Updated 9/14/11
After the latest Teabagger debate circus, one wonders what kind of infection could cause the human brain to suffer so much reason-bleed.
Capital punishment celebrated, death of the uninsured cheered, the social safety net pilloried. All just the latest in more than two years of increasingly bizarre statements and craven behavior from teabag rabble.
When the debate was raging about whether the feds should rescue the auto industry, afflicted teabagger types argued that President Obama wanted to “bail out” car makers because he wanted to take over Detroit’s decision-making and run the car companies himself.
At the time, I asked myself what kind of grassy knoller could think that Barack Obama ran for President of the United States so he could run car companies. Who would run for an office the attainment of which would render him the most powerful human being on the planet and then, with the world’s most potent military and a globe full of fans behind him, decide that he’d like to spend his time on Pennsylvania Avenue picking colors for the Ford Focus? This notion is insane.
Symptoms of Amygdala Syndrome
More recently I was wondering how much differently my brain would have to be wired for me to believe that climate change is a progressive conspiracy the aim of which is to establish global socialist hegemony. The number of implausible clandestine folds in that galactic accordion of intrigue would be staggering—and yet there are tens of millions of stooges who believe it.
Around the time that George W. Bush was appointed president, I began to change my view of Republicanism. Whereas I have never agreed with overarching Republican policy objectives, there was a time when I at least regarded conservatives as serious people with serious arguments they brought to bear.
But it began to occur to me with the ascendency of a barefaced buffoon to the apex of right-wing politics that maybe conservatism was not just a political disposition. And as George W. Bush’s corporate-Jesus coalition evolved into a throng that could call Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry its own, Republicanism completed its transition from political ideology into psychological disorder.
The time has come to put a name to the psychological disorder that manifests in teabaggery and right-wing dogmatism. I’ve come up with a diagnosis that progressives should broadcast liberally and drive home relentlessly; I call it the Amygdala Syndrome, and I will forthwith begin referring to conservatism as such.
A little background is in order. Salon.com recently ran a fascinating piece about the human need for answers to the unanswerable. Here is an excerpt:
When our place on the food chain was not so secure, and we had to deal with predator cats on a regular basis, the amygdala—a pair of almond-shaped structures near the base of our temporal lobes—did great work. Our brain processed visual images of a shadow moving in the grass, and our amygdala shouted, “Danger!” In response, we froze. Our more logical information-processing centers kicked in, quickly trying to determine: Is this shadow a crouching tiger or a hidden rabbit? If the shadow was big enough, our logical frontal lobes responded, Close enough to a tiger for me, our amygdala sent a stronger signal of abject fear in return, and we ran.
Millions of years later, Homo sapiens is here—and we brought our amygdalas with us. Some of us, like kids in the inner city, or soldiers in the battlefield, still need them a lot. … But for most of us, the amygdala … is responding to far less grave mysteries but is still sending us messages of anxiety and fear whenever necessary and much of the time besides, including when the boss says something harsh to us at work, a co-worker cuts us a nasty look, or when we hear an idea that conflicts with our worldview. … Oftentimes our first reaction, even if it is about an intellectual subject, is an emotional one: We react to the ideas we hear with this primitive part of our brain. And when we feel emotionally committed to a position, that is precisely the time we’re in the greatest danger of reacting—not from our frontal lobes, like enlightened human beings, but from our amygdalas, like angry or frightened monkeys. (Emphases added).
Now, take a guess what researchers have discovered about enlarged amygdalas and the link between enlarged amygdalas and a certain political bent. That’s right: researchers have found that conservatives have larger amygdalas than normal people. It’s been reported that
… research shows that people with conservative tendencies have a larger amygdala and a smaller anterior cingulate than other people. The amygdala—typically thought of as the “primitive brain”—is responsible for reflexive impulses, like fear. The anterior cingulate is thought to be responsible for courage and optimism. This one-two punch could be responsible for many of the anecdotal claims that conservatives “think differently” from others.
Look what happens when symptoms of Amygdala Syndrome (enlarged amygdala and small anterior cingulate) begin to manifest:
Here’s another example:
[If you or someone you know is manifesting symptoms like these, seek IMMEDIATE help!]
But all is not lost. As right-wingers have taught us, any predisposition that is simply hard-wired into one’s brain (like sexual orientation, for example), can be cured on bended knee. So if right-wingers pray hard enough, they should succeed in overcoming their own primitive reflexes and supplanting them with more evolved and sophisticated human behaviors.
Progressives should stop tiptoeing around the issue whether their political nemeses are deranged and just start saying it: right-wingers are sick; they suffer from a diagnosable psychological disorder; and it is called (from now on) the Amygdala Syndrome.
Until we find a vaccine to prevent it or an antidote to cure it, we will have to rely on “shame therapy,” which looks something like this (after clicking the ‘play’ icon, click Watch on Youtube to view video):
-Brendan Beery
coach
June 28, 2011
Big Pharma needs to get on this immediately. There must be a pill they can whip up … call it Amygdalux. Just a few embarrassing side effects, but it ‘manages’ Teabaggery and that’s worth the trade off.
Susan Marsten
June 29, 2011
Oh, horrible thought. Maybe the tea party is the result of a Big Pharma pill they already developed – to make us all crazy and make America safe for big business.
Todd McMillin
July 28, 2011
I’ve always believed that because of the Conservatives cutting mental health back during the REAGAN Years is why we’re having these problems now. That delusional nuts who are clearly in need of medical psychiatric help were ignored and allowed to run free.
That they’ve got the right combination of sociopathic and psychopathic personalities to allow them to get elected into office or be religious leaders. That they’re morally void and criminals. It’s that they happened to be lucky to find the right niche to fall into. In Pat Robertson case he’s a rapist and liar, who like his father was a career political mover and shaker.
If they didn’t have the fiscal support of social class to allow them to get where they were. These people would have been behind bars or locked up in insane asylums where they actually belong. The problem with people who are “touched” by the “Divine” is that no one bothers to check to see if they’re crazy anymore, especially if their families have wealth and prestige to prevent the law from doing its job and locking them up.
Instead they get away with criminal actions and because they’re not held accountable continue until people do actually get hurt enough that law enforcement takes action. Usually, to little to late and that they’ve managed to convince their “followers” to do something even more dangerous because of their social magnetism.
moi
June 28, 2011
You forgot an option on your poll:
– a movement, much like the product of a human digestive process
Robert Post
June 28, 2011
When I was a kid and Eisenhower was the president, my whole family was happily Republican. Then I grew up, and Nixon dragged us through Watergate and Ronald Reagan proved what a disaster Voodoo economics really is, and then George Bush proved it again. Now the Tea Party/Repubs believe they are the true voice of America, with paranoia rampant in their fact-free universe. The Republican Party has gone off the deep end and has plunged into some kind of madness. This is not even the party of Bill Buckley…it’s the party of wild-eyed nut jobs like Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin and Herman Cain. The Republicans seem to have a death wish. I have often argued that they need to suffer an apocalyptic political defeat in 2012 so they can re-examine what it really mean to be conservative in the reality-based world. We need to have a real, conservative voice in our national dialog, but these guys/gals are not it. They are so deeply irrational, suffused with flagrant hypocrisy, and drunk on the No-New-Taxes Koolaid, that you can’t even have a meaningful discussion with them. I wish I could find a reasonable Republican to debate, but I don’t know any.
coach
June 28, 2011
Thoughtful post Robert. I miss discussing and debating issues with the Republicans in my family. We had some ‘entertaining’ parties … things got lively but we all laughed and, more importantly, we learned from each other. Most of them have passed or have left the GOP in disgust. I cannot remember the last rational discussion I had with a right winger … for them, facts are optional and vitriol is mandatory.
D L Johnson
August 9, 2011
I doubt if you’ll read my reply..I found this site by my usual means, constantly googling for anything that disparages the current GOP or shows any connection to the Koch Brothers (yes, I love conspiracies). Your first sentence describes my early life perfectly and the rest of your post is exactly how I feel. My family was staunch Republican, even to the point of political offices. My uncle was a secretary of state in Oregon and his son, a state senator for many years. I became a Democrat when I first voted and have remained so for many years.
My opinion about this current situation begins with Newt Gingrich, the PNAC (Project for New American Century) and, of course, the election of George W Bush. Why people can’t understand this is beyond me..these Tea Party members also have a racist view which makes their opinions and actions go beyond any objective reasoning.
Thank you…..
beeryblog
August 9, 2011
Read it! Thanks for joining the conversation.
HopefulProgressive
August 18, 2011
I believe the reason they’ve become so wild-eyed crazy is because they realize the U.S. is becoming what it was always meant to be… a progressive, secular nation, of diverse people who’ve come together to enjoy individual freedoms under a Constiution that provides for the general welfare of its’ people. They really, really hate that thought, so this new TP/R party is desperately clinging to their beliefs and screeching things like Sharia law and Christian nation in a pathetic attempt to cling to what power they have left. TP/R’s are fast losing their grip on sanity and are determined to take the rest of us down with them through fear and intimidation. Without religion, corporations lose their hold over the general populace (because religion discourages free thinking and demands complete obedience without questioning why); hence their funding of extreme rigtht-wing groups like the TP. They are so desperate that they are now actively & obviously creating fake FB pages and astroturf groups in order to try and maintain their hold over us. Their lies are not as easy to hide now that we have an informed populace, thanks to the Internet, and that scares the bejesus out of them.
Guest
September 23, 2011
Both parties astroturf
William
June 28, 2011
Thank you for the most plausible sounding explanation yet for the illness we know as conservatism, or, more succinctly, the TeaBircher.
In connecting the dots, I now see the possible cause of this syndrome.
The TeaBirchers often utter their belief that the earth is 6,000 years old. It is therefore logical to conclude that this particular breed of humanoid abandoned all manner of evolution at that point because they simply don’t believe in it.
It’s all beginning to make sense now…..
Mary Ann
June 28, 2011
What I notice about today’s batch of conservatives is that they look at issues as if they were the only people in the world. When Palin had a child with Down’s Syndrome, she took an interest in public attitudes toward the retarded. Bachman doesn’t want Health Care Savings Account to cover breast pumps, because she didn’t get a tax break when she nursed her kids. I think one of the big differences between conservatives and liberals is that liberals have the imagination to think about how policies might affect people who have lives different from their own. I don’t have kids with disabilities, but I can imagine what that might be like and I want families in that situation treated with the same consideration as any other citizen.
Anders
July 22, 2011
I do have kids with a disability. Two kids, and two different disabilities. One has Asperger’s which, in our family’s case, was able to be positively impacted with a resulting well adjusted young adult as the result. But that was through a great deal of financial and family support. Sadly, most of that expense could have been spared if the medical, insurance industry, and school districts we able to respond appropriately. As it was, it cost the equivalent of a 4 year college degree in personal financial expense, and my spouse to quit work to be available full time as a Mom at home. The second child is also well adjusted, but is “gifted”, which is a euphamism for “needs to be positively intellectually challenged” and everything is fine, or all hell breaks loose. Again, rigidity in the system proved expensive and counterproductive to everyone’s goal.
When the clown non conservatives start reading science instead of leading each other down some mystical path of some religious philosophy, we might start to build a better America. What we are doing now is nuts.
Bob
June 28, 2011
Pat Robertson and the like have a widely established scare tactic that’s been under construction for millennia: We’re all locked in a battle between good and evil, and there’s an all-seeing old grouch in the sky looking for an excuse to torture people forever. Republican strategist dragged their soapbox onto that platform, and it worked like a spell cast by Lord Voldemort himself. Liberals have seen it coming for some time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American_Politics
The challenge is to build a better social understanding. The good news is we have science and reason on our side.
William
June 28, 2011
Bob,
we do indeed have science and reason on our side. Problem is that the psychopaths use fear as a motivator and, as history has shown, it is a very effective tactic. Our challenge is finding a successful counter-strategy, since reason is not something the other side is willing to engage in.
Gigi Jacobs
September 22, 2011
William, I know you may never read this for this you have written many months ago. however I wanted to give you some hope in regards to the matter. I have spent much time on blogs bringing facts and numbers with me, all to no avail, I spent hours of discourse only to change no one’s mind who has this brain deformation.
But what I did discover, is that those with this enlarge Amygdala syndrome are actually in smaller numbers than those who have conscience. Do you realize if you spent your time rallying the troops, getting the liberals excited and making them aware, we might all pick up our picket signs and protest so that we may be heard? We may actually make more of us go to the polls and vote out these criminals. Did you know.that concurrent with this research is the fact that as a result of our less than large Amygdalas, we too suffer from a disorder? We suffer from apathy. While the few of the right have stood up and had big mouths and towered over the majority, we stand silent, we avoid rallies. We use our intellect but not our actions. We have let the minority rule.
I have known this for a while for I have rallied a gathering of those who suffered as a result of an elite slumlord. I gathered names and numbers, put up fliers and garnished the attention of the grand boss of the 5 conglomerate large apartment complexes that surround the marina in Marina Del Rey, CA.. My work and complaints and organization skills had reached the attention of those at the top. A meeting was set to occur and the big boss was flown in to attend.
As I walked to the pool side meeting, I stood up and posed our complaints to this callous soul. But when I looked in the audience, the very people who had spent hours complaining to me and vowing their attendance and support, NONE stood up. That’s right. I had invested countless hours and much energy to help not only myself, but to support the others who had been taken advantage of. And for this, NOT ONE person stood up with me to speak. In fact, some that had complained the most, actually pretended to support the slumlord.
Well, of course with no support, the complaints were dismissed. As I walked away from the meeting, several of those in the audience quietly snuck over to say they were sorry but they did not want to draw attention to themselves for fear of retribution. I was agasp. What cowards are these? How dare they complain and complain and push me to the front for them-and then when the time came they hid and kept quiet.
The best avenue is not to convince those who’s brain is so far deformed that they cannot hear facts. For is we can simply rally our own, we will overpower the evil party and win back representation in the political arena. But without our vocal support and participation, we will fail. And if we do not stand up now, they-the evil side-will take over the voting process and so infiltrate the system that we will then not even have recourse.
I suggest that all gather your friends and get them up off the couch and away from writing their thesis or what ever things they give as excuses…and stand up and shout–stand up and speak your mind-stand up and protest. For we, the majority have LET THIS HAPPEN. There are but a handful of us liberals who will get on our feet and show our faces and make our voices heard. And because such a large number of liberals will not put aside their own apathy, we will lose this war. Fight if you believe. Stand up and do not hide.
Look at the man we voted to represent us. As he put out his olive branches only to be laughed at and shunned. And now he stands up, if only for his campaigning, but hopefully not. See how he has rallied the troops. For if he continues FIGHTING as the former Speaker of the House, Miss Pelosi has suggested, we may actually win! Apathy is OUR disease. So, don’t worry about the other side. Rather stand up and fight your own compromised brain wiring-AND FOR GOD’S SAKE-FIGHT!
Bob
June 28, 2011
William,
I agree completely. That’s what I meant by “build[ing] a better social understanding,” which is going to take work that will have to be done by people who can reason. We also have to keep in mind that science and reason can both be abused, but I just wanted to give a hooray for people with small amygdalas and big anterior cingulates.
moi
June 28, 2011
Bob–if only it were good news in actuality!!!
As we’ve seen these people can spin “science” and “reason” into goobledygook–rapidly, and there is no rational discussion.
So–yes, while TECHNICALLY “science” and “reason” should “WIN OUT” reality is far more complicated and bleak. People who study such things may be ACCURATE and CORRECT in their analysis–but evidently that’s not enough to be RIGHT–pun intended.
I even disagree with our dear Professor’s suggestion that we need to turn to active SHAMING. I just have no illusions any shaming will have any effect what-so-ever. If Newt Gingrich is not ashamed of himself as a human being, none of these people will ever be. They consider themselves “EXCEPTIONAL” and therefore, beyond rules…especially beyond the judgement of you “little people” uh, I mean PARASITES.
How do you debate with a gargantuan closed-minded self-righteous beast?? Good luck.
No one commented on my little soapbox diatribe about the futility of negotiating with crazy people and trying to make nice nice…Like you BOB, I tried to describe the thought process as a play-by-play when you’re engaging with crazy. I can’t remember what thread it was on…it was on this website on a May or June post…I’ll look and see if I can find it.
I think the only thing that WILL WORK is just standing up and saying NO. Just like the Jesuits said to the Cannibals in Papua New Guinea (also a comment of mine on a different thread). But, you have to be ready to pay the price of saying no—ie. be willing to become a TARGET for crazy and accept the possibility you will get nowhere, except for paving the way for the next person to be able to say NO…and the next person…
Bob
June 28, 2011
moi,
I agree we can’t shame most conservatives, but it doesn’t hurt to try within sensible limits. We might get lucky and hit that one in a hundred in just the right spot to plant a doubt. I’ve seen it happen. Besides, we’re just wasting time and energy and discouraging ourselves trying to win arguments with unreasonable people. We know from polls that a big majority in the U.S. agrees with us on most issues, and the problem is that most don’t turn out to vote. The Repugnant Party has been effective suppressing voter turnout in many ways, one of which is to use the Borg propaganda line that resistance is futile.
The professor has said he’d like having trolls to poke at, but I enjoy that this blog has so many thoughtful people who comment and a skillful author who writes with insight, especially on matters of law. It’s a rarity. Other liberal political blogs I’ve found are either weightless smartassery or humorless. Here’s a place we can learn from each other, and knowledge is power.
moi
June 29, 2011
More dystopian tripe straight from the horse’s (ass) mouth: (A reader on the HUFFPO shares a comment after her headlining article about a recent trip to Greece and the differences between the media spin and the facts on the ground…)
It’s like when you’re a 6 year old boy wanting to play shoot em’ up cowboy:
If the various nations cause their businesses and their tax bases to relocate due to high taxes to pay for large governments plus rules and regulations to the point that the nation cannot afford to pay for public bureaucratic services, then those US citizens might have to replicate primitive civilizations such as early pioneers and settlers of the USA who had to provide their own military defense against Indians, police, firefighters, teachers, medicine, water, sewer, roads, bridges, welfare and other services as best as they could.
After the early pioneers and settlers could produce enough necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing) for themselves and had an excess to also support a (rudimentary) civilization, they would then combine their meager resources/or and tax themselves to hire public sector bureaucrats as teachers, soldiers, water system operators, police, firefighters, and other services but they limited the cost of these bureaucrats to the number and the bureaucrats pay that the wealth producers could afford and/or wanted to support.
The producers would also pool their resources and hire contractors to construct roads, bridges, water systems, sewer systems, and other infrastructre that allowed the producers to become more productive.
These tax supported bureaucrats did allow the producers to become more productive by relieving the producers having to worry about providing those services for themselves (and for the producer’s families).
Bob
June 29, 2011
moi,
I’ve read the comment 3 times and can’t really make sense of it. You’ve made the point I didn’t cover all the bases. There are also people who make comments that are badly written and the output of scattered brains.
BTW, I’ve read up a little on Papua New Guinea. It’s amazing that the natives have a mythology that blames the women for the practice of cannibalism. It’s similar to the story of the Garden of Eden.
Gigi Jacobs
September 22, 2011
Hi Bob,
In a reply to William, I wrote something similar to this. As I read the studies regarding the lack of logical thought in a Republican, I also read of the defect that we liberals possess. It said that as a result of our “little amygala” and our larger cortex cingular, in addition to being thoughtful and logical, we also are apathetic.
