of cowardice and anti-Americanism in the "stab in the back crowd." Iraq was carefully engineered with that in mind, to keep as few people as possible from fearing the return of the draft and all it entails for loss of personal liberty. Actually, given population increases, the number of people directly affected by the war was not that much smaller than during Vietnam, but the perception that the evil king would yank you out of your personal life to fight for his oil was much lower. Accusations of cowardice and anti-Americanism were less relevant but they were joined by the lovely and classy accusation of sympathizing with terrorists.
The strength of this stab in the back faction was shown during the 2004 election where draft-dodging bush was shielded by tapping into the perception of betrayal by John Kerry. It was incredibly silly but is evidence of how complex the myth is and how much it endures. Duss points out that so far, the myth hasn't gained much traction in the larger electorate. That may change, however, as the propagandists continue to cement the idea that Iraq was won. It may take a generation, but if there is money in keeping the nationalist/imperialist myth alive you know it will continue until the worm turns again.
To close the circle, I did not mean to imply that the Cold War wasn't real, or that there wasn't a threat to freedom presented by Communism. Just that communism was a convenient excuse to justify an imperialist agenda that long predates the US. The war in Iraq is evidence that overseas interventionism and using foreign policy to bash liberals outlived the Cold War.
But like all sayings and slogans, bipartisan foreign policy was something that sounds good but is more of an aspiration than a rule. In relative terms though, especially compared to years before and after the Cold War, the saying did hold up fairly well. It was only during times of crisis, and usually by inexperienced, opportunistic, or generally psychopathic politicians that the long knives came out. JFK's "missile gap," and refusal to condemn Joe McCarthy was somewhat due to the first, mostly to the second, but certainly not the third. McCarthy's reign of terror leaned on the third heavily, but he was mostly a drunken bully who resembled the first two as well.
It is appropro that Matt Duss, policy analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, dragged ole tailgunner joe in to introduce our latest "stab in the back" refutation of grown-up politics aspiring to live up to bipartisan foreign policy. "Who lost China?" is certainly a good comparison, but Duss neglects the more poigant comparison that still colors what passes for political debate in America, namely the aftermath of Vietnam.
Iraq's legacy is likely to have less real impact than China, but more than Vietnam. It may even show signs of undeniable reality that can pull goldfish bowl-dwelling teabags out from their world of make believe, or at least the more sober members of the republican establishment.We have heard an awful lot about this fabled establishment lately. It would be an incredible coup at this point to get some of the clowns in high places to realize the limits of American military power. At the very least, they would have to make a choice. The free ride is over. You can pursue the unadulterated tax cuts and hollowing out the economy course, or you can pursue the imperialist perogative, but not both. A decade of massive deficits has all but ensured this. Eventually you reach the limit of social program spending cuts that the public will stand, and raising taxes on the vestiges of middle-class America won't go over very well, nor would it raise enough revenue to expand the empire.
Excuse the digression. There are some superficial similarities between Iraq and Vietnam. I like to think I am a good enough historian to avoid bad generalizations though. After all, Iraq was engineered by very smart, if short-sighted and evil, draft-dodgers to avoid the pitfalls of Vietnam. That is another story however. Vietnam's legacy in public consciousness and political calculation is the relevant comparison here.
While in the 1970s there was a generalized warweariness that restrained politicians from more open-ended military adventures. Concurrently, there was an underground feeling among many that Vietnam could have been won and this manifested itself most openly in the slew of "revenge" films in the 1980s such as "uncommon valor," "missing in action," and "rambo: first blood part II." It was evidence of the enduring power of nationalism in certain parts of the populace. In Vietnam as in Iraq it was a minority that actively opposed war. Much ink has been spilled to this day for the self-interest involved in Vietnam protestors, which leads into accusations of cowardice and anti-Americanism in the "stab in the back crowd." Iraq was carefully engineered with that in mind, to keep as few people as possible from fearing the return of the draft and all it entails for loss of personal liberty. Actually, given population increases, the number of people directly affected by the war was not that much smaller than during Vietnam, but the perception that the evil king would yank you out of your personal life to fight for his oil was much lower. Accusations of cowardice and anti-Americanism were less relevant but they were joined by the lovely and classy accusation of sympathizing with terrorists.
