Reacting to this post, Reihan Salam (who majors in good blogging and minors in even better dancing) says there is enough fear, resentment, and moral arrogance to go around. He says arguing over who's the bitterest of all is "unedifying." Your honor, I object!
I wrote said post mere hours after Romney assaulted my logic (Throw out the big-government liberals and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin!), Giuliani groped my lizard brain (I'm sorry Barack Obama feels that her hometown isn't ... cosmopolitan enough.), and Sarah Palin lied to my face (I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.). Maybe my nerves were still jangled.
But why should it be unedifying to inquire which party is more driven by a sense of grievance? It would be odd if it turned out all political coalitions partook equally of it, or if disparate resentments did not shape the political landscape.
I was at both conventions. One can only guard against confirmation bias and the rest of it so much, of course. But I heard far, far more in the way of positive plans and visions in Denver. There was plenty of anger over Bush's misgovernance, and plenty of hard hits on John McCain, but almost without fail they began with a nod to his honorable character. They were about his support for the war, policy flip-flips, and Rovian (Schmidtian?) campaign. Mostly the Dem crowd went wild for restoring respect for the Constitution, expanding health insurance, and getting out of Iraq. Hope, change, a new direction, blah blah.
What fired up the otherwise subdued crowd in St. Paul was dripping condescension and contempt directed toward Obama -- his experience, his style, his character. I mean for f***sake, they mocked community organizing!
Giuliani got them revving with alpha-male hazing, but what really drove them wild was Palin's thrilling new brand of mean-girl contempt delivered with small-town affect. Biden gets it just right:
Man, they're like the kids you know when you went to school and you were very proud of the new belt or the shoes you had, and there was always one kid in the class who said, "oh, are they your brother's?" Remember that kid? That's what this is reminding me of. "Oh, I love your dress, was that your mother's?" You know what I'm talking about.
I get that some conservatives are genuinely angry about the attacks directed at Palin these past few weeks. For my part, though, I just didn't see much of the stuff they're exercised about. Am I just not reading the right blogs? The brief hubbub about her pregnancy and Bristol's has receded to the background. What I see now is a whole panoply of unanswered questions about her record and, more to the point, her honesty.
Honesty is the thing. If you have a good case to make to the country, why do you need to sell it with lies? Palin has repeated the Bridge to Nowhere lie 23 times as of yesterday morning; she's still claiming to oppose earmarks when she proved wildly gifted at attracting them. The campaign keeps saying Obama will raise taxes, when his plan will lower them for 95 percent of taxpayers. They keep saying Obama's healthcare plan would put government bureaucrats in charge of doctor choice. I can't remember a campaign repeating so many specific, widely debunked falsehoods so unashamedly.
The latest in deceptive dirt is a new education ad where McCain attacks Obama for supporting a program that would add disease-prevention material to Illinois sex ed curriculum. (Learning about sex before learning to read? gasps the ad.)
When you want to appeal to people's better nature, you tell them the truth. When you want to stoke their baser nature, you lie to them. Good governance and policy are not built on lies.
Reihan says:
I'm struck by this notion that there is only one side in the culture wars -- or rather that only one side ever makes any transgressions, while the other side is saintly and invincibly innocent.
I didn't say that, and nobody thinks it. It's more accurate to say that only one side is fighting the culture wars -- or to be more fair, only one side has it perpetually at the center of their politics. It is the right that shadowboxes elites day in and day out. Dems are focused this year on getting out of Iraq, getting healthcare reform passed, and getting a climate/energy plan in place. Republicans are focused on the fact that McCain was once a POW and that Dems are citified snobs who hate small town America. (Said Palin, We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.) Oh, and drilling.
These are not two sides of the same fight, they're different fights. One's a culture war, one's a governing agenda.
If it is "cosmopolitan" to maintain that credible plans for economic renewal, clean energy, and smarter foreign policy matter more than cultural identifiers like number of children, experience in combat, or ability to hunt moose, then color me cosmopolitan. Whatever may be true historically, it's hard to argue that the right is not more motivated by tribal resentments and anxieties this year. Since that is shaping the political contest, it seems worth pointing out.
(For this record, I am keenly aware of the attractions of rootedness and tradition. Seems to me they're being destroyed in part by the very economic forces conservatives celebrate and seek to unfetter. But that's an argument for a different too-long post than this one.)