Let me explain. There are more of us than of them. So, how is it the minority has held the majority hostage. Because for the very reason we possess empathy and higher thinking functions, we also don’t possess the fighting functions of the right-ie, apathy. This is shown year after year as the right out votes us in percentages while we, the majority, vote in such smaller percentages that the right will many times win.
This is due to our desire to intellectualize, but when it comes down to fighting and making our voices heard-something the other side does easily-we become quiet and withdrawn. It is not our party which puts up demonstrations as vigorous as the right. We are not inclined to dig our heals in and hold our ground-for we are thinkers and negotiations. However, when facing such a small group who are willing to stand up and fight and be focal, we become over powered and drowned out.
So, while the right suffers from this instinct to fight and lacks the inclination to think and be more flexible, we suffer from our own curse: The curse of apathy. I have many times called to organize a protest, only to find excuses for which no one will attend. This apathy will ALLOW THEM TO WIN and if we don’t fight this hardwired apathy, it may become too late. The right has carefully master planned the removal of bargaining rights, ie, the loss of political funding. They have carefully begun the task of redistricting, ie, loading the deck to be in their favor, They have even procured Diebold voting machines-a Republican based company who has sole access to all the voting computers during the vote. And while not an inclusive list, they have also loaded the deck by putting policies into practice to prevent the already apathetic liberal from making it to the polls.
If we do not fight this tendency but ONLY think of our ideas, yet be too apathetic to act on them, it may become very soon, too late to do anything about it. For while we are postulating, they are aggressively moving to unevenly weigh the game. I hope it is already not too late for us to change-to fight through protest, digging in our heals, and lastly- enthusiastically make it to the voting box.
Strengthen and encouraging the base might be the better approach than hoping for converts from a group who cannot hear what we say.
Good evening Robert,
Gigi
ronni m
June 28, 2011
I am with Coach on Amygdalux. Also, in a few years, we can have Amygdalux XR, so you can be ready to ‘not respond’ at any time.
Vic Shayne
June 28, 2011
Mr. B:
I just had to weigh in on this one as well. Many years ago, when I was at the University of Florida, Ted Bundy was at the next university on a killing rampage. After they caught him I was spurred to research the mind of the psychopath. Since then I’ve read Robert Hare’s landmark book on the subject, and the work of Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door. The amygdala apparently does not function correctly in psychopaths. Therefore, they do not have a conscience and they do not feel guilt, shame or remorse. Others exist for only one reason: to be used.
I have often thought about many of these people in the Republican party as psychopathic. Same with many of the Fox News people. They act without shame and without care for their fellow human beings. And their actions stun and puzzle the normal mind. But we can’t ask normal questions such as “Don’t you care about others?” “Don’t you care about the impact your violent, hateful, untrue, harmful messages on people?” The answer is an obvious “no.”
I used to share your opinion of Republicans — the opinion you and I have come to change. The party is no longer about a different way of seekign the same values. Rather, it is now about divisiveness, corporate agendas, defamation, and the call to one’s baser self. It is based on the psychopathic paradigm, which also happens to be the paradigm of corporate America.
Chris
August 2, 2011
A combo perhaps? Damaged-amygdala psychopaths leading/using/manipulating the fearful large-amydgala followers. This is similar to the thesis of Altemeyer’s theory of right-wing authoritanianism. Though not without some issues in the research methodology, it is an interesting read and food for thought and for future research: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Robert Post
June 28, 2011
Hey, Vic. An interesting point about psychopathy. I’ve often asked myself, as Fox News tells one blatant lie after another and the Tea Baggers talk about a fantasy world which only they inhabit…have these people no shame? Fox is a classic propaganda organ of the Republican right. I’ve been calling it “The Republican Channel” for years. The original, granddaddy of propaganda outfits, Joseph Goebbels and company, invented the technique of the Big Lie. Just keep repeating it often enough and loudly enough and people will start to believe it. They tell these lies in order to play off people’s fears and paranoia and to point them toward the enemy and the big conspiracy that is ruining America. They want power and they want to kill off the evil people, like liberals and Democrats and sleeper agents from Kenya. They want us to live under a corporatist oligarchy. A few months ago, I asked Rachel and Co. if they could explain, for example, the absolute obsession that the GOP has with abortion. The question is: Where does that come from? I think that the modern right wing has roots that go back to the Puritans…the ones who burned witches and made you go to church. So it’s an old strain of American politics. They are at war with the Devil and his legions. People like me.
William
June 29, 2011
Robert,
you make a valid comparison between Goebbels and today’s propaganda machine, a comparison I’ve oft voiced myself.
The thing about it that many don’t see, is the fact that today’s oligarchs and reslugs have carefully studied Hitler and Mussolini. In 1933 they tried “The Business Plot.” To their misfortune, their front man was a patriot named Smedley Butler, who spilled the beans before congress. They were defeated at that point in time, but they learned from their mistakes. This time they’ve taken the country without threat of arms or fascist putsch. They simply bought everything in sight, and then drove home their message with the Kennedy assassination.
They now maintain their grip on absolute power by way of a bought and paid for M$M, spewing their propaganda. What it amounts to is the time-tested “divide and conquer” strategy, and they’ve found a group of willing rubes in the fundie religious right.
It’s smoke and mirrors, and unless and until we’re able to wake the masses to this fact, we are summarily fucked.
Norman
July 24, 2011
New England Puritans hanged 19, crushed one under a pile of stones, and burned none.
Jay Johnson
June 28, 2011
I just want them to go away. Maybe they have a special clinic for these people in Iran?
coach
June 28, 2011
@ Jay … it occurs to me that the Mullahs in Iran may also be compromised by the Amygdala Strain. A clinic in Tehran is just the place to send our Teabaggers.
Blue Dot
June 29, 2011
[beeryblog, could you approve this comment instead of the previous one? I corrected a couple of mistakes, but more importantly, I did not intend to publish my entire name. Thank you for your blog!]
Though I am a white Deep South Liberal Democrat–yes, there are a few of us–I have family ties in Iran that date back to the hostage crisis. Within a couple of years of Reagan’s presidency and the rise of the Moral Majority, I began to realize something that I have repeated many times over: The only difference between the Moral Majority and the Ayatollah Khomeini was the Bill of Rights. I took a lot of comfort then in knowing that the Constitution protected us from such extremes.
Since Obama’s presidency has unleashed such reactionary fear mongering, my faith in our ability to protect the Constitution has been in grave doubt. My orientation has shifted from taking comfort in the Constitution protecting me to a need to fight for the very breath of the Constitution itself. As a Southern child raised by parents who supported the Civil Rights Movement, I held an unwavering faith in the Constitution to withstand the barrages of those who didn’t want to follow it because I witnessed its triumph over them time and time again.
But, I saw the South as an aberration, a place where in equality was a way of life, church and state were not so separate, hypocrisy was tolerated if the cause was profitable and the perpetrator rich enough. I could look to other places where, at least if not wholly practiced, constitutional protections were ideals to which the community aspired. Now it seems as though the whole country has become George Wallace’s domain all over again.
Dubya T Eff
July 28, 2011
Blue Dot,
I appreciate your orientation and identify with your alarm. I would change your last sentence, though-instead of “Now it seems as though the whole country has become George Wallace’s domain all over again” I’d say “Now the country is at the mercy of a Supreme Court with a religious agenda.” As the ultimate protectors of the Constitution, these bigots, with their dogmatic dismantling/Machiavellian interpretation of constitutional law, wield much more power and represent more sheer destruction than that sad little man ever dreamed of.
RB
June 29, 2011
Picking out colors for the Ford Focus? While you’re fighting the war on ignorance, you might want to make a note that Ford was the only Big Three car company that did not take bailout money from the federal government.
beeryblog
June 29, 2011
Uhm, hey rocket scientist, is the Ford Focus an AMERICAN car? The point was about Obama wanting to run AMERICAN CAR COMPANIES. If that’s what he WANTED TO DO, then the Ford Focus would be one of the cars he’d be trying to “control.” Ford wouldn’t have to be one of the companies he WOULD control to be one of the companies he WANTED to control. But thanks for playing.
j.a.m.
July 6, 2011
You’re hardly in a position to comment on anyone else’s ignorance or psychological disorders.
For God’s sake, find more constructive uses for your time.
mc
July 9, 2011
What sounds crazy to us is actually the product of an culture dependent on oral communication…not written. Look at how the RW gets their information (talk radio, television, church). They measure meaningful communication on emotional impact, not hard logic. They use words for emotional value and make use of rich narratives. They live in a world rich with conspiracy theories, fear and strict rules on personal relationships. This is the sort of behaviour that has been in decline since the enlightenment, and thanks to technology we’re now experiencing a resurgence of it.
The Tea Party is on a similar trajectory as radical Islam (another very strong Oral culture). For either one its a war on a “system” and they will devote their lives to thinking the unthinkable to disrupt and destroy that system (commerce, democracy, government). Their dream is to return things to the way they “used to be”, which usually means where church and state are one, authority is not challenged and strict rules governing personal relationships.
Unfortunately, humans are hard-wired to behave like this and communication technology is only accelerating this behaviour.
It’s fight or flight time for the literate liberal NPR types and academic conservatives.
demz taters
July 20, 2011
This explains Teabonics (and that’s not really snark).
greg
July 11, 2011
This is only one of the mental disorders some of them suffer from. Bachmann definitely has ‘MYTHOMANIA’ look it up.
KayInMaine
July 11, 2011
Ha! Great post! Spot on Chris. LOL
Rosie
July 13, 2011
I think we have entered an era where it may be perfectly reasonable to use biological warfare on the deranged republicans among us. They are like the vermin cockroaches that infest the slums of our nation. I know a few of these idiots. I have in fact said to them, “you are an idiot”. Then i say to them “i will not waste another second, or another breath trying to interact with a damnable fool such as you.”
And, i don’t ever again interact with these people.
They are simply lunatics!
Robert Post
July 14, 2011
Rosie, there is an alternative to biological warfare. As I stated above, my family is a family of Republicans. However, there is a shift taking place. Mom (age 91) has taken to calling herself an independent. Her views on abortion, one of the litmus tests of Tea Baggery, are that what goes on between a woman and her doctor, in the doctor’s office, is nothing that should be of any interest to government. Her view is that it’s none of government’s damn business. (Her beloved dad was a doctor). More amazing is the transformation of my brother. As late as last year, he could have been described as a 2nd Amendment-remedies, bomb-the-damn Muslims, Obama-is-going-to-confiscate our ammo type. What has changed him is the reading and viewing of some materials I lent him that have nothing to do with politics, per se. He watched The Living Matrix DVD and became fascinated with some of the revolutionary healing work that it discusses, as well as the recent discovery that we are not pre-determined by our genes; that our DNA is influenced by the energies in our environment and that it is incredibly flexible. Then he read Eckhart Tolle’s book, “A New Earth”, which discusses the activities of our mind and patterns of thinking which he terms, The Ego and The Pain Body. Yesterday, he was at my place, and he agreed that the current political climate in Washington is a colossal manifestation of Tollerian (if I may) Ego, on all sides. He has come to understand that the Republican Party is owned and operated by huge corporations and the super rich, particularly the health insurance companies, the oil companies and the banks. He agreed with me that “Single Payer” is the way to go in health insurance. He is not yet a Democrat, although I suspect that he will vote that way in the next election, but he is now a-plague-on-both-their-houses independent. He views himself as a budding healer. As I said, amazing transformation! By the way, I highly recommend both the DVD and book to anyone who is searching for solutions to our political meltdown.
CJS
July 14, 2011
I gained a lot of insight from Julian Jaynes’ “The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind” (particularly where he states that consciousness is learned). Early society, before the emergence of modern consciousness, would have been rigidly hierarchical and authoritarian, and not particularly rational. I see the Jaynesian early society as surviving today among people whose worldview – to a considerable extent, their consciousness (being learned) itself – is based on indoctrination, authoritarianism, and conformity; as distinct from people whose worldview is based on cognition and reason. Among the former, the concept of language having truth content is severely impaired or non-existent, and language is actually used on a level similar to animal communication largely consisting of signals for herd cohesion or warning against outsiders – hence the simplistic slogans, warped alternate history, and irrational gibberish, none of it referring to reality or containing any real cognitive content, and the inability to engage in dialogue beyond aggressively “correcting” anything not in conformity with the programming. I imagine the absence of a truly human level of consciousness accounts for the psychopathology, absence of shame or moral sense, and compulsion towards violent aggression
Dubya T Eff
July 14, 2011
Wow–Robert and CJS; think I’ve just found my new reading list.
I’ve said this before, in so many words, but this blog is fan-fucking-tastic, and not only because of Brendan’s masterful deployment of logic, humor, and justifiable cynicism-the commenters here are breaths of fresh, rarified air. Thanks for sharing.
Robert Post
July 15, 2011
CJS, good point indeed.Fox News, Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachman and their ilk are all me-too’ers. Their fantasy world is one that sends out the constant query: “Are you as paranoid and irrational as I am? Come, let us gather in the cave of unreason and feed on each other’s fear and hatred.” They are indeed looking for like minds. Nothing is more emblematic of this mind set that Rush Limbaugh and his hardy band of “Ditto Heads.” Yeah, go Rush, go!” I always knew that for forces of evil were out to get me, and now you have confirmed my worst fears. Tell me more!” Can you imagine any thinking human proudly branding himself a “Ditto Head?” To do so is to proclaim to the world that you are a simple idiot, ready to be join any torchlight parade. I have long had fathomless contempt for Rush, but I guess that’s just my ego reacting to his ego. I have just completed an outline for a book, which may or may not ever get published, but will serve as a study guide for me and a group I will organize. It’s called, provisionally, Six Paths to Wholeness. If you want to ad it to your reading list, email me at: robertpost43@yahoo.com. I won’t post it here, unless there is some sort of popular demand. But here’s the point: Teabaggery is only the most recent manifestation of fearful humanity’s search for the peace of absolute certitude and the reassuring hand of Big Brother. There is a much more powerful force arising in human consciousness today. It is a spiritual and metaphysical awakening and a whole new way of using our minds. Tea Baggery and it’s bretheren, Evangelical Christianity (nothing Christian about, by the way), American Exceptionalism, etc. etc. will be swept aside. I’m committed to helping make this happen.
Robert Post
July 15, 2011
I guess my remark about a reading list was actually for the benefit of Dubya T Eff or anyone else who’s interested. CJS, I’m not sure that need a reading list. Sounds like you’re doing just fine.
Don Detrich
July 15, 2011
I have a similar theory. Xenophobia (fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign) is a general human genetic trait. Fear and hatred of those perceived as outside your social group. Some people have a stronger tendency toward xenophobia, which may well be connected to an enlargement of the amygdale. This xenophobic trait evolved as an important survival mechanism in our long hunter/gatherer period when a tribe on the other side of the mountain represented real danger.
This is not a joke, though I admit the illogical results can seem stunningly humorous. I think there is a serious coloration. Of course, this does no mean everyone with this stronger xenophobic tendency becomes a Tea Party Conservative. It may manifest itself in other ways, from benign family loyalty to psychopathic bigotry. What makes the Ultra Conservative political movement so effective is its skill at exploiting this innate tendency, which we all share to some degree.
Norman
August 14, 2011
So how would you explaing a right-wingnut who isn’t xenophobic?
Norm Johnson
July 21, 2011
Amygdala Funny Farm,
Ee-yi-ee-yi-yo.
Where Rush Limbaugh’s the fattest pig
Ee-yi-ee-yi-yo.
Doug
July 25, 2011
Ask the tea party guy.
I am rather ashamed about the comments here about fellow Americans that take to the streets in protests against the government. Agree or not, (mostly not here). Why is this political movement so upsetting to so many here.?
The tea party took to the streets and delivered a huge swing in the political landscape in the last 2 years. Isn’t this what a freedom of speech means?
Trying to explain it in some strange scientific terms which is entrenched in our brains is a huge reach into a unproven theory without a spec of scientific proof as stated in the salon article.
Rosie makes the claim that :
” I think we have entered an era where it may be perfectly reasonable to use biological warfare on the deranged republicans among us”
I really feel sad about that statement, such venom , it typifies the argument against the left from my side of the fence.
If you can’t agree with us ( the left) then you have committed a SIN
S witch the subject
I gnore the argument
N amecall
I think you can do better, As a experienced Tea Party protester I would be happy to take your questions.
If you are inflammatory and just a name-caller you will be ignored.
Bob
July 25, 2011
So you’re ashamed. How’s the weather up there on the moral high ground? The T-pers took to the streets and got a lot of fools elected that want to take from working people and the poor to give to the rich. Out of all the discussion here you pick up on a few comments by someone who usually doesn’t post here, and might be you for all we know, and use them to justify a silly acronym. Did you notice that someone who does often post here tried to reason with “Rosie”? Did you know that science has identified psychological traits specific to political conservatism? Do you think it’s possible that a manipulative political class could take advantage of them? If you really are a T-per do you have a picture of Obama with a paintbrush mustache or African headdress? Do you think this is a Christian nation? Do you think the media are all liberal except for FNC? Do you wear a gun to rallies? Do you stomp on girls’ heads like Rand Paul’s goons? I’m sure you have all the answers.
Doug
July 26, 2011
” Did you know that science has identified psychological traits specific to political conservatism?”
Actually Bob there is no such evidence, at least according to the Salon article linked in the original post here. As far as “someone trying to reason with Rosie” I did not see any type of “reasoning ” just a alternative theroy as to why the other side has some type of mental illness.
“Do you think it’s possible that a manipulative political class could take advantage of them?”
Yes, I agree here. just like the mega corporations of thought so easily preside in others thinking. Liberal, Conservative, we are drawn to those with similar beliefs. Fox or Media Matters pick your poison
” If you really are a T-per do you have a picture of Obama with a paintbrush mustache or African headdress?”
Oh Bob, you are getting into SIN territory here but the truth is neither. The paintbrush mustache (at least from the rallies I went to) was work of the Lyndon Larousse freaks, I mean will these guys never quit! Larousse ran for office from a prison cell, always on the democratic ticket. You will have to take my word on it here , I live in a state with a lot of “rouseees” those fuckers never stop. They claimed that Bush was Hitler also.
I personally did not carry a sign with Obama with a headdress on and don’t recall seeing any, no saying it did not happen.
“Do you think this is a Christian nation? Do you think the media are all liberal except for FNC”
I believe that we are born with natural rights endowed by our creator, I also believe that if you do not choose to believe in a supernatural being,and are secular ,then your body is your domain and not subject to the whims of anyone else, including a governing body. The saying “keep your laws off my body ” applies here.
” Do you wear a gun to rallies?”
I don’t own any guns but have no issue with anyone else carrying. I can’t control stupid. If you are referencing the The Otero Tea Party that was more of a 2nd amendment rally, hundreds showed up with firearms. No injuries reported. The main bogey man carrying a assault rifle(shown on every news station) was a African American, which the media went out of it’s way not to show his face..After all the tea party patriots are all racists right?
“Do you stomp on girls’ heads like Rand Paul’s goons? I’m sure you have all the answers.”
Of course not , that was not only uncalled for but a violent act which I hope the security person paid the price for his actions. no one is above the law.
Any more insults or do you want to discuss the issues?
Bob
July 26, 2011
You’re quite sensitive about insults. Tell you what, if you’ll drop your reference to your own moral superiority, I’ll stop making fun of them.