The strength of this stab in the back faction was shown during the 2004 election where draft-dodging bush was shielded by tapping into the perception of betrayal by John Kerry. It was incredibly silly but is evidence of how complex the myth is and how much it endures. Duss points out that so far, the myth hasn't gained much traction in the larger electorate. That may change, however, as the propagandists continue to cement the idea that Iraq was won. It may take a generation, but if there is money in keeping the nationalist/imperialist myth alive you know it will continue until the worm turns again.
To close the circle, I did not mean to imply that the Cold War wasn't real, or that there wasn't a threat to freedom presented by Communism. Just that communism was a convenient excuse to justify an imperialist agenda that long predates the US. The war in Iraq is evidence that overseas interventionism and using foreign policy to bash liberals outlived the Cold War.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
My how things change. When Will Rogers said those words above nearly ninety years ago the times really were not so different from today. There was an interregnum with the New Deal until the 1970s where, disorganized or not, Democrats at least had a purpose and were able to get elected, write laws, and tried to address problems facing the country. They were so effective that when Republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon were president they operated much the same way to defend the mish-mash hybrid system of public programs and regulated but still largely free enterprize that made the US a great and relatively just society. Regular working people were able to see the fits and tantrums thrown by business for what they were, a simple case of political "delirium tremems" as the historian Arthur Schlesinger called them. And when reforms proved not to destroy capitalism but make it more humane, the wailers who screamed that the sky was falling were ridiculed and dismissed as the crackpots they were.
So what happened? Why is the US back to being ruled by a business oligarchy exclusively and a good deal of the electorate actually believes the wails of that oligarchy's spokespeople? Is it simply the effectiveness of their propaganda? The breakdown of social bonds that used to reinforce common feelings of mutuality and support? Racial and ethnic tensions? The acceleration and increasing complexity of everyday life? Or just the lack of any organized, genuine resistance from an opposition party?
The Democrats, even when in power, for most of my lifetime have been part of the problem. Politics in America have moved on from the divisive social questions of the 1960s, yet that is the extent of issues and contention in our politics. So much energy is poured into simply defending the progress made for civil rights, women's rights, and so on that crucial economic questions just keep getting glossed over. And regular people on the right are continuously fighting the ghost of Lyndon Johnson.
So here we are again in our quaddrenial circus show. At least there is some entertainment on the republican side this year. The primaries are actually kind of interesting now that most states are awarding delegates proportionately. The longer they fight the better. On the Democratic side, the lines seem to be drawn between lukewarm support for President Obama and outright bitter hatred of him.
Bob Cesca wrote a great plea for compromise and tentative unity in the party that kind of evokes Rodgers, though I don't think Cesca can work a lasso as well.
Cesca opens by writing: "There comes a time during just about every general election cycle when a faction of progressive Democratic voters begin to harrumph and gripe about the two party system. Specifically, the following remark jumps back into popular discourse: 'we're choosing between the lesser of two evils.'" Yes, but if we could all just step back for a second and use a little reason. Who dumped who first, and does it really matter? Did Obama use and abuse the hopes of liberal activists to get into office, then toss them under the bus at the first opportunity? Did the activists simply project what they wanted to see on Obama, when he was a spineless capitulator and risk-averse wimp all along? I guess who shot first is not that important and probably would have splintered the elected from the electors in any case. Cesca argues that it is frustration with the two-party system that leads some liberals to kick out the support poles from the "big tent." Historically, he's right. No one was really happy with the scattershot reforms of FDR at the time, nor with LBJ's Great Society. It is only later, when those reforms become conservative tradition do people forget that they opposed the imperfect solutions.