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
Jon Rynn Posted 6:51 am
10 Sep 2008
Permalink
kirasaffron Posted 7:04 am
10 Sep 2008
She mocked community organizing because being a small town mayor was mocked. She bit back. What do you expect? Do you want a submissive woman? For f***s sake, David Roberts.
Government regulated healthcare is not in the best interest of the working man, as democrats claim. It would take the choice of which doctors and hospitals everyday, small town folk can go to, reduce competition, and reduce the quality of healthcare. If healthcare were deregulated, competition would drive prices down and quality would be maintained, and all of the working class people democrats claim to care about would have access to great healthcare.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:24 am
10 Sep 2008
Permalink
BlackBear Posted 7:24 am
10 Sep 2008
Meanwhile our working class would be left with less-than-great hospitals with distinctly less-than-great services. Living as a do near one such hospital, I can say that I ever need major surgery, I'm driving hours and hours to a better one.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:32 am
10 Sep 2008
Kira, repeating the lies doesn't make them true.
grist.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:34 am
10 Sep 2008
Well lets first consider that:
It's in the corporate health insurance providers best interest to deny coverage. Therefore they try to make it as difficult, confusing and slow as possible.
They only want you visiting health care providers within their own network.
Medicare is the fastest and most ubiquitous form of healthcare coverage.
And you are able to use it at virtually ANY private healthcare provider you choose. No contracts. Any mixture you choose.
So simply, your statement is categorically false.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to call what she said an outright lie.
So what would you prefer: "Misleading", "Dishonest", "betrayal of trust"?
Or how about "Knowingly implied that she did the exact opposite of what she actually did"
_
Regardless of how you want to phrase it, it is an outright immoral action, and she should be called out for it.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
MClemens Posted 7:34 am
10 Sep 2008
Unfortunately, the McPalin ticket is reverting to the time-tested, tried-and-true method of playing on people's national security fears, and boldface lying about what they (she) have done because they know that the shallowness of much of the American public won't see through it, or even care to try to examine the claims closely. They're going to hear a war hero vehemently claim that he will "defeat muslim extremism" and hear a previously nameless Alaskan tom-boy say what a pit-bull with lipstick she is and think, "hell yeah!" Yet those same hell-yeah-ers won't pay any mind to the fact that nations, religions, and societies have been battling "muslim extremists" in some form since practically the dawn of time; or to the fact that that naughty-librarian-looking pit bull simply says what she's told to say in order to gain the most shallow-minded votes, even if her statements are outright lies.
Now I'm sure that's delving into the very subject that warrants a "different too-long post other than this one" but I can't help it.
When I showed up at work the days after both Palin's and McCain's RNC speeches, my predominantly-conservative co-workers were all in a hubbub about how great Palin's speech was and how surprisingly impressive McCain's was (even they don't expect much from him when he's at the podium). When asked what I thought about them, I agreed they were well-delivered but completely lacked sustenance. I told them that there just weren't any real "action statements" or any concrete evidence that either candidate would do anything more than 'more of the same'. After thinking about it, they really couldn't argue - or if they could, they didn't bother.
I subsequently passed around some emails and articles I printed out showing the two-facedness of Palin. That information was either immediately rebutted by a copy of the transcript from her speech, or a discussion about national security, gun control, or moose hunting.
I'm not going to claim that the majority of voters don't value honesty, but I do believe that many of them don't care enough to find out when a candidate isn't being honest.
Self-induced, intentional, shallow ignorance will likely get McPalin elected. And their campaign strategy shows that they are keenly aware of that.
/Rant.
MClemens
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:39 am
10 Sep 2008
But according to one study, it offers that 95% of Americans, 3x more tax cuts than McCain's tax policy.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/12/obama-v-mccain-tax-pl ...
_
So if we want to talk about "Who is working hardest for the first 95% of Americans".
Clearly the answer is Obama.
_
If we want to ask, who is working hardest for the top 5% elite?
That, would be McCain.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 7:53 am
10 Sep 2008
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:56 am
10 Sep 2008
_
McCain's cochair admits he wants this campaign to be about "Personality", not Issues.
And yes, we are diverting the campaign to talk only about Abortion, Oil Drilling, and Guns. And of course, using the familiar narative of "The Unfair Liberal Media".