I can’t find the link you’re talking about, and I don’t have much time this morning, but I can find dozens of articles and essays that show there are psychological traits, and even interactions of brain regions, specific to political conservatism. In fact, except for the MRI work, this is nothing new. There have been hundreds or possibly thousands of studies of political psychology since WWII for pretty obvious reasons. One article in Salon doesn’t negate them. If you can’t find any by tomorrow, I’ll find some for you. Just put “conservatism psychology study” (without the quotes) in a search engine.
Robert Post’s first statement in answer to “Rosie” is “Rosie, there is an alternative to biological warfare.” after that he goes on to a discussion about changing minds. That gets no credit for reasoning? Why not?
Fox, right wing talk radio, etc. are not equivalent. The right deals almost exclusively in lies and distortions. There has been a lot of ink spilled about this. There are several studies showing that people who watch FNC actually know less than nothing about the facts of issues, that is, they believe things that are not true. If you can’t find them I’ll look in the next few days, or someone else here will help you.
Your reference to SIN certainly sounds like Christian language. There are several posts by Professor Beery about the religious beliefs of The Founders that you can look into here. Don’t miss the one that includes the Treaty of Tripoli, or search for “Treaty of Tripoli.” It states in part: “… the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
The facts that T-ers carried guns, insulting signs, and beat up at least one girl are facts. Even the corporate media showed the pictures. I’m glad you’re not one of those people, but had to ask. The fact that there was no one injured by the guns is not an excuse for their obviously threatening display. Keep in mind that right wingers have committed acts of gun violence recently – the murder of Dr. Tiller and the mass murder in Norway, for example. If you think it’s legitimate to make a general threat with guns at a rally, please just say so. Why do you think it’s relevant that “The main bogey man carrying a assault rifle(shown on every news station) was a African American”?
And I’d like you to explain more about how you think of yourself as living in your own, politically isolated domain. Do you take advantage of roads and other infrastructure paid for by all Americans like schools, the armed forces, etc.?
Got to run.
beeryblog
July 26, 2011
Oh, SNAP!
Ask the tea party guy
July 26, 2011
Ok Bob,
I have no axe to grind, no superiority complex. I took issue with the study that’s linked on top of this page because the study only involved 92 people, hardly enough to draw a conclusion from. I will hit on a few points quickly and feel free to ask as many questions as you want
“Fox, right wing talk radio, etc. are not equivalent. The right deals almost exclusively in lies and distortions.”
The right does not have the market cornered on this. The left lies and distorts truths also .
Yes I made a biblical reference, has nothing to to with Christianity or religion, it was simply a metaphor.
“There are several studies showing that people who watch FNC actually know less than nothing about the facts of issues, that is, they believe things that are not true. If you can’t find them I’ll look in the next few days, or someone else here will help you.”
That’s not true Bob, polotifact did a great breakdown on the way the polls were run over the years. They seem to be a reliable source and I agree with the methodology they used.
I am by no means a expert but breaking down demographics and how wording effects ones answer to questions is one of the ways I make a living.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jun/21/readers-sound-about-our-false-jon-stewart/
I would love to get your thoughts on this politfact article
I completely agree that carrying firearms to a political rally is really stupid, I referenced that in my other post “you can’t fix stupid” maybe you missed it.
Murder and vile acts of terrorism are not exclusive to right wingers, these people have a serious mental problem. Remember the backpack bomber that held people hostage at the discovery channel museum in rosslyn virginia last year? He was a far left as they come, thank goodness he was not able to detonate his device before he was subdued.
I found this question interesting Bob, you jump to your own conclusion before you even ask the question.
” And I’d like you to explain more about how you think of yourself as living in your own, politically isolated domain. Do you take advantage of roads and other infrastructure paid for by all Americans like schools, the armed forces, etc.?”
I am not “isolated” politically. Of course I use roads and services like everyone else I pay taxes to use these services .The size and scope of government is where we may part ways. If you want to ask me about that I would be happy to answer.
moi
July 26, 2011
Wow! Gotta say, I’m impressed! We seem to have a logical, rational, thoughtful TEA PARTY guy willing to go toe to toe on specific issues!! I know Mr. Beery has been waiting a long time for YOU to show up!!
beeryblog
July 26, 2011
Hi Moi! I’ll leave this mostly to Bob, but I do want to ask TPG for his thoughts on false equivalency: http://beeryblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/note-to-progressives-false-equivalency-is-not-funny/
TPG, do you believe that climate change is happening? Do you believe ‘intelligent design’ should be taught in science class? It’s not always a ‘both sides have a point’ world. Simply to say “both sides lie” when one side is built on lies seems to me an inadequate argument based on a monumental failure to perceive the distinction between fact and fiction.
moi
July 26, 2011
Wow–break out the popcorn and s’mores! Can’t wait to read the rest of this!!
Dubya T Eff
July 26, 2011
Hi, TPG. I’m with Professor Beery. Would you be so kind as to list some examples of the way the left lies and distorts the truth? I’m certainly not such a Pollyanna as to believe that all libs are rational and cleave strictly to facts, leaving emotional appeal out of their arguments. But I would venture–no, on second thought, I unequivocally state–that liberal lies and distortions are the exception, not the rule. From my perspective, the opposite is true of the right.
It makes me sad, aggravated, and impatient when people continually and passionately defend precepts and practices seeking to destroy their well being.
From Roger Ailes to Lee Atwater and Karl Rove the Right has sought (and succeeded) to create a new order wherein they have risen to power on the willing, bent backs of the working class-people who will never know the luxury of vacationing abroad, or dropping $800 on dinner for two, or splitting time between numerous homes–or even seeing their kids walk across the stage to pick up their college diplomas. Things like dentist’s visits and a new winter coat for your kid every year are LUXURY ITEMS for the likes of the working class-but because our numbers are so great, the taxes we generate provide for all the pet projects (pork) our legislators manage to pass as bills, when they’re not busy trying to destroy Obama-even if they have to bring the country down with him. You do realize, don’t you, that you’re just a number–hopefully a procreating number so there will be more numbers to take your place–don’t you? Birth rate studies (actuarials) are part and parcel of the plan to keep working class and poor A) fueling the hamster wheel B) in chronic state of poverty or low income, which erodes opportunity (poor people live in poor school
districts, eat less nutritional food, have less hope). You have been sold a bill of goods-but don’t feel too badly-it’s been sold to you by a master of the art of the lie. Even Rupert Murdoch says Roger Ailes scares the shit out of him.
If you want to read some very good background about Ailes and his magnum opus, Fox News, look up the Rolling Stone article on Google.
Fox, Ailes, O’Reilly, Hannity, Fox and Friends–the talking points are delivered to them every day by none other than Roger Ailes, and they spend the entire day disseminating these talking points.
Obfuscate. Lather. Do not rinse. Repeat.
Oh, P.S. Welcome. I commend your courage in speaking up here.
Dubya T Eff
July 26, 2011
Make mine popcorn and Milk Duds, please. : )
Ask the tea party guy
July 26, 2011
Mr Beery,
Thanks for coming forth with these questions. I will be back later to give you my views. I gotta finish a client project . I just wanted to say it’s a pretty interesting blog here .
Ask the Tea party Guy
July 26, 2011
Mr. Beery,
Concerning your post about moral equivalency, that’s a pretty interesting take but puts me at a great disadvantage in any ongoing discussion. You believe that since I am a tea party guy I am crazy, and that all republicans are crazy.
With that premise you have created a bias tipped in your favor. But what the heck it’s your blog and I am guest here.
So moving forward on climate change, I believe the climate is changing but I do not think the “science is settled” as so many say over and over. Give me a little time on this one and maybe I can make sense of it from my point of view.
I believe in the scientific method and more importantly a strong peer review and discussion. The IPCC is composed of 600 scientists and some of the data collection methods used are subject to scrutiny in my view. Lost data, climategate and other red flags in their computer modeling systems should be open to review. There are growing independent scientists and organizations that submit their findings for peer review and some of those findings conflict with IPCC. Climate science is big money and it not going away anytime soon. A system as complex as our atmosphere may and should take time to study. Being that co2 is a trace gas (I think 340 parts per million) and water vapor accounts for 90% of warming we should be careful how we move forward , drastic hikes in energy taxes and carbon “cap and trade ” would not be a good idea in this economy, the poor would suffer the most . In the seventies the science was all about global cooling and another ice age, with the sun going into a reduced sunspot cycle this could reduce warming in the near term.
I do like the pickens plan of getting our heavy equipment running on natural gas, I think something like every diesel big rig we take off the road equals emissions from 100 cars. We can’t build infrastructure without big trucks, cranes, bulldozers etc,and they wont run on batteries so natural gas would be a good alternative. I would reduce our dependence on oil and help ease the global demand to emerging markets.
Intelligent design, I really don’t have many thoughts on that , I am not sure it should be taught in schools, maybe if that certain community and school board thinks it should then keep it at a local level. I would rather be teaching kids subjects that will prepare them for the world. I have read a couple books about intelligent design, interesting but I did not come away with anything that changed my worldview.
Bob
July 27, 2011
I’d also like to commend your willingness to take part in this blog, and will be glad to write what I think about the politifact piece. To me it’s mostly an argument over semantics. I don’t consider The Daily Show a source of news, and Jon Stewart doesn’t speak for me. Spending any time parsing what he said or how politifact chose to interpret it is pointless. The only part of the article that’s relevant is in Steven Kull’s statement:
Steven Kull, the director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, wrote us after the story appeared to say that testing for lack of knowledge is not enough. “We analyzed the effect of increased exposure to news outlets. We found that with all other outlets, increased exposure generally resulted in less misinformation. However, for Fox viewers, on nine points of information, increased exposure correlated with increased misinformation. This was true of only one point of information for public broadcasting and MSNBC viewers, and two points of information for network news. This effect was found in the 2003 study as well. Fox viewers were the only group for whom increased exposure resulted in greater misinformation.”
Which covers what I claimed in my post.
I’m glad we agree about the display of guns, but here I’ll have to repeat the point about false equivalency Mr. Beery mentioned and ask for reports of crowds of left wingers holding rallies at which they’re wearing guns. I didn’t remember a bomb threat in Rosslyn, Virginia and did a Yahoo search. This is the only story I could find:
Bomb Threat Closes Rosslyn Metro
The Washington Post
January 28, 1999 | Brian Mooar; Jefferson Morley | Copyright
A bomb scare closed the Rosslyn Metro station during yesterday’s evening rush hour, forcing commuters to walk or take buses to other stations while police bomb technicians investigated, officials said.
The station — near the Potomac River in Virginia, serving the Orange and Blue lines — was closed at 6:37 p.m. after Arlington police received a telephoned threat and the Rosslyn station manager found a silver moped bearing a sticker indicating it was a bomb.
Trains continued to run through the station but did not stop, and the public was barred from the station until the threat was found to be a hoax at 8:54 p.m. …
So unless you mean some other story there wasn’t even a real bomb involved. Please correct me if there’s a different story.
I wouldn’t deny there are left wing people who aren’t playing with a full deck; for example the 9-11 “truthers” who claim the Bush administration was actually responsible for the terrorist act. In that case, though, they have allies on the right. The main difference between the extremes is that on the right many of the crazies are now part of the mainstream and are actively courted by right wing Republican and Libertarian politicians. I’ll give the example of Sharron Angle making speeches mentioning “2nd amendment remedies”, and as a T-er you know there are many more. I won’t even offer to search for them for you. And on the subject, why no answer to why you think it’s relevant that “The main bogey man carrying a assault rifle(shown on every news station) was a African American”? Do you understand that statement can easily be perceived as a racist non-answer?
I do accept your answer about your personal politics; after all it’s totally subjective. If you’d like to explain exactly where you’d place the limits of government we can certainly have a conversation about that. However, the saying “keep your laws off my body” is famously connected to the women’s rights movement, and it’s not especially appropriate in any other context.
For a study on the psychology of conservatism, the best one I’ve found on the net is a meta analysis covering 12 countries and 22,818 cases. You can download it here:
http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/resources_files/ConsevatismAsMotivatedSocialCognition.pdf
There is an actual psychologist who posts here. Maybe he’ll find something better for you. He goes by jarnold1 and you can watch for him.
moi
July 27, 2011
For example, Tea Party Guy, today on NPR, Lisa Mullins interviewed a former Senior Analyst for Homeland Security about the THREAT OF RIGHT WING EXTREMEISM in the UNITED STATES—yes, you read that right. Check it out:
http://www.theworld.org/2011/07/rightwing-extremism-in-the-us/
You just don’t see an equivalent on the left, and I’d hardly argue that Homeland Security has a “Liberal Bias”…
Ask the Tea Party Guy
July 27, 2011
Hey Moi
I saw your post in a email so wanted to respond quickly. I seem to now have three conversations going and to Bob thanks for the reply and I will get back to what you wrote.
Here is one example of left wing terrorism or violence ,I could search around and find plenty more, like the burning of hummer dealerships from ELF but really I have a time crunch and do enough data searching for my business. I apoligize to Bob whom I gave a incorrect reference to earlier, I had the city incorrect. This was the reference to the Discovery hostage taker and backback bomber.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20015383-504083.html
Any way without going into a long rant Moi. The DHS should investigate all forms of terrorism. right, left ,center whatever. This is all over the huff post , daily kos and other left leaning media and it should be. However there is one thing that is not being talked about that should be, If there is a threat lets meet it head on and not play patty cake.
Since I get the washington post daily I read about this already. ( I guess I am a little old fashioned and like to read a print paper with my morning coffee) Anyway here is a link to the article and I will go over the last paragraph and try not to get my blood boiling about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/homeland-security-department-curtails-home-grown-terror-analysis/2011/06/02/AGQEaDLH_story_1.html
Here is the last couple paragraphs
“The DHS civil rights office subsequently was granted veto rights over all DHS reports on domestic terrorists, Johnson said.
Johnson and others said intelligence reports on the resurgence of militia groups in Michigan and Kentucky are among those being withheld by the agency, which he said was “screening for politically sensitive phrases or topics that might be objectionable to certain groups.”
Multiple briefings for state and local officials on extremist groups such as the sovereign citizens movement — composed of those who reject American legal supremacy — were also blocked, according to internal DHS messages. ”
So without cussing like a sailor on leave just what the heck is the mission here ! Are we looking for threats to the citizens of this country or “screening for politically sensitive phrases”
We have a civil rights office having veto rights over reporting? I thought the DHS was in charge of taking information on threats and coordinating it to local authorities. This is a perfect example of policy over common sense. It’s political correctness at it’s worst.
I was against the DHS from the start, another government bureau is not going to make us safer, common sense and communication will.We could have easily put policies in place from any one of the intelligence agencies to do the work , expanded into a new division that had the purpose of culling information and making assessments. Now we have another bloated agency in a long list that fails at it’s core mission.
Bill
July 27, 2011
I hate to dogpile, but a few points come to mind vis-a-vis politically motivated violence.
1. It’s obvious that no ideology necessarily has any monopoly on politically motivated violence.
2. Politically motivated violence tends to occur by ideology cyclically. Hence we had the turbulence of the New Left in the 60s and 70s (which was wildly overstated in any case.)
3. There is a difference between political violence that springs up ex nihilo (like the one you cited), and say Scott Roeder with George Tiller (whom Bill O’Reilly referred so charmingly to as Tiller the Baby-Killer) or Bernie Goldberg inspiring the Knoxville church shooter. Again, there is no figure on the mainstream left calling for say, the assassination of conservatives.
This is not to say that conservative bloviators are at fault for anything other than just being horrible people who say horrible things. All things considered, crazy people will always find a reason to use violence, but the rhetoric certainly doesn’t help.
4. I read the Washington Post article with regards to the DHS, and I’m not surprised. Though I think you seem to take the wrong conclusion. If anything, from what I read, it seems the DHS is sitting on reports about right-wing after the unholy shit storm after a report about militias (which apparently meant right-wing blogs, even though it really wasn’t.)
I’m not sure it’s necessarily a bad thing that citizens and citizens groups get to have some input into the process, particularly considering the rampant growth of a militarist state apparatus in the United States. So in this case, whiny right-wingers may be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
5. Which ultimately brings me to my last point. Why are right-wingers so defensive about this? No one’s saying you are directly responsible. What we are saying is that your leaders (both rhetorical and political) are irresponsible dickheads who use irresponsible rhetoric and that you are at least partially culpable by not reining them in.
Honestly, nothing pisses me off when someone tries to dissemble anything ever resembling conservatism when connected to violence as something else. It’s like trying to redefine Nazism as being left-wing. It’s not. And Jonah Goldberg’s book is stupid. And to be fair, the Left has its own totalitarian ideologies. No one is infallible (and I say this as a committed social democrat.)
It strikes me that a lot of people on the right want to have their cake and eat it too. Don’t you dare paint us with a broad brush, they say. And they are right. It’s wrong to do so. But at the same time, they seem to have no problem painting all liberals as communists, fascists, etc, all Muslims as terrorists, all homosexuals as deviants, and so on and so forth.
Anyhow, now to address your global warming points. As you yourself noted, the climate is something that must be studied in a holistic fashion. Strange then that you atomize emissions as having no effect on each other.
Fact: carbon dioxide emissions contribute to modest warming which then leads to more water vapor emissions. It’s called an autocatalytic process. The more carbon you emit, the more that the climate is affected in such a manner to facilitate more water vapor emissions. Therefore, we indirectly control water vapor emissions via our emission behavior with regards to carbon dioxide.
Also, the 90% figure is not strictly accurate. Scientific consensus pegs the warming effect of CO2 at anywhere from 10-30% of the total warming effect. I’ve had a look at some of the models, and while I don’t pretend to be a climatologist, once you start looking at the knock-on effects of CO2 emissions you do start to understand that man has had a significant impact.
Furthermore, water vapor by itself does not provide a long-term warming effect, as the hydrological cycle means that under normal climactic circumstances, water is dispersed back into the environment. However, once we tweak with the balance (with the aforementioned CO2) you start getting into the significant effect noted.
To knock out your other two points:
1. Climate science may or may not be profitable. As a right-winger, I thought you wanted to let the free market decide, right? I kid, I kid. Anyhow, to take this line of argument, isn’t it true that certain industries (like energy extraction) are both much more profitable and have vested interests in muddying the truth? I mean, that’s taking your own criteria for epistemological soundness right?
2. We’ve already been studying the climate for a long time. This isn’t an argument so much as, forgive me for being blunt, a rather facile and silly observation. Before Newton, gravity as a force had been studied for a long time. Should he have taken decades more to publish Principia in deference to Plato’s work on heavenly spheres, or to give a shout-out to Aristotle’s metaphysics? I can respect your skepticism. A scientific spirit demands skepticism, but any self-respecting skepticism requires evidence and not mere assertions.
In any case, I do not believe that the evidence for any climate change skepticism is sufficient to make the argument that climate change is not occurring.
However, with that being said, I fail to see why certain remedies are considered bad. Suppose for a moment that climate change believers (for lack of a better word) are completely wrong. Well, first of all congratulations for getting it right, I guess, but let’s look at the other effects of our policy.
Cap and Trade (a Reagan-Bush proposal originally): Will create a marketplace/cap/system of tax disincentives for pollution. Will result in better air quality, which will result in better public health (thus increasing economic productivity, growth, etc.) Will also facilitate necessary change from fossil fuels to new energy sources (be they solar, nuclear, etc.)
Alternative fuel investment: Again, everyone agrees that oil is finite. And free marketers usually ignore the role government has always had in changing energy sources.
For example, did you know that the Royal Navy only became oil-fueled with the advent of Winston Churchill into the First Admiralty? Furthermore, did you know that the substantial infrastructure build-up in the British North Seas and the relative paramountcy of oil in Britain was to a great degree catalyzed by the effect of having such a huge (government-originated sponsor.)