"Whenever the Republicans are in charge, progressives unite to defeat and replace the Republican leadership with Democrats. But when the Democrats are in charge, progressives have a tendency to hypnotically lapse into contrarian, too-hip-for-the-room ambivalence, apathy and an 'everyone is evil' defeatism. Thus, support for Democratic Leader X is weakened -- often with disastrous consequences, the least tragic of which being a reemergence of the previously ousted Republican leadership."
Boy, if that isn't the truth. Circular firing squad comes to mind. Perfect being the enemy of the good. The sense of betrayal is particularly strong this time around, there was a strong feeling that more could have been done. After all, strong progressive moves would have simply been reversing the grosser excesses of eight years of bush [string of expletives deleted]. At this rate America will be stuck in her new gilded age for a long, long time. To say nothing of actually moving forward with progress.
Cesca recalls how Ross Perot's third party bid gave Clinton an electoral victory but not a mandate. It is difficult to say what would have happened in a strictly two way race but Perot, as Cesca advises all political activists, could have had greater influence on the inside. I remember some of the 1992 election, but mostly I remember my Dad lamenting how the Democrats were no longer the party of the working man. It was kind of a shock because he rarely talked about politics. So when 2000 came along and I was finally able to participate, that was my frame of reference and nothing during the Clinton years changed my mind.
Eight years of fraud, sabotage, eye-popping deficits, wars of aggression, corruption beyond measure later and my overarching goal now to never let that happen again. Nader may have wrote about how Democrats do not have a monopoly on progressive votes. To paraphrase, he said he "wasn't stealing votes, they weren't the Democrats' property." It is pretty easy to see how a young man could believe in a magic bullet to fix things overnight. Even if little has changed for the better since then. After all the hubbub of election entertainment, the act of voting is fairly painless. So, regardless of the perceived betrayal, I can do that little thing for the President. It is proportionately the same effort he has made on behalf of all of us. If a gloomy bum like me can make that decision ten months before election day and now have all that time to work on local stuff, can't you?
So what happened? Why is the US back to being ruled by a business oligarchy exclusively and a good deal of the electorate actually believes the wails of that oligarchy's spokespeople? Is it simply the effectiveness of their propaganda? The breakdown of social bonds that used to reinforce common feelings of mutuality and support? Racial and ethnic tensions? The acceleration and increasing complexity of everyday life? Or just the lack of any organized, genuine resistance from an opposition party?
The Democrats, even when in power, for most of my lifetime have been part of the problem. Politics in America have moved on from the divisive social questions of the 1960s, yet that is the extent of issues and contention in our politics. So much energy is poured into simply defending the progress made for civil rights, women's rights, and so on that crucial economic questions just keep getting glossed over. And regular people on the right are continuously fighting the ghost of Lyndon Johnson.
So here we are again in our quaddrenial circus show. At least there is some entertainment on the republican side this year. The primaries are actually kind of interesting now that most states are awarding delegates proportionately. The longer they fight the better. On the Democratic side, the lines seem to be drawn between lukewarm support for President Obama and outright bitter hatred of him.
Bob Cesca wrote a great plea for compromise and tentative unity in the party that kind of evokes Rodgers, though I don't think Cesca can work a lasso as well.
Cesca opens by writing: "There comes a time during just about every general election cycle when a faction of progressive Democratic voters begin to harrumph and gripe about the two party system. Specifically, the following remark jumps back into popular discourse: 'we're choosing between the lesser of two evils.'" Yes, but if we could all just step back for a second and use a little reason. Who dumped who first, and does it really matter? Did Obama use and abuse the hopes of liberal activists to get into office, then toss them under the bus at the first opportunity? Did the activists simply project what they wanted to see on Obama, when he was a spineless capitulator and risk-averse wimp all along? I guess who shot first is not that important and probably would have splintered the elected from the electors in any case. Cesca argues that it is frustration with the two-party system that leads some liberals to kick out the support poles from the "big tent." Historically, he's right. No one was really happy with the scattershot reforms of FDR at the time, nor with LBJ's Great Society. It is only later, when those reforms become conservative tradition do people forget that they opposed the imperfect solutions.