Meanwhile ignoring the important things, like Education, Tax Policy, Foreign Policy, Health Insurance, Peer Reviewed Science, Social Security, Immigration, Global Warming, Federal Debt, and Upholding the Constitution
_
As Lakoff keeps saying, Republicans are at their most dishonest where they are the weakest.
Aka. Rove Politics 101, "Don't attack your opponent's weaknesses. Attack his strengths."
Recently for instance, McCain is even trying to imply that Obama promoted teaching full-on sex education to kindergarteners. When what he was really doing is promoting a program teaching them how to avoid pedophiles and kidnappers.
Thats because McCain and Palin have almost no education policy, or education background.
Palin? An undergraduate degree in Journalism.
McCain? Graduated 5th from last in his class at military college.
Obama, was wildly popular university professor for years, and graduated from Harvard with a masters degree in constitutional law.
Palin/McCain of course, want to continue the "No Child Left Behind" program as-is. One which is devesting US student comprehention.
Obama wants to change that broken system.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:00 am
10 Sep 2008
I just spent some time going over about 5 of Salam's most recent posts, and they are all, as far as I can tell, basically Republican arguments, with a few rational ideas thrown in -- for instance, look at the piece about density, referring to Leinberger even, there seems to be an awareness of the other side, I will grant that. But that piece is still defending the whole idea of exurbia, it seems to me.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:01 am
10 Sep 2008
_
Now the real question.
What topic of discussion do we really want to be having?
A discussion of ad hominem, or a discussion of judgement, and policies?
_
Since frankly, McCain has a very good shot at winning if we make this a campaign about ad-hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
-David Ahlport
Permalink
kirasaffron Posted 8:03 am
10 Sep 2008
I didn't say he mocked small towns, and I am no republican. I said she was mocked for being a "small town mayor." There you go again twisting what someone says.
"repeating a lie"
If you want socialized medicine, make sure you know exactly what it is. I lived in Ecuador for six months and saw very substandard care that was available to everyone. The best care was in Quito, and that was in in hospitals that rich people and visiting gringos actually paid money for.
The bridge to nowhere bit was not a lie, and it's not a lie because you say it is. It's not a lie because you repeat that it is a lie. She changed her mind. Call her a flip-flopper, but not a liar.
Permalink
kirasaffron Posted 8:07 am
10 Sep 2008
It's in the corporate health insurance providers best interest to deny coverage. Therefore they try to make it as difficult, confusing and slow as possible.
They only want you visiting health care providers within their own network.
Medicare is the fastest and most ubiquitous form of healthcare coverage.
And you are able to use it at virtually ANY private healthcare provider you choose. No contracts. Any mixture you choose.
So simply, your statement is categorically false."
It's true that insurance companies abuse government regulation and raise prices. The solution to this would be to de-regulate and allow anyone to buy whatever insurance they want outside of any network. The solution is not government provided healthcare.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:14 am
10 Sep 2008
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:16 am
10 Sep 2008
Care to explain why every major developed nation in the world, does nationalized healthcare. AND they get better care, cheaper care, and far less hassle?
http://dreamingup.blogspot.com/2008/07/only-in-america-wo ...
http://www.mnblue.com/node/1877
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/medical_errors ...
Heh, actually one of McCain's "I split with the GOP" arguments is favoring "Importing Cheap Drugs from Canada".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007 ...
_
US health coverage sucks compared to every other major developed country that does National health coverage.
The bridge to nowhere bit was not a lie, and it's not a lie because you say it is. It's not a lie because you repeat that it is a lie. She changed her mind. Call her a flip-flopper, but not a liar.
Except that, She kept the money!
She kept the porkbarrel, and spent it.
_
Thats not "changing your mind".
Thats outright Dishonesty.
i.e. Implying that she did the exact opposite of what she actually did.
_
Either way you want to look at it, that statement was immoral.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:19 am
10 Sep 2008
Or maybe "Disengenous".
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:25 am
10 Sep 2008
Notice how the Republicans are trying to say "We're a difference type of Republican. We want to change and be different than that OLD type of Republican!"
Can anyone say "Compasionate Conservative"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020430. ...