There’s a host of other policies being tossed around, from improving our disaster readiness (which I think should be a national priority anyhow), to updating our mass transit infrastructure (which will be good for growth anyhow), and so on and so forth.
There’s certainly a lot of technocratic arguments that can be made against these proposals. You can even make an honest and straightforward cost-benefit argument here. Those heuristics are all valid as a way of evaluating public policy, but I have yet to see anyone engage this argument other than accusing the other side of being grossly mistaken on the science (without really engaging the policy), or of lying (because we are Communist fifth columnists who want to wipe out free enterprise or something.)
Finally, I do not think we have seriously suggested that all right-wingers are crazy. Simply that right-wing power structures, as supported by a plurality of right-wingers have become crazy. The Republican Party has attempted to repeal math and is pursuing deflationary policies that even its own economists (like Greg Mankiw) say will slow economic growth. Conservative news sources skew the news. Conservative organizations have shaken our old public financing system to its very core.
I have conservative friends. I admire some conservative thinkers. I do not see any of my fellow human beings as being fundamentally evil. But I will not step back on my observation that the political structures here (as well as a great deal of the underlying voter base) is silly, wrong, or delusional. And I think I say the same for most others here.
In any case, welcome to this blog. I do not speak for all liberals, but I can say that we generally enjoy engaging our ideological counterparts in debate. Civil intellectual honesty will be respected. You need not fear us reviling you for any reason.
Bob
July 27, 2011
Bill, even though you qualify your statement about “the turbulence of the New Left in the 60s and 70s” the comparison, at least in this country, is not apt. The SDS, Weather Underground, Black Panthers and war protesters put together never pulled off anything to approach the enormity of Timothy McVeigh’s mass murder. Liberals did not hold lynchings. Many of the accusations against leftist groups during that time were outright lies invented by right wing operatives. Even the petty stories of hippies spitting on returning Vietnam vets have been debunked. The right commonly takes bizarre license in the ways they define “the left” too. You’re trying just a bit too hard to be fair.
Dubya T Eff
July 28, 2011
Hi again, Bill.
I haven’t perused all the new comments on this blog post, so I hope I’m not being redundant-I wondered if you’d share the name(s) of the conservative thinkers that you admire. I’m hard pressed to think of anyone in that category and I’d like to be enlightened.
Also-as usual, you make salient and articulate points.
Regarding the climate change scofflaws–I know several (including my ex-husband, who has worked for the EPA for 20 years!) and one of the questions I put to them is: Even if climate change isn’t “real” what’s the harm in exploring alternatives? Alternative energy sources, alternative transportation modes (as an aside, there’s some compelling stuff about the link between America’s highway system and its influence on the creation of suburbia. Life in the suburbs, the norm for the majority of Americans, virtually guarantees auto-dependency, which then influences our dependence on oil, which affects the amount of CO2 expelled into the atmosphere, and on and on. Here’s a link to one article that goes into some detail about how our automobile culture ” . . . can be credited
with many of the most difficult social, financial, environmental and foreign policy challenges we face as a nation.” http://www.suburbanpermaculture.org/workshops/Archives/suburban%20historypics.htm) alternative lifestyles? In this instance I refer not to “other than hetero” lifestyles but a lifestyle that embraces the three “r”s-recycle, reduce, re-use.
Where’s the harm in being good stewards of the planet and its resources? It’s not as if, by behaving responsibly and bringing new forms of sustenance (for energy and livelihood) to bear, anyone’s going to end up looking like a colossal a-hole or plunge the earth into darkness. Of course the answer is that there is no harm, but it wouldn’t “do” because then the filthy rich couldn’t wring every last drop of oil from the planet and in turn wring every last cent from consumers of same.
Great thread! Thank you Bob, Bill, Moi, TPG. . . enjoying it very much, and learning a lot, too.
Bill
July 28, 2011
Bob, I’m aware of the “ratfuckers” during the Nixon administration who tried to paint the Left as super-violent. I’m also aware that probably the most notorious leftist “terrorist” group of the day, The Weather Underground called in ahead when it was bombing facilities to get evacuations started, for example. I wasn’t really trying to draw an equivalence so much as noting that a climate of violence can come from anywhere on the political spectrum. I could have mentioned the Bolsheviks in Russia, but say what you will of the current right-wing, they are nowhere near that bad.
And yes, the old hippie stuff was apocryphal, though it was symptomatic of some of the mistreatment that veterans got. It was often subtler stuff than that, but Vietnam veterans were never really given a due payment from their country. Mind you, that’s an entirely different topic and I’m rather strident on how we should pay back our veterans, so let’s leave that for another day.
In any case, my main point was that TPers and conservatives cannot simply wave away responsibility. They are not responsible in the sense that they committed or facilitated the crime (in most cases), but rather they are responsible in the same way the left was responsible for (successfully) policing its own extreme elements. I always like to blow conservative minds by telling them that the Center for American Progress was founded in part as an anti-Communist organization. And no, I have nothing against Communists. They can be just as non-violent and reasonable as the rest of us. Heck, I’m a Socialist Social Democrat, after all.
Dubya: Living and American? Probably only Greg Mankiw. He’s a great economist. Well, Milton Friedman too. He did great work and monetarism is as much a part of policy as keynesianism, but he sort of went off the deep end when he got involved in politics. Norman Ornstein at the AEI is also pretty decent. Can’t stand most other stuff. The National Review is disgraceful. David Brooks is sloppy, facile and given to the sort of analogizing that would make Tom Friedman retch. David Frum is alright, but so obviously self-serving in the way he’s seen the light. Andrew Sullivan is okay.
Oh, I do have to mention that I actually identify with Henry Kissinger and other conservatives of his school. It always shocks people, but I’m a reptilian reapolitik adept when it comes to foreign policy, with a few modifications for morality and restraint thrown in.
There’s really one I’m ambivalent about. Victor Davis Hanson. He did great classical scholarship, but then distorted it in favor of a grotesque neocon vision. For example, did you know that the apparent lesson of the Peloponnesian War was that we should stay the course in the Middle East? Even though Thucydides wrote his chronicles of it as a cautionary tale on imperialism (see the Sicilian Expedition.)
Dead? Burke, LaFayette, Hayek, etc. I never bought into libertarianism –it treats human decency as a sufficient rather than merely necessary condition for a smoothly functioning society- but Hayek and others have made good arguments for it. Rawls in a sense made conservative arguments. I even like Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, even if I am not a devout or even religionist Catholic.
Anyhow, I made much the same argument with regards to climate change. In a sense, we are lucky since climate change requires many of the same responses that the increasing scarcity of oil and the coming energy transition demands.
Bob
July 28, 2011
I think I see your point Bill, but a comparison between the Russian Bolsheviks of 1917 and today’s American right is quite a stretch.
Ask the Tea Party Guy
July 27, 2011
Hey Bill,
I appreciate your stepping in and making some astute observations. I don’t think in any way you are piling on. I expect it and will need to keep my powder dry
Bill
July 27, 2011
No worries. I commend you for actually engaging us. I think we’d be in a lot better shape in this country if more people actually talked to each other. Hopefully the interwebs can facilitate that, don’t ya know?
Also, we have a puppy page, with the Professor’s awesome dog, Campbell. If that isn’t bipartisan, I don’t know what is!
Ask the Tea Party Guy
July 27, 2011
http://www.savecollies.org
Dogs are as bipartisan as it gets , I foster for this rescue and currently have Harlan. It going to be tough to give him up . The problem is they keep coming and I only have so much room.
Bill
July 28, 2011
That’s great. I volunteer for the Dumb Friends’ League in my own state. We have a responsibility to these animals, who are unfortunately often the victims of a great amount of cruelty.
And I have to say that one of my recurring fantasies is to someday own a farm where I could have my own herd of rescue dogs. I dunno. Saving them all is a pipe dream, but each rescue makes the world a better place. Good on you, sir.
beeryblog
July 28, 2011
TPG–thanks for posting. I wish we had more TPers over here to debate. We probably offend most of them by calling them teabaggers, but as long as TPers keep saying ‘Democtrat party,’ I’m going to keep saying teabaggers. But I digress! -Cheers
Ask the Tea Party Guy
July 28, 2011
Hey Mr Beery,
Thanks for the comment. I am not sure about the context of “Democrat party ” being a slur except that is is not correct English it should be democrat or democratic party correct?
beeryblog
July 28, 2011
Yep … a lot of Republicans refuse to add the IC to Democrat because ‘Democrat Party’ just sounds bad and using it signals the disdain and disrespect Repubs have for the left. Now many of the pols who say they’ll call the ‘Democrat Party’ whatever they please are insisting that TPers not be called teabaggers. But the way I see it, if the DemocratIC Party doesn’t get to choose its own name, neither does the Tea Party. So this is my own little protest–I’ll keep saying teabaggers until TPers stop saying Democrat Party (which they won’t). And besides, it makes me chuckle.
Ask the Tea Party Guy
July 28, 2011
Yea, Tea baggers is pretty gross
moi
July 28, 2011
Today on Slate I saw Demonicrat party.
moi
July 28, 2011
Agreed guys! Love to read this! You’re both so articulate
(I’m still learning! Not sure I’d want to go toe to toe with either of you!!)
Ask the Tea Party Guy
July 28, 2011
Hey Bob,
I am glad that Steven Kull took time to write to you or ‘us” as you say about the survey, I went over it also from the data on the website. Did you also get a letter from Pew research ? I looked over the data and got a different conclusion. How data is collected, the questions asked and the percentage of error is not “pointless” I looked at the data from Mr. Kull’s site.
The huff post. daily Kos and just about every left learning site has been talking about this. I am not suggesting John Stewart speaks for you or anyone else. Or any other website.
I don’t have any reports of left wingers carrying guns at rallies. you got me there.
Here is the correct information about the left wing discovery bomber. Here is the correct link.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20015383-504083.html
Sorry I got the town wrong, I was thinking newsuem which is in rosslyn va , It was silver spring md.
To answer your inquiry about the tea party rally and the gun carrying African American and why I focused on that . Its a matter of context. Notice how the discussion turns to racism in the first video link . The person carrying the gun is not shown, just the gun itself. MSNBC seems more concerned about racism and the tea party then talking to the person with the rifle.
MSNBC
Compare that with the local news
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7syx26QtQIM&feature=related
See a difference?
Like I said Bob , you can’t fix stupid if it’s a gun toting person at a rally or even when it’s MSNBC bad decisions are just that.
Thanks for the link on the research, I skimmed through it and admit it was a bit over my head. There was some good information that I found interesting.
As far as using the term “keep your laws of my body” does the woman’s right movement have a trademark on that? Perhaps I missed that.Should it not apply to me for some reason? Somehow using metaphors in any form seems to get peoples dander up here.
Bob
July 28, 2011
TPG,
You’re going to have to be more specific. I can’t make any sense of your sarcastic remarks about getting communications from Steve Kull and Pew and so on. What web page did you go over the data on? The WPO study is posted here:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&l
When I wrote “pointless” I was referring only to politifact’s parsing of Jon Stewart’s words. WPO claims their study’s margin of error is plus or minus 3.4 percent. The method is explained. It was considered legitimate by the major news organizations including the wires and the Christian Science Monitor, among others. You’ll have to link the information you have that casts doubt on the study. I couldn’t find any that wasn’t on a political blog. I don’t mean any irony here at all, but you do understand that there’s a profound difference between opinion and fact, don’t you?
I read the news story about the “left wing bomber”. He did have a gun, but police did not confirm whether he had a real bomb. Read again carefully. I would like you to explain what makes him left wing. His target was The Discovery Channel. Does it have a political affiliation? The article states:
He said he was inspired by “Ishmael,” a novel by environmentalist Daniel Quinn and by former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”
I couldn’t find any mention of him making a political statement. It seems you consider his reading one book and seeing one movie as proof he was a left wing environmentalist. That’s simply nonsensical. Since the piece also states he thought of money as “just trash” we could also imagine he believed in going back to the gold standard. That would have made him a right winger by your standards.
If the clip you linked is from the Dylan Ratigan Show it is not news; it’s political entertainment. The majority of the crowd certainly seems to be of Northern European extraction to me, but if the clip were from a nominal news show, I would agree MSNBC might have been dishonest in their editing. I don’t watch MSNBC for hard news and wouldn’t recommend it for anyone else.
The study is not easy reading, but if you just spend some time on the tables you can get the gist of the findings.
The women’s rights movement does not have a copyright on the phrase “keep your laws off my body”, but let me compliment you this time for your very clever sense of sarcasm. I resent appropriation of the icons of the left and didn’t want to let it go unnoticed. A lot of conservatives enjoy it as a form of mischief. The comparison of abortion rights to slavery is probably the most repeated example.
Bill
July 28, 2011
Democrat Party is something of a Limbaughism as I remember. It ends on rat and isn’t the proper way to call a member of the party. I’m not too bothered by it, since I think Rush Limbaugh is kind of an idiot (though he’s very good at what he does, I suppose), but I do think one of the prerequisites for debate is getting the other persons name right.
Vis-a-vis teabagger, to be fair, I believe it was some hapless TPers who started that thing. We just kinda ran with it because in all honesty it was hilarious.
Ask the Tea Party Guy
July 28, 2011
Gotcha Bill, Dem O C RAT. I never heard that on before. Makes sense.
Bill
July 28, 2011
To be fair, I had never heard it either, and by the same token had never really thought about the obvious negative puns for Republicans –Rethugicans, Repugs, etc.– but I’m not really a negative kind of guy. I’ll call the odd asshole an asshole, but I don’t really think coming up with names to call the other person is necessarily a productive use of time. Hence why I disdain people like Rush Limbaugh, who I think started the name thing.
Dave Yaroch
July 28, 2011
I find this theory interesting. It somewhat reinforces a position I’ve held for the past few years.
I maintain that if Liberals are “BLEEDING HEART” , Conservatives are “BLEEDING GUT”.
Ever have a conversation about an issue that is morally nuanced, say needle exchange programs. All the facts point out that they are effective harm reduction programs and probably save the taxpayers a fair bit of money, which you’d think would be of interest to a Con.
The problem is they can’t get passed the “gut check” and the feeling that it just isn’t right to give needles to addicts. Never mind that it doesnt encourage drug use and actually gets heathcare professional in front of these addicts.
Now I can see an explanation that ties this together.
Forrest
July 28, 2011
New research has recently come to my attention showing that the amygdala is involved in pursuing pleasure as well as avoiding threats: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/69693/title/Cerebral_Delights . Perhaps this is why the amydala-afflicted pursue the more visceral reward of “attacking” (and, in their own mind, defeating) their “enemies” rather than dispassionately searching for real answers to the real problems we face, using, you know, things like facts and stuff. It may also help explain why they make the most restrictive sexual rules for themselves (err, for others actually, I guess) and proceed to break them more-or-less constantly.
Bill
July 28, 2011
That’s an interesting way to look at it. I always approach politics as primarily being about accomplishing a policy goal. Truth be told, I don’t really obsess about defeating conservatives insofar as it gets me ahead policy-wise, whereas there is plenty of rhetoric on the conservative side about destroying liberalism or something. I dunno. I don’t speak for all liberals, and I’m sure we have some of that on our side too, but certainly not, it seems, to the same extent as our conservative friends.
Tea Party Guy, some thoughts?
Norman
August 14, 2011
I suspect that “Amygdala Syndrome” may be a theory in search of supporting facts. I have found a number of seemingly contradictory results of the so-called enlarged amygdala, including that such folks are parts of larger, more complex social networks. It seems that drawing conclusions about political affiliations, based on highly complex interactions, and apparently nascent, and incomplete, research is problematic.
I am beginning to see “Amygdala Syndrome” as the new “Phrenology”.
Hedhnter
July 28, 2011
My first time here, and so freakin’ impressed with the level of discourse. Being Canadian, I’m not sure why I intentionally torture myself with the vagaries of American politics…something to do with proximity I suppose–when you guys fart, the stink wafts up here.
And boy, it’s gettin’ mighty smelly these days!
Very well done all, it’s a treat to read something that doesn’t involve “I know you are, but what am I” so frequently seen when a TPer is commenting.
Thank you, I enjoyed this.
Bob
July 28, 2011
Welcome. Glad you’re enjoying the blog. The wife and I have been considering moving up there for a few years now. We like the Okanagan Valley and Vansterdam and have friends in Hamilton and Toronto. U.S. politics has the same kind of unhealthy attraction as a bad car wreck.
Dubya T Eff
July 28, 2011
I’ve got a couple of great friends in Calgary-we just spent some time with them in Atlanta in May. I actually went to school (secondary) with lots of Canadians (Brits and Germans, too). Oh, and Americans.
We’re considering a trip soon to visit our Calgary friends and looking forward to it on several levels-not the least of which is to scout it as a possible refuge from crazy. Of course, they (the Calgary couple) are retiring in Panama. . . something about the warm weather, they said. : )
Apparently (also, too) there’s something of a recession happening Up There.
Anyway-welcome, Hedhnter: please join in the free discourse here. We would all welcome (I’m confident that my co-commenters here agree) the perspective of one of our Northern neighbors. It’s always (imo, anyway) enlightening to walk around in someone else’s Aldos. : )
Ask the tea Party Guy
July 28, 2011
Bob,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my last reply to you.
Concerning the left wing would be bomber and hostage taker James lee, Here is a link to his manifesto. Whether or not his bomb was real or not doesn’t matter. He claims it was.
He was another mentally ill person that latched on to a ideology and took it to extremes if you don’t think he was left leaning after reading his manifesto than I could not convince you otherwise.
http://www.thewrap.com/tv/article/full-text-manifesto-discovery-channel-hq-gunman-james-lee-20561
Thanks for confirming that the MSNBC clip was distorted. However it was a news broadcast. Ratigan was commenting..
For the last time on the “keep your laws off my body” I actually agree with this statement. If you wanted me to clarify just ask.I don’t want the government telling anyone what they can do with their body.
Bob
July 29, 2011
Thank you TPG,
It does make a difference whether the bomb was real or not. I can believe I’m the King of France but that doesn’t legitimately earn me the title. Note that on The Wrap they call him “Discovery Channel HQ GUNMAN James Lee”.
Even after reading the manifesto I see few elements that might be considered left wing, but many that indicate misanthropy and bad mental health in general. Maybe if you tell me what you think a left winger is you can help me understand.
I’ll admit I watch a few shows on MSNBC mostly to lift my spirits, but they are political entertainment with some content that I usually wouldn’t take as truth without corroboration elsewhere. I’ve stated here before that I don’t consider any corporate news dependable. Actually any news organization can make mistakes, and it’s always best to check a variety of sources over a period of time for any story. General Electric owns MSNBC, and I can almost guarantee you’re not going to see many stories there that mention GE products in a negative way or that might impede the way they do business. I’m not sure you could prove they edited out the black guy on purpose, but I wouldn’t put it past them. However, MSNBC is a gold standard compared to FNC. Did you look at the study without it being filtered through a political blog? From what I’ve seen of FNC, it’s their practice to mix news and opinion the way Saturday morning cartoons mix action hero stories with marketing their spin-off products. Years ago it was entertaining to see how many uses of dishonest and misleading language I could spot there, but at this point I could probably write their stuff for them, which actually makes me feel a little degraded.
I doubt you understand what I was complaining about, and will give you the benefit that you don’t enjoy misusing liberal icons just to irritate people.