"Whenever the Republicans are in charge, progressives unite to defeat and replace the Republican leadership with Democrats. But when the Democrats are in charge, progressives have a tendency to hypnotically lapse into contrarian, too-hip-for-the-room ambivalence, apathy and an 'everyone is evil' defeatism. Thus, support for Democratic Leader X is weakened -- often with disastrous consequences, the least tragic of which being a reemergence of the previously ousted Republican leadership."
Boy, if that isn't the truth. Circular firing squad comes to mind. Perfect being the enemy of the good. The sense of betrayal is particularly strong this time around, there was a strong feeling that more could have been done. After all, strong progressive moves would have simply been reversing the grosser excesses of eight years of bush [string of expletives deleted]. At this rate America will be stuck in her new gilded age for a long, long time. To say nothing of actually moving forward with progress.
Cesca recalls how Ross Perot's third party bid gave Clinton an electoral victory but not a mandate. It is difficult to say what would have happened in a strictly two way race but Perot, as Cesca advises all political activists, could have had greater influence on the inside. I remember some of the 1992 election, but mostly I remember my Dad lamenting how the Democrats were no longer the party of the working man. It was kind of a shock because he rarely talked about politics. So when 2000 came along and I was finally able to participate, that was my frame of reference and nothing during the Clinton years changed my mind.
Eight years of fraud, sabotage, eye-popping deficits, wars of aggression, corruption beyond measure later and my overarching goal now to never let that happen again. Nader may have wrote about how Democrats do not have a monopoly on progressive votes. To paraphrase, he said he "wasn't stealing votes, they weren't the Democrats' property." It is pretty easy to see how a young man could believe in a magic bullet to fix things overnight. Even if little has changed for the better since then. After all the hubbub of election entertainment, the act of voting is fairly painless. So, regardless of the perceived betrayal, I can do that little thing for the President. It is proportionately the same effort he has made on behalf of all of us. If a gloomy bum like me can make that decision ten months before election day and now have all that time to work on local stuff, can't you?
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The Irony of Newt Gingrich
One of the first interesting lessons I learned in college was that professors with Ph.Ds were neither omniscient nor omnipotent. It was a pleasant suprize that these people whom I had built up in my mind as perfect and beyond talking to mere mortals such as myself turned out to be fallible at times, approachable, usually more than happy to talk at length with me, and generally a lot like everyone else.
Therefore, I had the slightest tinge of sympathy for Newt. However, I have also spent the better part of a year researching ethics, morality, and the responsibility of intellectuals in public life. One thing the professors I know do not do is change their views contingent on their audience. It is the nature of tenure I suppose that one can stand by their beliefs with conviction. Politics, of course, is not like that. And this may explain the dearth of true intellectuals holding or even running for office.
Tenure and the confidence it endows a professor with should not be confused with the hypocrisy, self-centered arrogance, and general conviction of invincibility that oozes from people like Newt. Tenure is supposed to be a tool allowing intellectuals with little power the ability to pursue truth wherever it may lead, not the impunity to pursue personal aggrandizement. Human nature is by definition flawed, some people can rise above self-interest to pursue greater goals, others cannot.
The irony of a conservative movement that sees all protections for those with the wrong ideas as needing to be confronted and destroyed is that they will not see the danger in protections for people on their side who seek to harm them. Newt's career has really been an ultimate expression of irony for privilege and power in the hands of the worst people imaginable.
Then there is the irony of a "movement" that supposedly prizes freedom above all backing Newt. David Neiwert, whose book The Eliminationists is a great primer for getting a grip on the "para-fascist" tendencies in the extreme right in America, points the irony out of redefining freedom in such an obtuse way.