Or "Kindler, Gentler Conservative"
http://www.google.com/search?q=kinder+gentler+george+h+bu ...
___
Old tactics, die hard.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:37 am
10 Sep 2008
However, Markets are simply a method of finding the path of least resistance.
Just because a path is efficient doesn't mean it's socially beneficial.
What you're advocating is that because "Competative Sports" has some corruption, we should remove all the Referees and Rules.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
kirasaffron Posted 10:44 am
10 Sep 2008
"the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency"
Ahlport, I think competition between insurance companies for quality and prices would be socially beneficial. There is limited competition now, so insurance companies take advantage of that. My family cannot afford insurance, but I do not want the government to take it over for my short-term benefit. The Lasik eye procedures are not covered by insurance, and they have become very affordable because of market competition.
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 11:59 am
10 Sep 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:18 pm
10 Sep 2008
We live in a dangerous world. The Middle East is a complicated place, not to mention all of the rest of the regions of the world. For the Republicans, who have been accusing the Democrats of being soft on national security, to pick someone who could be president who hasn't even thought about these issues, much less gone abroad, much less even traveled around the US for all we know, who is only really familiar with rural Alaska, is irresponsble, and endangers the country. And so have certain conservatives, like Ben Stein or David From, basically said. So it's not a smear: to say that community organizers don't have responsbilities is to smear people who are just as devoted to service as anyone in the country, and is despicable.
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 2:54 pm
10 Sep 2008
Permalink
kirasaffron Posted 3:23 pm
10 Sep 2008
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:20 pm
10 Sep 2008
As I said before, just because competition can be beneficial doesn't mean that it's always beneficial.
Similarly, you can't draw a comparison between Medical Practitioners, and Medical Insurance Agencies.
Completely different rule structures and profit motives. And MOST importantly, LOW MARKET ENTRY BARRIERS.
Insurance, by nature, has very high market entry barriers due to it's inherent economies of scale, and banking infrastructure. Deregulating it wouldn't remove those barriers to market entry.
As such, you'd end up with just a couple similar big companies which are effectively a cartel. (although frankly, thats not far off from what we got now)
____
If anything, if you look at the Housing market.
Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac functioned pretty damned well for quite some time. (About 40 years)
Then of course, a "deregulation" loophole was created that brought everything crashing down. (Thank Phil Gramm for that) (It basically allowed for high risk loans to be created by Wall Street, and repackaged as low risk loans, which then filtered down into the housing market)
If you know ANYONE who owns a house, they are probably benefiting from a "nationalized" housing loan.
Since they accounted for nearly 80% of ALL US mortgages.
http://greyfalcon.net/oilchart4.png
_
Why can't we do that for healthcare?
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:25 pm
10 Sep 2008
Take a listen to this:
http://greyfalcon.net/palin.wma
Lemme know what ya think
_
http://greyfalcon.net/palin2
http://greyfalcon.net/palin3
http://greyfalcon.net/palin4
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Baby Boomer Posted 1:18 am
11 Sep 2008
The McCain I supported in 2000 has turned into total ambition. His VP pick, while juicing up the election trail into a reality show, is incredibly irresponsible.
And as a side note, I lived in France for one year and two years in Canada so I lived under socialized medicine and universal healthcare. There is a difference. Under both systems I received excellent and timely and CARING medical care. Maybe neither would work in the US, but both should be discussed in a reasonable manner and not demonized.
Competition might work in some non-essential healthcare like lasik surgery, but some healthcare has to cover needs like prevention, childhood wellness and vaccines, emergency care and medical care for indigents and their children. Competition leads to every hospital putting their money in the latest "machines" and touting their cutting edge technology. Meanwhile there's no money to cover prevention or simple procedures for children or the poor.
I worked at a hospital foundation for a while, and the CEO of the hospital (not a bleeding heart liberal), stated to business leaders that healthcare can't be competitive because it involves life and death at times. Lasik surgery is not life or death. Emergency open-heart surgery can be and do we deny that to an infant born of an irresponsible, unwed teenager?
We need to address every question indepth, with calmness and an ear tuned to strategy and the future. Please, no more decisions from the "gut."
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:22 am
11 Sep 2008
How about we call these "Policy Reversals"
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops
i.e. Reversing nearly all of his non-party-line policies.
-David Ahlport
Permalink