Ask the Tea Party Guy
July 29, 2011
Hey Bob,
I think we can agree that the discovery channel hostage taker and would be bomber was left wing, His picture and a anti war rally ( which was at the bottom of one of the links I posted) and his manifesto about the environment , population and fate of the earth are considered by many as left leaning. He took hostages at gun point and claimed he had a explosive device and had a detonator switch in his hand. I remember since this is close to where I live and it was all over the news. Just because the bomb wasn’t what you call “real” does not change his affiliation or would be intent.
Again on the surveys and fox news issue, I looked at all the surveys from the original sources, However as a demographics researcher ,I am not as qualified as others in this field.
You stated that you don’t watch MSNBC for news but do watch it to uplift your spirits, that’s fine since it does cater to your political beliefs.
I am glad you agree that they distorted the truth about the story I referenced.
Thanks
Bob
July 30, 2011
TPG,
Ron Paul and other libertarians often speak out against our current wars. During the Vietnam War people left, right, and center protested for a variety of reasons. Being anti-war is not limited to the political left. That just sounds like FNC propaganda that was spewed during the Iraq invasion. It would also be impossible for you to make a case that environmentalism is exclusive to the left, though it is more prominent. Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir (who valued nature for its spiritual qualities) are two famous examples that would probably disagree. To be honest, I can’t even imagine what makes hostages at gunpoint and explosive devices and detonator switches political. Are bank robbers who use the same things always left wingers?
When you say you looked at all the surveys from the original source that tells me nothing. That’s just taunting “I know something you don’t know”. I’ve asked you to link your information several times and you haven’t.
If you watch FNC for entertainment that might or might not say something about your politics. Like I said, I used to watch FNC and I’m a liberal social democrat. If you believe everything FNC says is true, though, you live in an over-simplified, alternative reality. That might be OK for you, but I don’t want it. That’s why I get hard news from the international wires (AP, Reuters, AFP) and several online newspapers and accumulators. BTW, I like the Financial Times, which is considered a conservative paper in Europe. As I said, I always keep in mind they can make mistakes or skip important information.
We don’t agree MSNBC distorted the truth, only that it’s possible.
Ask the tea Party Guy
July 29, 2011
To BILL regarding this post
“. I always approach politics as primarily being about accomplishing a policy goal. Truth be told, I don’t really obsess about defeating conservatives insofar as it gets me ahead policy-wise, whereas there is plenty of rhetoric on the conservative side about destroying liberalism or something. I dunno. I don’t speak for all liberals, and I’m sure we have some of that on our side too, but certainly not, it seems, to the same extent as our conservative friends.
Tea Party Guy, some thoughts?”
Bill ,I am on the same page here. This is something that some of us in the local Tea party have been talking about. It’s a long game in the end and you have to keep plugging away. More of us have started getting involved at a local level, getting into election committees , running for school boards, county seats and and so forth while learning from Tea Party members in other states what has been effective in advancing our cause. We have a lot to learn still but we keep grinding it out.
If you really want to change things you have to start getting entrenched into the system. This may seem as a surprise since many think that the Tea party is against government, but to effect change you have to start from the inside and become part of the system and do your best to make policies that reflect your beliefs. There have been some failures and successes but we are learning.
Many of us think the democrats have always done a much better job at this ,so we have to learn from that and get more involved in the game.
Bill
July 29, 2011
I don’t think Democrats have done a really better job. In fact, I don’t even think the Tea Party is really the enemy, insofar as being the main moving force here. Your beliefs are your beliefs, but they tend to increase corporate power whether that is your intention or not. Given how captured by big money our politics already is, I don’t think the left (or for that matter the paleoconservative or libertarian right) has been winning. I’d say a big corporatist center (or really whatever you want to call it, since they’ve transcended the political spectrum) has won.
And yes. Local organizing is key. It’s facile to suggest that TPers hate government. As I see it you want government to do the things that you want it to do. Which makes some of the rhetoric about shrinking government (particularly when certain policies, like banning abortion would necessarily increase its power) are galling to liberals.
But I digress. You didn’t really answer my question vis-a-vis the feelings of the Tea Party over liberalism. I’ve always understood that conservatism will always be around in some form or another, but from what I’ve read, Tea Partiers believe that liberalism can be defeated. Do they not realize that this is self-defeating, that politics is cyclical, etc, etc.
Really, that’s the first thing a person should no going into politics. There is no end of history. There is no set position for anything. Change will always come in some form. It’s sort of like being the Batman of civics. There will always be a political Joker out there for you to take on.
To be fair, I’ve met some liberals laboring under the same delusion, but for the most part, our biggest hopes are on relying on societal changes to modify the demographic makeup of conservatism to allow change. That’s really the only way to defeat a political ideology in the long term, neutralize it at its heart. I’m not sure that TPers understand liberals enough to get to our er… heart of darkness. =)
Anyhow, interesting. I’m not sure I agree with you policy-wise, but I do applaud you for getting involved in government. We only have a republic insofar as we maintain it.
Ask the Tea party Guy
July 29, 2011
Bill. to answer your question about the Tea Party and liberalism ( sorry if I missed that before) I believe we can only slow the tide as much as possible, outright defeat is impossible. We would define is not so much as liberalism as the statist agenda . The progressive movement seems to go further left than liberalism in general. Just my thoughts.
You did touch on something in your last post that I thought was important to clarify. You talked about the Tea Party and shrinking the size of government and certain policies like banning abortion. Shrinking the size of government is a goal but since it is already against federal law to fund abortion so that is not really on our radar.
First and foremost the majority of the the Tea Party members in that I associate with are fiscal conservatives . Our main beef with uncle Sam is out of control spending. We have a mixed bag of conservatives, independent , libertarian and a handful of the old blue dog democrats. While social conservative are always welcome we don’t focus on that. I only speak with those that I am exposed to. There are outside forces trying to co opt the party to their agenda, as with many grass roots effort that gains popularity.
You are also correct about changing the demographics . we are well aware of this and are making some progress in that area although our methods differ, getting your message out to a wider demographic is important to any political party.
Bill
July 29, 2011
Interesting. Just out of curiosity what would you define as the statist agenda?
I’ll give you an example. Like many liberals, I think the government should offer some sort of health insurance plan. It would work like any other health insurance premium, but would merely differ in not focusing on the same profit mechanisms as private plans and would obviously require premiums paid directly rather than rely on some sort of taxation mechanism. Either that or perhaps expanding Medicare as an optional program for all. Would that be objectionable or statist?
Furthermore, aren’t we all statists? I assume you use highways. That was part of a massively statist infrastructure progress. Public education is statism (and has its origins in Prussia of all places) I guess my question is what do you define as statism?
I read your post about multiple questions, but I’ll just have to ask a quick little one. What is the difference between liberals and progressives? Why is one to the left of the other? What is your evidence?
In any case, responding to your post about social conservatism, it strikes me as inescapable that the Tea Party is made up of mostly conservative. I don’t doubt that there are some Blue Dogs there, but surveys show the vast majority of Tea Partiers are conservative Republicans. Hence some of the contradictions inherent in the Republican Party platform will ineluctably translate to the Tea Party. I applaud you for your libertarian leanings, since as a liberal I find libertarians much more palatable than social conservatives, but I do have to say that you can’t fight the demographics here. The Tea Party will inevitably be socially conservative. Or perhaps not. The numbers certainly seem to point that way at the moment.
Also, interesting post about slowing liberalism down. Do you agree then that some of the changes that the Tea Party is fighting are inevitable?
Pat
July 30, 2011
Tea Party Guy ~ Your claim that you are getting involved at a local level is disturbing to me. Christian Conservatives (and I assume you are one) have been trying to do this for many years, and they are becoming very effective at taking control of local governments, including School Boards. Why do they want to control school boards? It is because they want to dictate which textbooks should be used, who will be allowed to teach, and what subject matter can be taught? We all know that the lower the form of government, the more control a governing body has on its citizens.
The Tea Partiers are always accusing President Obama of having an ‘agenda.’ Well, I think the Tea Party has an agenda of its own, and that is to form a Theocratic/Plutocratic type of government in the U.S. I will continue to be suspicious of this until someone can convince me otherwise.
I can’t help but wonder where the Tea Partiers were between the years 2004 through 2008. Why didn’t I hear the words ‘Tea Party’ before Obama was sworn into office? What happened on the day after he took the Oath of Office? Your people came out of the woodwork calling him vile names and sending out lots of viral emails before he even got a chance to govern anything. Then you said that your main goal was to make Obama a one-term president. Making him fail was the number one concern of your new group, and it apparently still is.
The absolute refusal of your Tea Party to compromise on the deficit debacle that is ongoing right now is not in the interest of the country. I think there is a sinister ulterior motive by the Tea Partiers, and it can’t be good for jobs or the economy, which was beginning to pick up earlier last year.
This comment is not meant to be an attack you personally, just toward the Tea Party in general.
You really do seem like a nice guy!
Dubya T Eff
July 29, 2011
TPG,
I have a question, and maybe an observation or twelve, related to the Tea Party goal of reducing the size of government (another term for “reducing out-of-control spending”). What is the hoped-for outcome in terms of reduction? How will this outcome be accomplished? What, specifically, is the spending the Tea Party wants to cut out or reduce? Has the Tea Party taken into consideration that spending has necessarily grown as our population has grown? Does the Tea Party acknowledge that spending will necessarily INCREASE as the Baby Boomers reach retirement age? Are Tea Party members willing to sacrifice their Social Security and Medicare in order to reduce spending?
I think most reasonable folks would agree that spending has increased to an unsustainable level; what I doubt is whether many people would acknowledge that this increase has occurred in response and as a temporary means of mitigation to economic chaos.
Do Tea Partiers claim or believe that the current rate of spending is fixed?
Would you agree, or not, that the circumstances prompting our current spending are unusual? As far as I know, the President hasn’t drafted a budget that calls for the current rate of spending (25% of GDP) to go on forever and ever, times infinity, with no take-backs. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. I think I understand that the TP position is that the Stimulus should never have happened. If so, what would you have proposed? Incidentally, I have never heard a single person on the right, TPer or otherwise, acknowledge that Obama agreed to far less spending than he originally requested. Many notable economists (e.g. Paul Krugman and Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody’s) bemoan the fact that we didn’t pour more dollars into the Stimulus. While it HAS worked (also contrary to Repub/TP talking points) it would’ve been far more efficacious had it been as robustly funded as initially drafted.
What about TARP?
Experts project a downturn in spending to 22% GDP when the economy starts to level, but we’ll never see a return to 15%. Unless an entire generation fails to reproduce.
Also:
Is the Tea Party aware that the “red states,” (the ones in which the majority of Tea Party members and Republicans actually live) are the ones feeding the most at the trough of Big Government? The Tax Foundation has reported that of 32 states that receive more in federal funding than they pay in federal taxes, 76% are red states. Of the 16 states that receive LESS in federal funding than they pay in federal taxes, 69% are blue. How about if the states receiving all that federal money make a pledge (Grover Norquist need not be present), in the name of balancing the budget (I understand this is another cause that is suddenly near and dear to the TPers), to pay one dollar for every dollar received? Since the blue states are already putting feed in the trough, they can continue to do so for the good of the country, and because blue states, and the libs who live in them, really care about the greater good.
I realize that the Tea Party wasn’t an entity until Dick Armey established it and the Kochs funded it during the 2008 election. But the people who form its ranks have been around for a lot longer than that. I know this question has been posed before, but where was all this right wing opprobrium when Bush was spending us into recession? At this point I’d have to conclude that it’s a rhetorical question.
I hope I’m not “sounding” like a jerk. I really want to understand your POV. I look forward to your response.
Ask the Tea Party Guy
July 29, 2011
Could you please just ask one question at a time . I would be happy to answer but it’s hard to form a response to such a long post. I would be happy to answer. and no you are not sounding like a jerk. I would be happy to discuss the issues.
Thanks
Dubya T Eff
July 29, 2011
Fair enough.
What is the Tea Party’s proposal for reigning in spending? I hope for an answer that will include how-tos, not just a thesis.
I also have some questions about the Tea Party as an organization. Is there a single unifying message and “mission statement” for a single entity calling itself the Tea Party? From what you’ve said here, there are gradations of Tea Party/partier. Or will there be different “chapters,” each with its own coda and set of goals? Maybe these could be fodder for discussion further down the road, if it’s too much to tackle right now.
moi
July 29, 2011
Been away from the threads for awhile–picking up baby’s ashes and back in an emotional fog–just had to chime in AGAIN–Tea Party Guy–if only you were representative of your group…thoughtful, open-minded, intellectual, and more adjectives. Good ones. I love learning from all perspectives. Thanks for writing.
Dubya T Eff
July 29, 2011
My heart goes out to you and your husband, moi. I’m so very sorry for your loss. I hope you feel the concern and support of those of us here at beeryblog.
Bill
July 29, 2011
Ditto. Do hope things start improving Moi.
Ask the Tea Party Guy
July 29, 2011
Moi.
Sorry for your loss. I will keep you and your family in my thoughts and prayers.
moi
July 30, 2011
TPG — you might or might not–truly!! I am one of those “horrible people” who was facing a LOSE-LOSE-LOSE situation–my baby was 19 weeks along, he was diagnosed with down’s, several soft markers–including one that could have indicated Hirshprung’s–which can also require surgery in infancy, along with congenital heart defect that was fatal without multiple repeated open heart surgeries starting before he was 6 months of age that would never fix his heart, and high risk blood work suggesting I had an in-utero infection (can be fatal to baby), or placental abruption/previa (could be fatal to me or baby or both), and/or pre-eclampsia (could be fatal to me or baby or both), and/or fetal hydrops (could be fatal to me or baby or both).
After total devastation and anguish, and given that I have responsibilities to my 3 year old and husband, and the risks to me & baby, I chose to terminate my very much loved, very much wanted baby.
I am someone who said before this, if I was in a life-threatening situation, I would’ve rather died than to know that I killed and live with that on my conscience. A close friend who knew everything about the situation called me a murderer (she’s an evangelical). A very insistent pro-lifer who lost their baby in identical circumstances was urging me to carry the baby to term so she could adopt it. She was also very aggressive and very judgemental when I said no.
Many of the Tea Party-ers & Republicans would not have wanted me to have that choice, or access to health providers would could help me at such a late stage. The Vatican would not have made the exception in my case.
The point is, the ethics are very very murky. I could not in good conscience terminate my pregnancy, nor could I in good conscience take on a lifetime of caregiving and then pass that along to my other child when I died.
Down’s babies have a cluster of chronic physical conditions that go along with their cognitive impairments. Things like celiac disease, pneumonia, leukemia, early onset Alzheimers. No one can predict the severity of any of the issues.
Ironically, those same Tea Party-ers and Republicans who would limit my choices and force me to risk my life and seriously compromise everything about my family’s future, are the very same people who seek to limit public resources for special needs children. And access to health insurance for “pre-existing” conditions, and seek to reduce the roles of Medicaid recipients.
So–while I believe you that as a person, you feel sad for me, and I appreciate that sentiment, sincerely, I know that you might have serious moral objections to what I chose to do. You too might think I am a murderer and I should have risked my life and my family’s entire future so you could feel more at ease with the world. Or something?? Or maybe people who would insist on those things aren’t really thinking at all about what they’re demanding?
Having been a caregiver to my mother–who was both physically and mentally impaired–and I just did that for 10 years, and she did have SSDI, a pension, private health insurance and Medicare too–I STILL PAID over $100k of my own money out of pocket. I just really really knew what that life would’ve been and I could not do it.
I just feel that Republicans require that everyone fit into this box and if you don’t meet their unrealistic criteria for being, you’re literally on your own. Strangely, I think if many Republicans and Tea Party-ers were honest about the reality of their life, they would acknowledge that they themselves don’t even really fit into that box.
I also think they’re overly driven by fantasies of self-determination and thinking that they, individually and personally can take credit for all of their own accomplishments & financial successes. They don’t credit the (public school) teachers, their parents, the people who’ve come before them and say “I am what I am because of the people who invested in me and cared for me, and now it’s my turn to give back” (and I’ve also ranted before about just stuff like roads, hospitals, food safety, etc et all that the government or unions have contributed that gives them their lifestyle) THEY JUST SAY MINE MINE MINE, I’ve got mine, FUCK YOU you’re own your own to everyone else and feel very little civic obligation to society at large.
I’m kinda rambling, but thanks everyone. I just mostly share the details to illustrate the point that the abortion debate is not simple. I don’t think anyone gets an abortion because they want to.
Dubya T Eff
July 30, 2011
You’ve endured more than your fair share of hardship and loss, moi. And yet, I’m driven to say, your posts exhibit passion, courage, compassion, humor, and a great enthusiasm for life. . . along with a healthy dose of good old-fashioned gumption. Obviously, your spirit can take a lickin’ and keep on tickin’. Your child is lucky to have your genes. I salute you, girlfriend.
moi
July 30, 2011
Dubya–my only regret in posting is RAILROADING YOUR AWESOME post about temporary spending/war spending/gov-size reductions what does it all mean–and TPG was beginning to answer.
That post is the HEART of the issue. Perhaps Professor Beery will take it as a starting point for a new blog entry and you and TPG can have a discussion there–this one’s getting so long!!
Maybe we should have your post as a full page ad in the NY Times, the Washington Post and USA Today!!!!
Ask the Tea Party Guy
July 30, 2011
Moi,
Again my thoughts and prayers to you and your family. It has to be heart wrenching to face such a difficult choice I can’t imagine how difficult it’s been for you.
As for the ongoing talks with the others here , I will answer most of them in a couple days. I have my own stuff going on. We had a water leak inside one of our walls and a ceiling collapse, it’s a frigging mess here. I will be off grid the rest of the weekend dealing with it.
Dubya T Eff
July 30, 2011
Ugh-sorry you have to deal with such a mess, TPG. Hope you get back on your (dry) feet again soon.
Bob
July 31, 2011
moi,
I need to add I’m sorry you had to face the situation you’re still involved with. For what it’s worth, I can’t see how you could have come to any other decision. Dubya T Eff is right that your posts give the impression of a woman with the integrity and balance to pull through.
Pat
July 30, 2011
Oh Tea Party Guy, I am SO sorry that your ceiling is caving in on you! Water leaks inside the walls is one of the worst homeowner problems to have to face. I hope you can find the source and that the remedy isn’t too extensive a project.
If it will make you feel any better, I am filled with guilt and remorse for piling on at 2 o’clock this morning with all my beefs about the Tea Party movement, which I correctly or incorrectly associate with the evangelical Christian movement. I will leave it up to you to educate me when you are able to get back to posting.
Your posts are always interesting and informative, and I hope you stay with us so that we will continue to have personal insight into the intentions and actions of the Tea Party.
All things considered, I hope you have a nice weekend.
Ask the Tea Party Guy
August 2, 2011
Hey everyone,
Like I said earlier in my posts I will get back to everyone. I got the water leak fixed and have to shift some foster dogs around to fix the mess so bear with me.
Ask the tea party guy
August 5, 2011
Bill,
I need to clarify what I meant aboutt slowing down the creep of liberialsm. I do not think it’s enivitable. At some point the american people will decide that.
That’s what I meant about the Tea Party starting to focus on entrenchment, these issues are better resolved on a local level. We have a focus on election commitees that has been very successful. While we had produced some duds and shot ourselves in the foot a few times , the advances made in a couple short years are a encouragement.
Something I wanted to ask is there a difference in a liberial and progressive? or are the terms interchangeable.