So, I used to have some respect for Newt because getting a Ph.D is not easy. Then I read this story about his work averse path to a doctorate, and well, throw that out the window as well. This is close to the most dispicable man alive. That anyone can enthusiastically support his candidacy for office is an incredibly sad commentary on the state of the republic.
Therefore, I had the slightest tinge of sympathy for Newt. However, I have also spent the better part of a year researching ethics, morality, and the responsibility of intellectuals in public life. One thing the professors I know do not do is change their views contingent on their audience. It is the nature of tenure I suppose that one can stand by their beliefs with conviction. Politics, of course, is not like that. And this may explain the dearth of true intellectuals holding or even running for office.
Tenure and the confidence it endows a professor with should not be confused with the hypocrisy, self-centered arrogance, and general conviction of invincibility that oozes from people like Newt. Tenure is supposed to be a tool allowing intellectuals with little power the ability to pursue truth wherever it may lead, not the impunity to pursue personal aggrandizement. Human nature is by definition flawed, some people can rise above self-interest to pursue greater goals, others cannot.
The irony of a conservative movement that sees all protections for those with the wrong ideas as needing to be confronted and destroyed is that they will not see the danger in protections for people on their side who seek to harm them. Newt's career has really been an ultimate expression of irony for privilege and power in the hands of the worst people imaginable.
Then there is the irony of a "movement" that supposedly prizes freedom above all backing Newt. David Neiwert, whose book The Eliminationists is a great primer for getting a grip on the "para-fascist" tendencies in the extreme right in America, points the irony out of redefining freedom in such an obtuse way.
So, I used to have some respect for Newt because getting a Ph.D is not easy. Then I read this story about his work averse path to a doctorate, and well, throw that out the window as well. This is close to the most dispicable man alive. That anyone can enthusiastically support his candidacy for office is an incredibly sad commentary on the state of the republic.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Is civil war inevitable?
A metatheme of this blog has been whether or not ideological strife and rigid factionalism in the United States is leading toward open warfare. Reinhold Niebuhr wrote many years ago that as long as war has not broken out it is not inevitable and anyone who feels there is no difference between cold war and hot is either a fool or a knave. In the US there are two concrete examples where severe partisanship and social strife was defused short of open civil war, and one example where intractable division did lead to war. It is far easier to look back on historical facts and interprete causal factors than to identify those factors in the present for predicting future events.
First, in the 1930s there was a divide at least as strong as today. American nationalists and native fascists opposed home-grown socialists and Soviet-influenced communists with a large, angry middle in between. Any instances where violence did occur domestically was chicken-feed compared to what potential there was for open warfare. It could be argued two decisive factors kept the extremes from colliding, labor unions and sympathetic leadership in the federal government. Unions attracted people who wanted to work together for change and mitigated the potential for violence while FDR convinced the populace at large that we could fix problems. These two factors diffused the attraction of violent revolution preached by communists and at the same time diffused the power of reaction to demonize regular people. What was different then was that the financial elite lacked the media to mobilize enough regular folks in defense of their privilege.
Second, the divisions in the 1960s centered around Vietnam and movements for equality, social justice, and minority rights. America was a very different place then, both from today and the Great Depression. Economically, the sixties were practically the best of times. The promise and reality of the decade, and really ever since has been quite unexpected to say the least. As much as Americans romanticize individuality, leaders do have a strong influence on society. Even if prosperity and affluence were a driving force behind the rising expectations of many segments of society, the soaring and possibly utopian rhetoric of JFK played it's part. Violence against leaders, riots, and so on was widespread but still not on the level of a civil war. There was at least the possibility that different groups could still talk to each other. Or maybe it just looks that way because somehow we muddled through. Reaction or backlash largely existed at the grassroots level, disconnected from elites who were still often sympathetic to the New Deal and American ideals of fairness and equality. There simply were not enough fireaters to command a large-scale movement. The free and relatively objective media swayed the middle to the objectives, if not the means of protestors.