Ask the tea party guy
August 5, 2011
Pat,
We are getting involved in all forms of local government with a focus on election boards. This is a effective way to bring about the changes we favor. As far as a pluracratic or other type of government we prefer a constutional government. Many of us also are starting to focus on holding government accountable. Our state is one that has always been conservative but used some BS accounting to act like they have a surplus. The fact is like many states they failed to make the contrubution to the state pension fund. States like new york (9 billion short on pension funds) do this all the time and local towns and governments are going bankrupt. The state workers get shafted.
As far as me being a evan christian why don’t you just ask me instead of assuming.
Ask the tea party guy
August 5, 2011
Duyba,
Thanks for all the questions,
First and foremost with respect some of the things you think about the Tea party are so of track that you are getting into tin foil hat area.
We have no Mission statement, we are not a corporation, just everyday citizens.
You asked where we were before Obama became president. most of us were busy running a business and / or rasing our kids. TH economy was good and e had a 5.5 unemployment rate. We became concerned when it appeared that the Obama administration was going to spend it’s way out of bad times instead of letting the market take it’s course. THis should not come as a shock, no more that those who claimed after the 2000 election that Bush was “not our president”
We are not a central organization yet, there are a lot of people trying to take cresit for al sorts of things but in reality the group I work with is independant for the most part.
Going to rallies and making a bunch of noise is great but does not effect change, to do that you have to get in the trenches and that’s what we are doing. If anything is centralized it’s our commitee project, we have done well there. Hartman talked about this recently
Some of us know that at some point there are going to be outside forces trying to claim credit and make a nome for themsleves from this movement, it’s a reality we are dealing with.
There are lots of ideas floating around about how to bring down the debt. The recent penny pac idea or something like it has been discussed. Freeze the current baseline and reduce it by 1% per year over the next 7 years .This would give departments time to adjust , every year there is a spending spree by agencies to make sure they get the next years increase. Tom Coburn had a plan that cuts 9 trillion over 10 years and there was not a thing that did not get touched.
Tax reform is a big issue to us. There really is not a tax break that does not discriminate against someone else. We could end lot of subsidys, ethonal, farming, sugar, to name a few. There are actually whole agencies we don’t need.New Zeland ended all farm subsidys and the world did no come to a end. the farmers are more profitable now. Sweden changed their education system to vouchers and the teachers union supported it.
There are lot’s of ways to cut the debt and still leave our saftey neets solvent for those in need.
Ask the tea party guy
August 6, 2011
sorry for the horrible spelling above, I have been using a proxy service that does not translate long messages well. My server is down so it’s been a challenge, Circuits are blowing out a couple times a day due to all the amperage.
I have 4 dehumidifiers and blowers running no stop in my house from the water leak. it’s like living with a blow dryer running n your ear 24 hours a day.
My carbon footprint is more like a carbon canyon this week…
brownp
August 10, 2011
Dear TPG,
Thanks for hanging in. This has been an interesting read. I live in Texas and the TP folks I personally know are the following (1) Fundamentalists who really want the US to be a “Christian nation” (2) Rabid pro-lifers (3) Gun owners, not in the way I was raised, but those who want to carry guns to every event and have a little of the John Wayne Syndrome going on, Seriously, I live in the country and I can hear my neighbors shooting machine guns as we speak (3) Retired government employees who seem to have the “I’ve got mine, you can die” attitude. These are also the very most Christian ones (4) Oil trust fund babies who earned their money the old fashioned way…inheritance, (5) Well off retired people with motor homes who like to travel to TP events, wear t-shirts, and behave like an 8th grader who has just made the “cool group’. All are opposed to anything that would touch their SS or Medicare, but will tell you that they have never ever ever been a part of any social program. (6) Out and in your face racists, who will say openly that a (N-word) doesn’t have the same kind of brain as white people and is therefore not fit for any kind of leadership role. (7) Raging homophobes. (see #1).
You don’t seem like any of these, and I must admit it is quite refreshing to read your posts. It’s hard for me to see the TP in any other light as these are my friends, neighbors, family, and strangers on the street. I always attempt to find some common ground with others, but I’m finding that more and more difficult. How would you suggest that we liberals/progressives get to a point where we can have reasonable discussions? Do you think my acquaintances are the majority of the TP? Do I need to move? LOL
Bob
August 12, 2011
TPG,
It’s been two weeks since your water problem and our last exchange, so I’ll assume you’re done or I got lost in all the other posts. However, I can’t drop the conversation without adding one more, because my line of argument was meant to point out you have difficulty grasping important distinctions and facts. If I don’t mention this, I’ll be hurting my own effort.
When writing about a “left wing bomber” that you never successfully portrayed as either left wing or a bomber, you stated “He was a[s] far left as they come, thank goodness he was not able to detonate his device before he was subdued”. However, the CBS story you linked states “…the “device” the suspect wore went off; however, Manger wouldn’t elaborate on the suspect’s condition other than saying he was in custody.” As already discussed, the article also stated Police Chief Manger wouldn’t confirm the bomb was real.
My free advice is to pay more careful attention to facts. Accepting arguments that just “sound good” is a way of thinking that trips up most Tea Party types. It earns the ridicule of liberals, which you take as arrogance, ignorance, or pointless insults.
Ask the Tea party Guy
August 13, 2011
BrownP,
Thanks for the kind words. If I were you I would move. Sorry you have to be with such idiots. I really don’t care if people open carry, but the racist crap bothers me to no end.
I was raised differently so it reflects on how I communicate with others.
I don’t think that the people around you are a representation of the Tea Party as a whole, however if that’s all you see that’s what your perception would be and I don’t begrudge you for coming to that conclusion. If I was your neighbor I would look out for you ,regardless of any beliefs, that’s just how I was raised.
I hope that at some point we find some middle ground but both parties have moved away from the center and it’s going to take some time. As Bob said everything political goes in cycles . The tea party is not going anywhere soon but who knows what it will end up becoming. If you want to know more just ask . I will answer as I can. I am dealing with a lot right now but appreciate your post.
Bill
August 13, 2011
That’s something I meant to as you, Tea Party Guy, do you really think the Democrats have moved in any significant way to the left? A great deal of the political science work out there suggests that both parties have moved to the right. Mind you, I don’t think there’s that much functional difference between the parties at the moment. At the end of the day, they’ll end up doing whatever the business special interests ask, barring some extraordinary outside pressure.
Anyhow, to answer your question, as far as I know, there is no difference between a modern progressive and a modern liberal. Mind you, I prefer to call myself a liberal since I think it’s rather silly to shrink from the label if that’s what you are. Really, conservatives have managed to turn it into a dirty word, but I am not ashamed of being a liberal, just as I am sure you are not ashamed of being a conservative.
In any case, I have to disagree with your narrative about the economy being good. We already had a strong possibility of recession, weak wage growth, and rampant deficits during the Bush years. In fact, the last fiscal bush year basically set the baseline for the deficits of the Obama administration. Namely, we had a deficit of 1.3 trillion dollars or so for FY 2009. That amount has increased modestly, mostly as a result of the recession. In fact, were we to take out the Bush tax cuts, the Bush recession (caused by both parties letting Wall Street run rampant, but with Republicans taking more of the blame), and the general fall in revenues due to the recession, we would have no deficit.
Mind you, I can’t understand for the life of me the moral urgency behind what is, at best, a technical issue. If you want to close the deficit, you have to cut spending and/or raise taxes, both of which are not the best things to do in a recession. It’s not a runaway crisis. It’s something we can easily fix presuming our political system gains back some sense.
I personally think that the unemployment issue, the rampant poverty, the fact that millions of American children are undernourished, the millions of human beings we exploit economically (illegal immigrants), the fact that at last count nearly a quarter million veterans are homeless are much more pressing issues than something like the deficit/debt which would only become unmanageable under much modified circumstances. As it is, I would encourage you to check what the long-term interest rates are on US bonds and why borrowing costs are not about to get out of control.
Ask the Tea party Guy
August 13, 2011
Bob,
If you want to go back over the facts again about the left wing bomber and what the facts are that’s fine.
The facts are as follows, This person took people at gunpoint and claimed he had a bomb in his backpack.
I stated several times that he was left leaning. Going to a anti war protest with a sign that said something to the effect of ” disarm the troops and make them clean up depleted uranium” is to me a left leaning statement. If you don’t see it that way then I can’t convince you otherwise.
The would be bombers manifest was extreme in that he wanted population control and said mankind as a scourge on the planet, I see that as a left leaning, again if you don’t ,then I won’t change your mind. Some posters on the Huff post actually agreed with his manifest, the huffington post I would consider left leaning.
The report stated he tried to detonate the device and it failed. We do not know if the device was real or not. I have to ask why that makes a difference here since the would be bomber stated it was real. Can you please explain to me why that makes a difference? Does it make him less of a terrorist if it’s a fake bomb?
Since the report did not tell you I will fill in the blanks, he was taken into custody after a swat sharp shooter but a bullet through his head when he leaned away from a hostage. I am not sure why the story left that out, I live in the area and watched this unfold live on the news ,you will just have to take my word for it.
So Bob, while I appreciate the advice are there any “facts” I left out that would negate my credibility?
Bob
August 14, 2011
TPG, there’s a very obvious difference between a man competent enough to build a real bomb and carry out a pointed act of terrorism and a delusional, mentally unstable one who only thinks he has a bomb and is acting on incoherent impulses. A genuine person of the left has some education in political theory and history and has developed an outlook on life generally in sympathy with liberalism, a political philosophy you don’t seem to understand in the least. There have always been people swept up in political movements with no understanding of the higher concepts, acting only in what they see as their own interest. And yes, if you read a news story and don’t know the facts it contains and offer it as evidence when it contradicts your argument it hurts your credibility.
Bill
August 14, 2011
Ah now, Bob, careful. I agree with you, but I don’t think we need to say that a genuine person of the left need necessary be “educated.” Let’s not forget how many of the early union organizers doing great work were illiterate, uncouth, etc.
There’s certainly ignorance on both sides, but statistics suggest that liberals are generally better informed. Which makes sense, since we tend to be higher-income and have a higher incidence of college degrees. In any case, I’ll agree with you. This guy strikes me as a nutter more than any revolutionary. Not Che, but Cuckoo.
Anyhow, TPG, disarmament and isolationism is not necessarily left-wing (see right-wing isolationists), or even particularly ideological. A I have said before, there’s a real difference between violence that arises spontaneously and the type that seems to be motivated at least in part by nasty rhetoric. Again, I would point out the man that shot some… Unitarians, I believe, because he couldn’t shoot the liberals in Bernie Goldberg’s book.
A lot of this is cyclical and by no means is the Left necessarily immune to violent impulses (see the right-wing and left-wing death squads that duked it out in Latin America for so many years), but it seems to me that it is a matter of statistics that the American right is the domain of most of the recent political violence. I’m not saying conservatives are to blame. Some of the ones who foster hateful rhetoric certainly have a role in legitimating this sort of thing (not encouraging it, as I think the link between rhetoric and action is hard to establish, and as a free speech absolutist, I think it’s generally dangerous to try), but most conservatives have no role other than their responsibility as being on the right and their responsibility as citizens.
Really, it’s no slur against conservatives. Don’t most polls show that conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1? Would that not mean statistically speaking, that the right has twice as many nutters as the left?
*Shrugs*
Again, my view of it is that we are all responsible in some way for the other’s conduct. I am not religious, but I do agree that we are all each other’s metaphorical keeper. When a crazy person does not get the proper help to ensure that they don’t hurt themselves and/or others, we have all failed. When we don’t speak up against the bullies and cowards that say hateful things (and then hide behind free speech rights) when these things already encourage the embittered and angry to do unspeakable things, we have all failed. When we fail to look at the conditions that produce so much hate and desperation in these people who go so far as to take the life of a fellow human being, we have all failed. When we fail to arrest the erosion of civic decency and life we have all failed. When we do not do our very best to be our very best, to love and respect one another as we should, we have all failed.
Some of us have failed more than others and some have more responsibility than others, but in light of tragedy this hardly strikes me as relevant. That’s another symptom of how our politics has gone wrong. Both sides being unable to cooperate on policy is both related to, and yet not as serious as neither side being able to critique the other. I do have to say, TPG, that as a reasonable conservative, a great deal of the onus must fall on you, since your side of the aisle has increasingly been dominated by theocrats, crackpots, etc. I think that decent people still predominate on your side, since I am a big believer in human decency and a natural optimist, but for some reason or another they have let themselves be pushed around by the extremists. Or perhaps have become extremists themselves.
And in that sense, they have failed.
Bob
August 14, 2011
I’m sticking with my definition, Bill. As I stated above “There have always been people swept up in political movements with no understanding of the higher concepts, acting only in what they see as their own interest.” Put another way, people can participate in social movements without understanding the political theories in play and might not actually be acting in their own best interest. By “educated” I didn’t necessarily mean formally. That might have been a bad choice of words in this particular case. I’m sure there are lots of people who would consider me uncouth, and I’m not an expert in political theory. The best most of us can do is make an honest effort to understand enough to be good citizens.
Bill
August 16, 2011
That would be a fine way of defining things, Bob, if it weren’t for television. I think nowadays the vast majority of Americans lay claim to a particular ideology –liberalism, conservatism, what have you– while only having a dim grasp of what it is they swear fealty to. Television makes for broad but very shallow socialization to certain ideologies. Just my two cents.
Bob
August 16, 2011
You’re right Bill, and I can’t see that we disagree at all. Getting political or any other ideas only from TV is not education. TV cannot educate. It’s for entertainment and propaganda. It precludes genuine thinking, both in its technical nature and as an enterprise. I suppose documentaries are the closest the medium can muster, but would you consider yourself educated if documentaries were all you had access to?
Bill
August 16, 2011
I believe television is a necessary component of an education simply because to understand modern mass-entertainment culture, one must understand television. There’s also a great deal of edifying material on TV. It’s certainly no substitute for reading, writing, and reflection, but I think the 21st century Renaissance education should have an inclusive spirit.
Bob
August 16, 2011
I grew up with friends and have current friends that never bought a TV and certainly don’t seem to have suffered, Bill. I agree it’s important to understand TV though, especially its psychological effects. Some studies link TV watching to increased incidence of depression, and as you say the brain reacts much differently than to reading. My own experience tells me TV has only the most superficial usefulness for learning, but I know many disagree. What programming do you find educational?
Do you think TV has a place in formal education? Channel One has a lot of critics in all corners of the teaching profession. I have a DVR and virtually never watch commercials at home. I certainly wouldn’t want my child watching them in school. Some Channel One defenders defend the commercials too. Do you agree with them? Do students in Brazil watch anything that would be equivalent? Did you watch television in school there or in the U.S.?
Bill
August 23, 2011
With regards to Brazil, I left there at a very young age –I was six. From what I can recall (I’m still fluent in Portuguese), the two dominant TV stations that we watched there at school were TV Cultura (which actually took a lot of cues from Sesame Street and did some amusing and relatively informative skits) and TV Globo (which is the titan of Brazilian TV.) Here in the US, we occasionally watched Bill Nye the Science Guy, and Schoolhouse Rock (I’m just a bill, Conjunction Junction, etc.) Some of it stuck and some of it didn’t. I’m a nerd, so I was always going to know about the Krebs Cycle, but Bill Nye helped to make it more memorable. So there’s that.
With regards to Channel One, we only watched very little of it (in Colorado we tend to eschew things like that, or at least we did in my relatively wealthy school district.) I would say that simply exposing students to commercials on public ground, even if for ostensibly utilitarian reasons (the commercials help to pay for the school, or something to that effect) is dangerous and wrong-headed, as it blurs the line between public life (at school, at your education, etc.) and one’s commercial life. Certainly the students are a captive audience.
If on the other hand, the commercials were shown for the purpose of being deconstructed (a la Foucault and Derrida), then that might be something different. But I was always weird. I read Plato at nine, and the Gallic New Wave Philosophers before Middle School, so do take my opinions with a healthy degree of salt.
In any case, on a wider scale, I do think there’s some good stuff on TV. Sesame Street teaches kids good stuff in a colorful way. Bill Moyers had an absolutely wonderful show. Firing Line is very good. So is Masterpiece Theater (as a Shakespeare and Opera nut, I can’t get enough.) Even some of the more commercial ventures have a lot of edifying stuff (I am a firm believer that Breaking Bad should be watched by anyone who wants to see a great character study on the breakdown of personal morality; it’s frankly Shakespearean.)
So yes. I don’t think a TV is strictly necessary, but I do think it makes it easier for somebody to understand society, good and bad.
My personal view of TV is that you should always be aware of what it generally is (shallow, pandering, dumb), that it need not always be so, and that even when it’s good, it should generally be consumed in moderation.
Bob
August 23, 2011
Interesting. When I went off to primary school while my parents brewed gin in the bathtub (kidding, I’m not quite that old) my teachers spoke of television with open hostility. I remember one always referring to it as the “idiot box”. The general belief was that it crowded out time for more healthy pursuits like reading and sports.
Deconstructing commercials in class would be an excellent idea, but an actual TV feed wouldn’t be necessary. It probably wouldn’t take corporate bastards long to sic their law departments on that sort of activity, though.
BTW, I was also a child nerd but less serious. My tastes ran more to the likes of Mika Waltari, J. P. Donleavy, and Kafka. I need not take you with much salt.
Ask the Tea party Guy
August 13, 2011
Bill
Thanks so much for the well rounded post , I never understood why some would call themselves liberal and others progressive. never shy away from what you believe in or try to call it something else. I am a conservative first and a Tea party guy second.
I see some evidence that the middle is being lost on both sides. Someone like Blanche Lincoln or the blue bog democrats are being pushed out and the tea party are pushing out the moderate republicans.
I certainly don’t think the economy is good, if it was I don’t think there would be as much political strife. I think we could do much better if we wanted to, I don’t agree with the efforts of the current administration to remedy the situation. Speaking frankly you are right that wall street played a big part , However government policy played a role as well , the lowering of fannie mae and freddie mac standards and the policy of home ownership from uncle sam played into this perfect storm.
Fannie Mae lowered it’s credit standards 18 times in the last 3 years leading up to the crash and nobody cared because the cash was flowing like wine . Fannie Mae was loosing market share to the subprime market and just hated that. Greenspan helped and hurt buy thinking that it was OK for borrowers to finance on short term adjustables and warning about this coming to a crisis. I respect Greenspan but even he got this wrong.
Government polices coupled with wall street both played into this and the Tarp funds did not address the core issue of getting the bad assets off the balance sheets.
While I am a free market believer I think the better policy would have been a approach much like the RTC dealt with the S&L crisis , take the bad assets and auction them off. It may not have worked as well because the S&L crisis was mostly commercial property but we don’t know.
I would have to disagree with your assessment that we don’t have a deficit crisis. Sure we can continue to borrow 120 billion a month or print the money but it does not mean it’s a easy problem to solve. Bush left us a deficit and the current administration more than tripled it in 2 years while still blaming the last administration. Where does it end?
The Bush tax cuts are no more, they are the Obama tax cuts now, He reauthorized them and added another cut last year to the payroll tax if I am not mistaken.
I find it somewhat of a straw man argument that the Bush tax cuts are to blame but only raise taxes on the upper bracket. If under President Clinton the rates lead to a surplus then why would liberals only want the rates to apply to the upper tier?
If we want everyone to have “skin in the game” why not push for the rates to go back to the Clinton era and raise them on everyone?