The Civil War was another animal entirely. Historians still hotly debate it, as they do the Great Depression and the 1960s. While this subject of comparison deserves a great deal more analysis than I can give it, there are a few aspects of the Civil War that stick out. First the disconnect between rhetoric and reality on both extremes. Second, why average/poor/working class Southern Whites so vehemently defended a system they only tangentially benefitted from, if at all. Third, the role played by a recent war of aggression in subsequent events. The issue, first, last, and all things in between was slavery, no matter how revisionists try to obscure this. The poor whites who actually took up arms to defend their de facto masters in defiance of self-interest or common sense really equate to the teabaggers of today. But, as Niebuhr would be the first to point out, people in a group rarely respond to rationality and pursue interests relevent to that group. Conversely, abolitionists in the North were just as clueless to reality and driven by moral concern without rationally thinking about what comes after slavery. Interests other than justice or even material well-being often trump these collective considerations. The Mexican War was the first time in American history that partisan interests were placed ahead of national interests by a faction holding national office. If you try to analyze the situation objectively (a difficult task indeed) the sectional divide was also between northern elites who wanted "progressive" capitalism, and southern elites committed to entrenched agricultural feudalism. Media was really neither free nor objective, political parties and sectional interests controlled newspapers and used them to express their points of view.
These factors will be explored in subsequent posts. It is morbidly poignant to think a full scale civil war will break out in the anniversary of the first, but events seem to be getting more ominous every day.
First, in the 1930s there was a divide at least as strong as today. American nationalists and native fascists opposed home-grown socialists and Soviet-influenced communists with a large, angry middle in between. Any instances where violence did occur domestically was chicken-feed compared to what potential there was for open warfare. It could be argued two decisive factors kept the extremes from colliding, labor unions and sympathetic leadership in the federal government. Unions attracted people who wanted to work together for change and mitigated the potential for violence while FDR convinced the populace at large that we could fix problems. These two factors diffused the attraction of violent revolution preached by communists and at the same time diffused the power of reaction to demonize regular people. What was different then was that the financial elite lacked the media to mobilize enough regular folks in defense of their privilege.
Second, the divisions in the 1960s centered around Vietnam and movements for equality, social justice, and minority rights. America was a very different place then, both from today and the Great Depression. Economically, the sixties were practically the best of times. The promise and reality of the decade, and really ever since has been quite unexpected to say the least. As much as Americans romanticize individuality, leaders do have a strong influence on society. Even if prosperity and affluence were a driving force behind the rising expectations of many segments of society, the soaring and possibly utopian rhetoric of JFK played it's part. Violence against leaders, riots, and so on was widespread but still not on the level of a civil war. There was at least the possibility that different groups could still talk to each other. Or maybe it just looks that way because somehow we muddled through. Reaction or backlash largely existed at the grassroots level, disconnected from elites who were still often sympathetic to the New Deal and American ideals of fairness and equality. There simply were not enough fireaters to command a large-scale movement. The free and relatively objective media swayed the middle to the objectives, if not the means of protestors.
The Civil War was another animal entirely. Historians still hotly debate it, as they do the Great Depression and the 1960s. While this subject of comparison deserves a great deal more analysis than I can give it, there are a few aspects of the Civil War that stick out. First the disconnect between rhetoric and reality on both extremes. Second, why average/poor/working class Southern Whites so vehemently defended a system they only tangentially benefitted from, if at all. Third, the role played by a recent war of aggression in subsequent events. The issue, first, last, and all things in between was slavery, no matter how revisionists try to obscure this. The poor whites who actually took up arms to defend their de facto masters in defiance of self-interest or common sense really equate to the teabaggers of today. But, as Niebuhr would be the first to point out, people in a group rarely respond to rationality and pursue interests relevent to that group. Conversely, abolitionists in the North were just as clueless to reality and driven by moral concern without rationally thinking about what comes after slavery. Interests other than justice or even material well-being often trump these collective considerations. The Mexican War was the first time in American history that partisan interests were placed ahead of national interests by a faction holding national office. If you try to analyze the situation objectively (a difficult task indeed) the sectional divide was also between northern elites who wanted "progressive" capitalism, and southern elites committed to entrenched agricultural feudalism. Media was really neither free nor objective, political parties and sectional interests controlled newspapers and used them to express their points of view.