Bill
August 14, 2011
And Obama was wrong to not make clear that the tax cuts would end after the recession. By the way, he’s no liberal. He’s as much a Blue Dog Democrat as Blanche Lincoln, and I don’t particularly care for him either. I just think he’s a mildly better alternative to what the Republicans are offering.
Anyhow, vis-a-vis the tax cuts, I would propose returning to the Clinton tax rates for everyone, while creating some new brackets (so perhaps instead of making the marginal tax hike kick in at 250K make it kick in at 500 K with higher marginal tax rates at 1 and 10 million respectively.) I would also lower the corporate tax rate to 25% whilst getting rid of all the tax cuts not based on R&D and employment. I can’t speak for all liberals, but those are generally the plans I’ve seen floated around on my side of the ideological spectrum.
Vis-a-vis the crisis, while Freddie and Fannie did not exactly help matters, the greatest part of subprime capitalization actually occurred in the private sector. This bubble was built up in great part because we had no safeguards in place (and to a great degree still don’t.) For example, there’s no longer any dividing line between investment and consumer banking, which obviously places tremendous pressures vis-a-vis liquidity on small business and consumers during a recession like this one. We also have lax regulation of ratings agencies, which is why junk assets like the aforementioned subprime bundles were getting AAA ratings from S&P, Moody’s, etc.
With regards to the deficit, again the last year for Bush saw a deficit of around 1.5 trillion per annum, which is what we have stayed about. This actually makes sense because revenue as a percentage of GDP decreased from ~19% to ~15% (at a higher tax rate it should ideally be at 21-22%), and because you had greater spending on our social safety net programs because of the recession (that’s what they’re there for anyhow.) The deficit only becomes a huge issue if in the medium term we see an increase. We don’t. Every forecaster pretty much acknowledges that with the end of the recession and the Bush/Obama tax cuts, we’d be back to a moderate surplus. Now, in the long run I will grant you that we have a large deficit problem, but that is related to how health care costs are apportioned more than anything else and not strictly germane.
In any case, the most direct way to address the deficit is to get people to work. That’ll bring in more tax revenue and cut down on safety net spending. Hence why I don’t get all the panic over the debt when we honestly have a national emergency vis-a-vis unemployment. Cutting spending in this economic climate makes no sense. By all means, let’s talk about a deficit reduction plan, but after we address unemployment. Or better yet, talk about them concurrently. In an ideal world, Congress would be able to multitask. So I would suggest a deficit reduction plan along these lines:
1. 1.5 trillion from DoD over ten years. End the wars. Another trillion.
2. 1 trillion from non-investment discretionary spending over ten years.
3. Reinstatement of the Clinton tax rates, plus the brackets I talked about. (Quick estimates gleaned from numbers of from the Tax Policy Center estimate this would bring in about 7-8 trillion)
4. Corporate tax reform. Another five hundred billion.
5. Efficiency programs, mild tort reform, etc for miscellaneous areas. Another 300 billion.
6. Triggers to make all this happen automatically when unemployment falls below 6%. At that rate, federal revenues should have recovered by about 1 trillion over ten years.
In total, that should bring in anywhere from ~13 trillion over ten years. That’s more than enough to tackle the deficit problem without risking unemployment.
At the same time, the government has to do two things to ease the recession: one is to actually conduct a real stress test of the banks. It might involve a great deal of economic pain, but the fact is that no amount of quantitative easing will erase some of the toxic assets out there. I would grant a stay of reprieve to homeowners who had decent credit scores and provide general foreclosure relief (since it benefits pretty much no one if people lose their houses.) I would also reinstate the rules governing investment banking, apply it fully to Fannie and Freddie (and I do agree with TPers that Freddie and Fannie were uniquely shielded in some aspects from regulation), reinstate certain capital requirements and bisect the banking sector into discrete portions so that business and consumers can be ensured proper liquidity which is a necessary (but not sufficient component) of economic growth.
TPers have actually hit on one economic insight in this recession, but ironically ignored it. This recession is partly a liquidity trap due to lack of aggregate demand, but also partly a debt-overhang recession. However, it is private sector overhang that is slowing us down. I’m a policy wonk, so I closely followed QE1 and QE2 when the Fed was up to it, and you know what the banks did with the added liquidity the Fed supplied them with? They basically caulked their ledgers by introducing that new money as new assets. That does us no good, delays the recovery and sets us up for a new crash in the future because no one knows what the darn toxic assets are (since they’re now getting bundled with massive new cash.)
Part of this private debt is in the banks, and part is in the states, where a lot of the assets that state pensions bought were junky. The hard truth is, a lot of these will have to be liquidated, and a lot of people will see a lot of their assets devalue. The Federal government will have to step in and provide some sort of guarantee for the pensioners, etc. to head off economic pain, and will also necessarily require massive government spending (sorry, it just will, this crisis is massive, and what will need will be a controlled deleveraging; an uncontrolled deleveraging would lead to a Greater 21st Century Depression.)
In essence, we’d be bailing out (I know, I hate it too) the states and Wall Street, but it would have to come with some conditions. We would have to deleverage, liquidate toxic assets, and some entities would be broken up. For example, California’s pension system is a bit too big to be bailed out in the future (nor should it be), so it should be broken up into parts. This will make it less competitive investment wise as a matter of economies of scale, but it should work. The big banks should also be broken up. Not only will this help with the debt overhang, but it should make it less easy for them to use their massive money to keep a stranglehold in both parties (and let’s be honest, the banks own both parties.)
That’s the first part of my plan. It’s going to take some money (about 3-4 trillion dollars) to work, but most economists would agree that it’s a good start to liquidate all the private debt that is literally crowding out new investment.
The second part is considerably simpler. Here it is. The government should invest massively in an infrastructure-jobs plan. Alright, just hear me out. Our infrastructure is in horrible shape. According to the Army Corps of Engineer, we get a D average for our infrastructure, and over 500 counties in the US actually deal with seasonal scarcity vis-a-vis basic utilities. The estimate here is that infrastructure spending would require 1.5 trillion dollars for maintenance, and around 2 trillion for upgrades. Throw in some industrial and energy spending, and the price tag rises to about 3 trillion.
It’s a lot, but again, the CBO estimates that the spending part of the stimulus (about 500 billion dollars created anywhere from 2-4 million jobs.) Assuming an average of 3 million jobs, that means that assuming a similar multiplier a 3 trillion dollar stimulus would produce 18 million jobs. But let’s be conservative and half that. That’s 9 million jobs, and that brings our unemployment rate (however temporarily) back down to around ~4%. That also means that revenues, etc. go up.
Now, there are obviously issues of implementation here. I’m a fan of federalism and efficiency, so I think a national infrastructure panel headed by the states should get to apportion the money, with Federal oversight. That way the people closest to the situation can get money. We should also set up a permanent infrastructure bank, so that in the future, states will be able to more easily maintain the infrastructure we build.
I know that you are against massive spending, but there is literally no other entity big enough to take care of our infrastructure (and private middlemen would just drive up costs.) We need to do this, borrowing costs are the lowest they have ever been, and it would provide nearly ten million jobs, with the knock-on positive effects that employment brings.
Besides, it’s not like the government hasn’t historically made huge investments that have paid off massively economically (see the interstate highway), in fact, the Army Corps of Engineer estimates that over a decade or so, the infrastructure spending would pay for itself.
So that means that over a decade, we’re spending an additional 7 trillion while cutting 13 trillion under my plan. Without hurting seniors and the poor. And by investing it in stuff that matters. Like infrastructure.
That means the net impact of my plan is 6 trillion in deficit/debt reduction. It’s actually considerably more, because I’m using very conservative economic growth figures (~2..5%), and the debt-overhang and infrastructure would generally pay for itself. In truth, the net impact of all the new spending over a decade would be about 2 trillion.
So that means 11 trillion in net deficit reduction. And we tackle unemployment. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s much better than anything Paul Ryan has suggested in sheer terms of correcting the deficit.
Mind you, it’s pie in the sky because the special interests would never allow it, but if a pinko commie liberal like me can suggest it, I don’t think that we’re necessarily doomed to be a loggerheads here.
Anyhow, something else I have to address. We’re all capitalists. Liberals too. Liberals just believe that the free market literally cannot exist without the government enforcing some basic rules. The technical term here is ordoliberalism. I am one. We basically believe that to ensure competition and avoid cartels and monopolies and to ensure the greatest consumer freedom, government has to take the lead in providing some regulations. Of course, business can and should have some input, but certainly not a monopoly. In other words, the free market, such as it is, cannot exist without the state. Even libertarians implicitly recognize it when they talk about property rights and guarantees. However, they fail to see that the logical extension of allowing business to run free is to allow it to capture government, to allow it to incestuously partner itself with its competition to ensure maximum profits (at the expense of the public and the consumer), to squelch democracy and the public’s voice in favor of the unlimited money it can furnish to candidates.
With regards to the middle being lost, I’m shedding no tears over Blanche Linlcoln. She wasn’t the worst of the Blue Dogs, but she was owned by Wal Mart. And polling shows most Americans would disagree with her policy positions. I do think that we need a middle, but a middle would naturally establish itself if we had a choice between conservatives (I like Barry Goldwater for example, but can’t admire Reagan, since the man’s fiscal policies and chops are literally voodoo magic) and liberals.
Finally, I have to say that I do not shy away from being a liberal, but as I always say, I am a human being first, an American second, a Broncos fan third, and a liberal fourth.
As for why so many liberals call themselves progressives, it’s still hard to admit you’re a liberal in the US. I don’t know why. Conservatives vilify. Again, I don’t know why. A liberal led us through World War II and the Great Depression (and his successor, a liberal was succeeded by a very great conservative.) Now, I will admit that I vehemently disagree with the Tea Party insofar as I see it not living up to its rhetoric of actually cleaning up government and insofar as I see its agenda as hurting the elderly, the infirm, the poor, etc. but I see no need to vilify conservatives. As I see it, conservatives and liberals will always exist. At some point, one or the other will have good ideas. At some point one or the other will be in power. There’s no such thing as a permanent majority and saying that liberals are communists and socialists just poisons the well of public discourse.
With that being said, I am aware that we have harshly criticized conservatives here, but we did not criticize all of them, nor even accuse them of treason, as liberals are routinely accused of in best-selling books (see Ann Coulter.) My beef with conservative is policy-wise. Where I really get outraged and engage in heated rhetoric is when they want to shove their view of Christ down our throats (my mother’s Catholic and my father’s Jewish, so you can imagine how interfaith my house is), when they want to cut off aid to the poor to give rich people tax cuts, or when they want to deny gay Americans the right to love each other as they see fit. But I draw the line at certain rhetoric and tone. In fact, when I criticize I try to pair it with constructive suggestions since I think there’s no use in simply saying one side is horrible and you should never deal with them. I want to convince conservatives that I’m right on some things, and on those that I’m not I’m at least close enough to them that I can deal. I don’t see a lot of that on the talk show and Fox News Right.
In any case, as I hope you’ve seen, the liberals here have no problem engaging with conservatives, but it seems to me that a lot of conservatives have bought into the mindset that their fellow Americans are their enemies.
Yes, we disagree. So? We have a marketplace of ideas for a reason. Listening to Rush Limbaugh talk about how liberals hate this or that, or want to destroy conservatives like this or whatnot just takes us back. Glenn Beck is even worse. The man literally weavse conspiracy theories about how we’re all secret Nazi manchurian candidates. Now to be fair, there is some of that on the left, but much much much less than on the right. Of course, it hardly matters. We should all strive to be better people and citizens. I am good friends with conservatives and try to respect and love everyone, because I think life is too short to be spent on hate, but I’m rambling.
In any case, a lot of liberals are wary of calling themselves liberals because it’s sort of a dirty word. Conservatives have unfairly and I think unwisely vilified the word. So yeah. I would rather we just stand up to it and say, “yeah, I’m a liberal, you’re a conservative, so what?” But that’s not the way politics works.
As always, a pleasure engaging with you. Let me know what you think of my plan. Maybe show it to your fellow TPers. I don’t expect you to agree with everything, but I did tailor parts of it specifically (tort reform, etc.) to appeal to you. I also do think that some basic research would show you that it is technically speaking very easy to address the deficit, but hard because special interests (mostly corporate) conspire to keep taxes artificially low, defense spending obscenely high, and the federal budget larded with pork.
As big a fan of bacon as I am, I say it’s about time we make our government heart-healthy no?
Anyhow, excuse my prolixity. I’ve been grading papers from my debate kids all day (I’m teaching at a summer debate institute since I’m back from college for now) and I’ve been getting tremendously bored of merely revising so I felt the need to be expansive here.
On a non-politics matter, I do hope you got your house fixed up, and you got all your fosters squared away. We had a major pipe explosion (literally, our basement was shredded) a few months ago. Luckily no one was hurt, but I have an inkling of what you’re dealing with. My prayers and hopes that everything goes well for you.
Ask the Tea party Guy
August 14, 2011
Bob,
What fact did I get wrong?
Bob
August 14, 2011
TPG, copied from above:
When writing about a “left wing bomber” that you never successfully portrayed as either left wing or a bomber, you stated “He was a[s] far left as they come, thank goodness he was not able to detonate his device before he was subdued”. However, the CBS story you linked states “…the “device” the suspect wore went off; however, Manger wouldn’t elaborate on the suspect’s condition other than saying he was in custody.” As already discussed, the article also stated Police Chief Manger wouldn’t confirm the bomb was real.
Not to be mean, but trying to be helpful, I’ll point out that the question I’m now answering displays your lack of reading comprehension and careful thinking once again. Anyone who cares enough at this point can read the entire CBS story and your comments and decide what you got right and wrong. Bill has already said everything else I probably would. I see no reason to keep repeating points.
Ask the Tea party Guy
August 14, 2011
Bill,
I agree with most of your plan as a wonk myself there is a lot of common ground there.
There are some things I would disagree with ,but overall what your plan is not far off from what many conservatives believe.
Just a few things, maybe you could clarify or share your idea’s. I think there is a need for infrastructure investment and there has been some talk of a “infrastructure bank”
Before Uncle Sam makes us cry uncle again with another agency ,I think it would be a much better idea that we get a accurate accounting of just how much is in the national highway trust fund, where the billions in gas taxes collected have actually gone to projects, how much has already been sent to the states and the status of said projects. The same for taxes collected for airport improvements and so on. I would like more score keeping from our politicians. I don’t see it.
At some point we have to hold government accountable for what is currently being collected and how it is spent. This could save us a lot of money . This is a simplified view but I think we could agree that the contracting process for the government is outdated and should be streamlined and updated, especially when it comes to defense. We can build a better fighter jet for much less if we don’t build multiple engines.
The davis bacon act should be repealed also, it adds millions is waste when it comes to most projects especially in rural areas, it limits competition. I am all for a fair wage but some of my contractor friends are paying as a example $29.00 bucks a hour for a electrician on staff and davis bacon wage is 36.00. Most of them shift the cost to materials to make up the difference, it rarely goes to the workers as it’s not verified in most contracts, just accounted for.
Mostly I agree with your post ,there are a few tweaks I would prefer on taxes but there is a lot more I would agree with than not.
Bill
August 14, 2011
With regards to the infrastructure bank? Certainly. The federal government and the states would each provide some seed money based on GDP. So for example, the Federal government might provide 200 billion start up capital, California 20 billion, a state like Wyoming might provide 500 million, and then that money would be put back in mutual funds and treasury reserves on a similar basis as the Social Security Trust Fund. It would be replenished every year with a specialized fund from the Fed. Gov/states and would be headed by the states.
There would be a voting process for allocation where states would get a number of votes proportional to their contribution to the bank’s capital (think of the IMF’s SDR system.) The federal government would also get some say in the matter. For mega-projects involving multiple states, the project would have to be greenlighted by an up-or-down vote in the Senate and House. The CBO and OMB would also have to score all the projects to make sure that the economic benefit of the project outweighed the cost.
And yes. I agree that we need more transparency. And the procurement process, particularly for defense needs to be streamlined. That’s a huge money sink.
As far as the Davis Bacon act is concerned, I would simply amend it to pay prevailing local wages (subject to poverty/federal retabulation.)
Ask the Tea Party Guy
August 15, 2011
Thanks Bill for filling me on on the basics of the infrastructure bank.
It sounds interesting in theory but I have some reservations. If this was to become a reality what do we do with the federal highway department?
Do we leave that in place or shift it’s focus and workforce over to the new department. Or would this be another agency? Would the current fuel taxes that go to the government and state coffers fund it? It would be difficult for the some states to hand over that tax money to the feds.
As you already know my answer would be that we don’t need yet another agency starting up when we have those in place already to take care of this function. If we had better accounting maybe we would not need it at all.
My thoughts are that as hard as we try to shield the money from being spent elsewhere that it would be raided just like social security has. It would be great if I could be convinced otherwise.
Bill
August 15, 2011
The problem is that we don’t sufficiently fund the National Highway Service. The way I’d see it is that we would abolish the National Highway Administration and roll over its personnel into the planning section of the new bank (trimming whatever non-essentials were in there.) States could opt in and out of the infrastructure bank every quarter, taking out up to 50% of their initial investment (that way states couldn’t just move their assets back and forth into some sort of glorified Federal safety deposit box and take money out to cover deficits or other fiscal needs.) The states would then get access to the federal/state fund in there based on how much they had contributed over say… a five year process. So a state could in theory opt out completely if it felt its infrastructure was good.
It could then opt in (at a competitively higher buy-in rate, of course, to make sure that there is an equal incentive to opt in as there is to opt out) whenever it felt it needed infrastructure work. Some states would be guaranteed infrastructure funding so long as they kept opting into the bank and had extreme infrastructure needs. So that way you’d get a mix of pay-more get-more, and emergency funding for states that most needed it.
At least that would be how I structured it.
I think saying that the federal government can’t do anything is facile and sort of insulting. If the feds can’t do anything, it is our fault and no one else’s. After all, the federal government has done some great things in the past (the Apollo project, etc.) We need finance reform so we take control of our politics back from special interests, and actually involved citizenry. We also need a truly open process.
Ask the Tea Pary guy
August 15, 2011
Bob,
Concerning your answer here
Quote:
“TPG, there’s a very obvious difference between a man competent enough to build a real bomb and carry out a pointed act of terrorism and a delusional, mentally unstable one who only thinks he has a bomb and is acting on incoherent impulses. A genuine person of the left has some education in political theory and history and has developed an outlook on life generally in sympathy with liberalism, a political philosophy you don’t seem to understand in
the least. There have always been people swept up in political movements with no understanding of the higher concepts, acting only in what they see as their own interest. And yes, if you read a news story and don’t know the facts it contains and offer it as evidence when it contradicts your argument it hurts your credibility.”
I would agree that there are those who get swept up in political movements, be it liberal or conservative. Your litmus test for someone who is a true liberal (political theory education) is nonsense, even Bill somewhat comes to my defense on this.
This may shed some more light on the facts, As I stated earlier, this person had a bomb and planned on using it.
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/IncidentSummary.aspx?gtdid=201009010022
Also , I don’t need you to judge me about my understanding of liberalism, you know nothing about me, my family ,or what environment I was raised in. I understand it well.
Bob
August 18, 2011
Score one for TPG! You’ve sent a link to the first credible source that states the bomber had actual bombs. I’m convinced.
My “litmus test” could have been more clearly and simply worded as “a person consciously of the left must understand what the left is historically and agree with its goals”. I’ll admit to possibly having been a little too wordy and expansive there, but the meaning was the same.