These factors will be explored in subsequent posts. It is morbidly poignant to think a full scale civil war will break out in the anniversary of the first, but events seem to be getting more ominous every day.
WI something dad
I came across this guy's one-man screed machine the other day. It never ceases to amaze. The fact that a guy like this and a guy like me could once have shared the same town and it did not explode. An impressive testament to pluralism. Here is the first line of his "about me" section:
"I'm just a dad and husband who's very worried about the direction this country is going, and decided it was time I got involved."
I can not only sympathize, but agree and identify with this statement. But he goes on to the usual empty slogans of movement conservatism. Redefinition, the malleability of language, and twisting words and ideas for propaganda purposes make communication so incredibly difficult these days. Generalization is a tricky, and sometimes dangerous, business but it is safe to say that most politically involved Americans have given up on it. I have as well for the most part, I try not to engage in dialogue with people I do not know who are obviously conservative. Now, for a guy like the republican dad here and many other Wisconsinites who "stand with walker" they want to engage, but to dominate, not communicate.
His sarcastic, mean-spirited style is reminescent of National Review in the 1950s. Condescending, elitist, and juvenile all at the same time. Maybe I am labeling it wrong, but one thing is for sure, guys that engage in this type of rhetoric have no idea that what they say is incredibly obnoxious. I am sure he is very welcome at family get togethers over the holidays and the most popular guy at the auto shop or factory with his co-workers. That isn't the point though, just that someone clinging so hard to his team can and will shout down anyone who dares disagree. Just one of these clowns shuts down any kind of discussion in any group smaller than a baseball stadium.
"I'm just a dad and husband who's very worried about the direction this country is going, and decided it was time I got involved."
I can not only sympathize, but agree and identify with this statement. But he goes on to the usual empty slogans of movement conservatism. Redefinition, the malleability of language, and twisting words and ideas for propaganda purposes make communication so incredibly difficult these days. Generalization is a tricky, and sometimes dangerous, business but it is safe to say that most politically involved Americans have given up on it. I have as well for the most part, I try not to engage in dialogue with people I do not know who are obviously conservative. Now, for a guy like the republican dad here and many other Wisconsinites who "stand with walker" they want to engage, but to dominate, not communicate.
His sarcastic, mean-spirited style is reminescent of National Review in the 1950s. Condescending, elitist, and juvenile all at the same time. Maybe I am labeling it wrong, but one thing is for sure, guys that engage in this type of rhetoric have no idea that what they say is incredibly obnoxious. I am sure he is very welcome at family get togethers over the holidays and the most popular guy at the auto shop or factory with his co-workers. That isn't the point though, just that someone clinging so hard to his team can and will shout down anyone who dares disagree. Just one of these clowns shuts down any kind of discussion in any group smaller than a baseball stadium.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Three seemingly random stories from today's roundup
Going through my news feed, these three articles caught my eye. They seem disconnected, but actually hit the three levels of American decline.
First, from MMFA a story about the institution leading the charge. Casting fox news as the de facto leadership arm of the republican party is a change from the more easily understood meme that fox is the gop's propaganda arm. But the shift explains to a great extent the priorities of the "conservative movement" from an organization bent on obtaining power to implement it's will to an organization freed from the responsibility of power for other purposes. A media company profits through the sensationalism that increases audience size and attention, so they have a larger number of minds to sell to advertisers. As one commenter put it, "the jesters have taken over the court." If there is more money to be made as merry pranksters and saboteurs, then just abandon efforts to seriously contest the "election." Especially when so much of the Democratic agenda lines up with the needs of really-existing power.