I’m still not convinced the bomber was a left winger. What was said about him in the articles you’ve pointed me to didn’t say he was, and since you insist differently I have to assume you don’t know what “left wing” means. If you can present some credible evidence he was I’ll change my mind, just like with the bombs, and depending on what the evidence is I might have to reconsider whether you understand liberalism. What I know about you is what you’ve communicated. I have no clue where you got the idea that I presumed to judge you, your family, or how you were raised. Would you care to explain?
James Schwartz
August 18, 2011
I’ve been saying for years that right wingers are characterized by “visceral opinions” as opposed to reasoned opinions. But this article articulates the phenomenon far better.
Ask The Tea Party Guy
August 19, 2011
James ,
Could you break that down into language a dumb ass tea party guy could understand.
Thanks
Ask The Tea Party Guy
August 18, 2011
Thanks Bill for your great explanation on the infrastructure bank and how you would set it up.
While I am skeptical. if it can be done the idea has some merit.
Also you might want to check yourself about saying that we could replace the National Highway Administration or close it in favor of a national infrastructure bank. …That is waaaay to a conservative notion….lol.
Thanks again for the conversation
Bill
August 19, 2011
No problem. Though I do have to mention that liberals have no problem with making government more efficient or necessarily smaller, but that our main concern is always going to be effectiveness –that is, is the service being provided adequately rather than necessarily in the cheapest manner.
American liberalism does actually represent a “Third Way” (much though I dislike to use a DLC formulation) between socialism and capitalism (keep in mind that this is a false dichotomy; capitalism as we understand it needs some government to set ground rules and socialism will never be able to stamp out a private market.) It makes no claim to increasing or decreasing government.
To borrow from one of the Republican Party’s great presidents:
Our paramount object in this struggle is to protect the American people, and is not either to save or to destroy government. If we could do that by cutting all spending we would do it, and if we could do that by cutting some spending and raising some taxes we would do it; and if we could do that by raising taxes alone and spending more, or spending more and raising none we would also do that. What we do about government and its size and scope and spending we do to safeguard the American people; and what we forbear, we forbear because we do not believe it would help the American people.
That’s why liberals are so often annoyed by their conflation with socialists. Not that there’s anything wrong with socialism. Some countries have made it work, and I think it’s silly to slur an entire ideology (barring truly abominable ones like fascism, racism, etc.) In any case, there’s a real difference between the two. Socialists treat public sector expansion and domination of an economy (or particular sections of it) not as primarily contingent on it being effective (as liberals would rationalize e.g. a public option for health care for people not in the Medicare and Medicaid systems), but primarily because of a moral and political philosophy that stresses that the public is the ultimate power.
Ultimately liberals are technocrats. We believe in education and science and inductive reasoning. We’ve* arrived at our policy prescriptions because we believe that these policies will have effective outcomes by If conservatives** want to argue with us on the necessity of taking some of their more drastic measures they will have to argue on the realm of empirical evidence. Simply having a debate on values*** (as important as that may be) will not take us anywhere without at least agreeing to debate the same data points. Or to put it more succinctly: liberals find the CBO and economic modeling more compelling than moral arguments from Hayek or Mises. I scandalize my libertarian friends by saying that I enjoyed Road to Serfdom as deeply as I found it utterly irrelevant.
Don’t get me wrong, liberals have deeply held values, but when it comes to ideology, they identify much more weakly with any set of moral imperatives translated into policies prescriptions than Republicans. I think it’s entirely apt that educated liberals so often are fans of Derrida; we’ve politically deconstructed the ideologies that were passed down to us.
*I really shouldn’t say we since I identify as more of a social democrat than anything else. That’s a bit to the left of what a liberal would be, and a bit to the right of a socialist. Basically, I think that while the free market is great, it ideally needs to be harmonized to make sure that we have equality of opportunity and that there are no great injustices and people falling through the cracks. For example, endemic poverty is to be opposed both because of technical reasons and because of moral reasons, and must be addressed by muscular options (usually public), but I’m digressing. Anyhow, my main point stands. Conservatives should better try to understand liberals.
**Mind you, we’d all get better on if we understood each other better, but I will argue that liberals and those on the left have a better understanding of what conservatives want than conservatives have of what liberals want. For example, I understand the Republican argument for cutting spending; essentially the cut in spending will both bolster market confidence (thus redounding itself in companies spending again, which will boost aggregate demand, as well as driving new investment –boosting the stock market–) it will also stop the government from crowding out private capital investment and borrowing, which could stifle growth. I disagree with that argument and believe that the preponderance of economic evidence is arrayed against it, but I understand it.
I have seen few Republicans (aside from estimable economists like Mr. Mankiw) quickly illustrate the argument for Keynesian (really Neo-Keynesian) economics, and why it might be plausible.
***Though I would argue that liberal values and prescriptions are actually very popular (polling puts them at 70-75% support on many, many issues), and that while a plurality of conservatives disagree, a significant cohort has either been misinformed about liberal motives, given limited data with which to make an informed decision about wonkish questions, or simply tunes out. But that of course would take up a lengthier post.
Anyhow, a pleasure as always to engage with you.
Ask the Tea Pary guy
August 22, 2011
Bill,
I am glad you gve me the short version…lol
That’s a lot to digest in your last post. There are a lot of issues we will disagree on. While I can agree that there could be better communication I would disagree that socilism is a good thing. It looks good on paper but has mostly failed , see what is happening in to our friends across the pond now, at some point you run out of other peoples money. Even Germany who is considered the jewel in the crown of the euro is starting to show signs of struggle, if they continue to close down the nuclear power plants then what happens to their economic engine?
They have a controlled ecomony and reply on exports as the engine of growth. There is not a much incentive for those who want to make it on their own. with out going into a long diatribe about it ( I have family there) Many don’t have a large incentive to reach for big things, build a business and so forth.
I will respond in further detail later, but with the current issues with the rebuild from my water damage, running two businesse and to thow another monkey wrench in the mix , my wife shattered her leg and I have to are for her . It’s a fun fest for me. Everything will be OK. It’s just a fucking mess right now.
I
Bill
August 22, 2011
Public education, roads and infrastructure are all socialistic. Every single successful country in the world is socialistic to some degree. The free market itself is never free but requires some sort of government intervention.
Vis-a-vis Germany, I also can say that I have anecdotes of relatives who say both good things and bad. Germany is an easy to country to start a enforce contracts in for example, and its social mobility is higher than the United States. Its public debt ratio and future outlook are also pretty good, and like France and most of the Nordic Countries, its entitlement system actually pays for itself (I’ll agree with you that the Mediterranean countries have a much bleaker fiscal outlook.)
Some links for you: http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings
It’s worth noting that there is no real correlation between how socialized an economy is and how easy it is to do business. The UK with a single-payer system ranks higher than we do, overall. Highly socialized Canada makes it easier to start a business. It’s not about how much government there is, it seems to be, but how well designed government is (compare how easy it is to pay taxes in Sweden compared to the US.)
I could see a few easier ways to support business in the US. Much greater funding for the Small Business Administration. A specialized Small Business Bank. Easier liquidity rules for small businesses (and maybe a direct government line in this huge recession, since we’re bailing out criminal banks anyhow, we might as well bail out the neighborhood butcher shop.)
But I digress. Socialism and Capitalism never exist in their purest forms. I don’t think either is purely workable. I do think there is a legitimate debate to be held on the idea balance, but with respect, conservatives don’t even want to recognize that.
I also do have to say that I agree with Bob on Al Gore. Look at his record. He’s a Blue Dog Democrat who happens to be left (and, no pun intended, also quite right) on climate change.
Ask The Tea Party Guy
August 19, 2011
Hey Bob,
Thanks for the reply.
You has stated in a earlier reply concerning my understanding of liberalism:
“a political philosophy you don’t seem to understand in the least. ”
Hence my reply about my back round, You could have asked me about my understanding of it instead of making up your own conclusion which it seems you did by that statement.
Bob you also gave me some advice about facts which I seemed to have gotten correct. Your quote from a earlier post:
” My free advice is to pay more careful attention to facts. Accepting arguments that just “sound good” is a way of thinking that trips up most Tea Party types. It earns the ridicule of liberals, which you take as arrogance, ignorance, or pointless insults.”
The only facts that we dispute is whether or not James Lee was a left leaning person, even though he states that Al Gore’s movie and a book he read gave him a “awakening. ”
I stated that there is not much I could say to convince you otherwise so we are at a stalemate there.
I think we both could agree that this guy was batshit crazy
Bob
August 19, 2011
TPG,
We agree Lee was mentally ill. The evidence supports that, but you’ve kept to a wrong conclusion in the face of your own best evidence. The UM database concludes:
“Lee was motivated by his disapproval of the Discovery network’s television programming and in his manifesto on the internet, he laid out 11 demands for the network to change it’s programming to focus on sterilization and infertility of humans rather than showcasing overpopulation, and Lee viewed the shows to be doing little to save the planet.”
That doesn’t resemble any definition of “politically left” that I can imagine. It shows a warped concern about the environment, but doesn’t resemble a definition of environmentalism either. Even if it did, environmentalism isn’t the exclusive domain of the political left. You’re trying to use Lee as an example of a leftist terrorist because of his exposure to Al Gore (who’s a conservative Democrat) and some environmental writer, which just doesn’t hold up in any way. You had the fact of Lee’s having a real bomb correct, but that wasn’t supported by anything you linked until the UM database. None of my refutations mentioned judging your family or upbringing, which you accused me of doing. So I’ll repeat my advice to pay careful attention to facts. You’ll probably lead a more satisfying life if your actions address the real world and not just some arbitrary story, or worse, one cooked up by people who want to manipulate you. I’ll agree we’ve probably made as much progress as is possible. Have a nice life.
Sondra Harnes
August 20, 2011
So nice to have an explanation.
Ask the Tea Pary guy
August 22, 2011
Bob,
It seems that we will never find common ground on this . Someone carrying a war protest sign , having a awaking by al gores movie and other left causes does not equate to someone as left leaning , then again I will not convince you.
You can spare me anymore advise, it seems in your mind everything I believe is from some hideen outside source and I can’t think for myself. You contime to sling hidden insults as some form of “advice”. That’s fine I expect it here.
Al gore a conservative democrat? I will be laughing for days about that statement.
BoyInBOYCOTT
September 14, 2011
I usually agree doctors should do no harm, but after seeing TEA H8ers for 3 years, I’m thinking strapping them on a gurney, give then a wood stick to bite on, and zapping their temples till they smoke, might be the kindest thing.
The Platzner Post
September 14, 2011
Warning : “Shame Therapy” does not work Zombies!!!
The Platzner Post
September 14, 2011
Warning : “Shame Therapy” does not work on Zombies!!!
lirtydies
September 14, 2011
A reply that I got in response to posting this:
I hope you’re not a proponent of eugenics. All parties not born of hate must be listened to, maybe even those grounded in evil because forewarned is forearmed. Ill-willed bashing of a minority party signals weakness.
MrMalo
September 14, 2011
I suggest everyone in the world be forced to read William Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” After the war Shirer was granted access to the captured Nazi archives going back to it origins and rise to power. He documents all of the nasty little tricks, gimmicks, slogans and methods used by the Nazis to gain enough seats in a divided Reichstag to become the largest unified party, By dividing the left over side issues of little import in regards to the everyday lives of most Germans, they were able to form a government with Hitler as Chancellor, and things went downhill from there. But the most interesting and relevant aspect with regards to politics in America today is their technique of using propaganda, violence, or the the threat of violence, outright thuggery, highlighting issues that divide the opposition, and just plain vile discourse, name calling, pandering to racists, and demonization of the opposition in order to win elections. It is clear to me that all of these very same tactics are now being used effectively by the right wing conservatives. The tea party is more a victim of this Big Lie, than perpetrators. They are the ignorant masses who FALL for these dirty tricks. They are just the tools that the corporate fascists use in order to maintain their grip on power. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich should be required reading. It happened then, and for the very same reason its happening again. MONEY AND POWER.
Cynthia Almy Savage
September 15, 2011
Sorry, I skipped much of the mental masturbation. A few facts….we have a Tea Party because 1. our sensationalistic media loves to televise train wrecks. “if it bleeds, it ledes” is not a new saying, 2. 55 million people chose not to vote in 2010. Do not fantasize that the Tea Party mobilized some nascent political movement….Secondly, we have a extreme right wing GOP because the Dems spent the last 30 years shifting to the right and not being a real political party. When your competition shifts rightward, what’s a political party do to to demonstrate a clear delineation? Shift to the extreme. There have always been xenophobic ultra”conservatives” in America. They were recognized as the lunatic fringe and correctly so for decades because people had a real choice in political expression up until 1960. Now it’s either the Corporate Party or the Corporate Lite Party.
How many people are truly conservative in this country? Very few. There are plenty of people who’ve been caught up in the cultural populism employed by the GOP since 1965. How else can you explain the “Keep govt out of my Medicare” signs that appeared frequently at Tea Party protests? The fact is, Americans LOVE socialism when they benefit but, as a lasting legacy to that Puritan “God favors the faithful with wealth” belief, they cannot stand socialism when the “undeserving other” benefits. So, before you buy the Tea Partier’s argument that he’s a “conservative”, you need to look at where he lives and what services he benefits from. Chances are, he’s attracted more to authoritarianism and he confuses it with actual conservative thinking. I’ve long believed that the American who self-identifies as a “conservative” would prefer to live in a police state, as long as it didn’t affect him personally and he didn’t have to pay for it. Amygdalas aside, if you have a conversation with a “conservative” keeping my observations in mind, you’ll find you are able to predict his response to almost any political statement.
GW
September 15, 2011
Can I get permission to republish this? Good stuff…
beeryblog
September 15, 2011
GW … thank you for the compliment! If you’d like to republish, please send a quick e mail to beeryblog@gmail.com
Keep up the fight!
GW
September 15, 2011
I did…
GW
September 15, 2011
Posted. Thanks! Keep up the good work…
The Amygdala Strain: Right-Wing Teabaggery as Psychological Pandemic
http://blog.locustfork.net/2011/09/the-amygdala-strain-right-wing-teabaggery-as-psychological-pandemic/
a rational creature
September 15, 2011
To paraphrase E.B. White, It is not often that someone comes along who is both a true political ally and a good writer.
Robert Post
September 15, 2011
Thanks Bill and TPG, for a most erudite and illuminating discussion. I consider myself a Liberal in the sense that Bill explained, and a Progressive because I think that we will have to come up with imaginative, pragmatic new solutions and policies to move us forward. We will have to think “out of the box,” to use a tired phrase, and we will have to try some things that have not been tried before. Going back to the policies of the Bush administration, on steroids, as the Tea Party wishes, is the sure road to a recession or depression that might last a decade. By the way, I don’t think there is really such a thing as a Left Wing in American politics. That would have been the Communist Party or the old Socialist Party, neither of which exists in the 21st century. What the Tea Party folks and Rush Limbaugh refer to as the “Left”, is really just slightly left of center. The one “socialist” thing I think we need to have is Medicare for all, or a single-payer system, because that is clearly the most efficient solution. It would lift the burden off employers and eliminate the huge overlay of executive compensation and healthcare insurors profit requirements. But even that wouldn’t really be socialized medicine. That’s what our active-duty military has, and I can testify that it works beautifully.
Ask The Tea Party Guy
November 1, 2011
Robert,
Nobody in the Tea Party ( in my area) wishes to go back to the “Bush policy’s on steroids”
While we supported Bush his policies were not exactly conservative, a new drug benefit entitlement, Tarp, Dept of homeland security were all policies that most of us think were ill conceived. Just homeland security alone is a budget buster when a few tweaks could have done the same function. Now we have another bloated agency that will never go away and have more ways to take away everyone’s liberty.
You mention the VA benefits as “socialized medicine” I disagree, it’s a benefit for those who serve our country and it works better than medicare because the VA is able to take bids for services and medicine, unlike medicare which has fixed contract bidding. Also the VA is limited in many services like physical therapy, where a medicare patient can have access to local services.
I read recently that many states want to “opt out” of the new Health Care act so they can impose a single payer system and want the Feds to give them block grants instead. While those in favor of single payer are saying it’s a good idea (because it’s what they believe in) They are also the same people that crucified Ryan on his plan to let block grants go to states to let them develop there own free market solution and subsidize those who can not afford medicare gap insurance. Why not have both and let the states decide what is best for their citizens?
Robert Post
November 2, 2011
In answer to your last question, I could say “economies of scale”, but really it’s for the same reason that we don’t let the states decide whether they would like to participate in the interstate highway system or not, or whether they should make their own rules about airplanes flying over their boarders. Because the United States is one nation…not 50 little ones. The States don’t get to decide whether their citizens will also be citizens of the United States (e.g. Secession). This is simply a matter of national interest and national scale that affects every citizen in equal measure, and should be dealt with as such. Some things, like education and criminal law are logical state issues (and reserved to the states in the Constitution) and some are Federal matters. Why should your rights and access to health care change when you drive over a state border?
DaEggman
September 21, 2011
For the love of money is the root of all evil… Follow the money and those who lust after it, and you will find the roots of everyone’s misery. Just one more Atheist who read the bible, and can glean the wisdom from the guano.
Gigi Jacobs
November 2, 2011
Funny, I don’t think money has anything to do with evil. I think evil is evil-money present or not
“roots of everyone’s misery”? ….more like “the lack of is the root of much misery”.
Bob
November 2, 2011
Hi Gigi, just wanted to say “glad to see you back,” and while I’m at it, agree that money is only a tool.
Gigi Jacobs
November 3, 2011
Hi Bob,
I busy forming “The Businesses for the OWS Protesters”-speaking of those with and without conscience. If I’m lucky perhaps you ‘ll see The Business for the OWS Protesters on TV-I didn’t like Eric Cantor and John Boehner using my name, small business, in his attempt to extort the very last penny from the American Public. I hope to tell it to his face one day!
Good to see you again.
Be back some time soon,
Gigi
Periscope
September 29, 2011
We live in America that has been transformed into a psychologically dysfunctional paradox since the election of Ronald Reagan. He promoted the “gummint” hating, while at the same time extolling the benefits of private enterprise beyond all reason. The result?
Since that time America has become more and more of a proto-banana-republic, and we’re only one more Republican administration away from rivaling any death-squad run nation that ever existed in El Salvador or Chile or Argentina in the late 20th century.
The Tea-baggers are reminiscent of the Brown-shirts, who helped usher in Hitler and the Nazis in Germany. And it’s the same kind of irrational hatreds and brutal ignorance they display, which is lionized on Fox News and other right-wing hate-media that could lead America into the same dark abyss.
Lee Eisenberg
December 2, 2011
Yes, I had been getting the feeling that right-wing views are little more than a form of dementia.
Step In Tub
December 11, 2011
Thank you a lot for sharing this with all of us you really realize what you’re talking approximately! Bookmarked. Kindly also consult with my website =). We may have a hyperlink exchange agreement among us
Transport company Novosibirsk
January 11, 2012
Thank you very useful article
Фотокниги в г.Таруса
January 12, 2012
Wow, amazing weblog layout! How lengthy have you been blogging for? you made blogging glance easy. The full look of your web site is great, as well as the content!
letselschade
February 9, 2012
Oh mijn god! een ongelooflijke artikel dude. Dank je wel Desalniettemin ik ben probleem met ur rss. Weet niet waarom Kan niet abonneren. Is er iemand krijgt niemand dergelijke nadeel? Iedereen wie weet vriendelijk reageren. Thnkx