Next, the power of zealotry. DP? Seriously? Didn't you freelance brownshirts learn your lesson from "teabaggers?" Or does naming your reactionary neofascist organizations after the reality-based community's sexual colloquialisms feed your victom mentality? Internet trolling of progressive news sties is nothing new of course, but this scale of organization is almost jaw-dropping. That a group of zealots could band together to actually affect what we see and are able to easily find is pretty amazing. I was only vaguely aware of how Digg works but always suspected that an outside group could bury stories they didn't like if they could maintain discipline. So this is the second level, the official propaganda and censorship cult leaders at fox are in it to make gobs of cash, while this group exists for the sheer glee of hatred. Beware the extremists willing to carry the water for their masters with no visible compensation.
And finally, the third level. Where power actually lies. This story may be tongue in cheek, it may not even contain any actual news, but it hits on what the agenda really is. And she hits on some pretty relevent ideas. Private banks exist to make profit, not serve the public. So if they can trick you into paying fees and not earning any interest on your deposits, and the ultimate kicker, prevent you from withdrawing your funds, is is such a stretch to think they will not do so?
Such harmony the three levels of American declne exhibit. It is all about cracking open civilization, stirring up anger and zealotry, and making off with the loot by whatever means come easiest to hand. And in the case of netroots stormtroopers, while we can't be sure the evil hand (and money) of koch or mellon-scaife is not behind this crashing of the barricades, on the surface they seem to be censoring and demonizing just for the sheer joy of it and not for material gain. And this one is the most problematic, you can avoid fox news, put your money in a credit union, and shop outside the walmart archipeligo but how do non-movement conservatives build a movement for reality if shadowy, unaccountable forces are censoring the truth?
First, from MMFA a story about the institution leading the charge. Casting fox news as the de facto leadership arm of the republican party is a change from the more easily understood meme that fox is the gop's propaganda arm. But the shift explains to a great extent the priorities of the "conservative movement" from an organization bent on obtaining power to implement it's will to an organization freed from the responsibility of power for other purposes. A media company profits through the sensationalism that increases audience size and attention, so they have a larger number of minds to sell to advertisers. As one commenter put it, "the jesters have taken over the court." If there is more money to be made as merry pranksters and saboteurs, then just abandon efforts to seriously contest the "election." Especially when so much of the Democratic agenda lines up with the needs of really-existing power.
Next, the power of zealotry. DP? Seriously? Didn't you freelance brownshirts learn your lesson from "teabaggers?" Or does naming your reactionary neofascist organizations after the reality-based community's sexual colloquialisms feed your victom mentality? Internet trolling of progressive news sties is nothing new of course, but this scale of organization is almost jaw-dropping. That a group of zealots could band together to actually affect what we see and are able to easily find is pretty amazing. I was only vaguely aware of how Digg works but always suspected that an outside group could bury stories they didn't like if they could maintain discipline. So this is the second level, the official propaganda and censorship cult leaders at fox are in it to make gobs of cash, while this group exists for the sheer glee of hatred. Beware the extremists willing to carry the water for their masters with no visible compensation.
And finally, the third level. Where power actually lies. This story may be tongue in cheek, it may not even contain any actual news, but it hits on what the agenda really is. And she hits on some pretty relevent ideas. Private banks exist to make profit, not serve the public. So if they can trick you into paying fees and not earning any interest on your deposits, and the ultimate kicker, prevent you from withdrawing your funds, is is such a stretch to think they will not do so?
Such harmony the three levels of American declne exhibit. It is all about cracking open civilization, stirring up anger and zealotry, and making off with the loot by whatever means come easiest to hand. And in the case of netroots stormtroopers, while we can't be sure the evil hand (and money) of koch or mellon-scaife is not behind this crashing of the barricades, on the surface they seem to be censoring and demonizing just for the sheer joy of it and not for material gain. And this one is the most problematic, you can avoid fox news, put your money in a credit union, and shop outside the walmart archipeligo but how do non-movement conservatives build a movement for reality if shadowy, unaccountable forces are censoring the truth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)