EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Calling Out the Conservative Lies on Stimulus
We are in the midst of a major ideological battle. If progressives win, we'll have more jobs, better schools, and the first real steps toward a sustainable economy in our history. Conservatives in Congress don't want this to happen. Why? Is it that they hate Americans and want us to suffer? Maybe not. But they definitely don't want Americans to experience a government that works. This would undermine decades of propaganda summed up in Reagan's famous line, "Government is the problem!"
This has to do with worldviews and modes of thought, something I've studied extensively in recent years. Conservatives are trying to advance their "common sense" just as they have done with gusto since establishing their network of think tanks and media outlets in the mid-70's. What is their common sense? Simple:
The world is filled with individuals whose worth is determined solely by their ability to be disciplined and work hard. These individuals go out into the world and compete for just rewards if they prove themselves stronger and more capable than their competitors. By implication, anyone who does not win in this "free market" of competition is lazy and weak. Such people deserve their lot in life. And, of course, this natural order only works without disruption by a nanny state (the government) that gives hand outs to the undeserving.
Margaret Thatcher famously articulated this perspective when she declared that "there is no such thing as society," making explicit the claim that the world is filled with individuals. Unfortunately for conservative thinkers, their ideas don't hold up very well in practice. A few generations back they had the opportunity to prove themselves by deregulating markets and removing caps on the "rewards" of competition. The result: the Great Depression. Later, they got their hands on the reigns again. Their laissez-fair approach to market capitalism resulted in a Savings and Loan scandal. More recently, when conservatives controlled all three branches of government, we were delivered to our current desperate state of economic collapse.
The challenge we face now is that conservatives are very good at hiding this history from the public. They do it by controlling the messages of the mainstream media. And they are using the full girth of their power now to set the discourse around Obama's stimulus package. Not to serve the public, but to protect their ideology from the truth of its devastation.
Conservative Lie #1: It's not the economy their protecting. It's the ideology.
Republicans in Congress will claim that they are working to improve the stimulus plan in order to bolster the economy. This claim is false. The truth is that they are grasping at straws in a time when most Americans clearly see the need for government intervention. They know that a successful economic recovery plan that comes from the government will undermine public endorsement of their ideology. They don't want this to happen.
Their tactic is not simply "politics as usual," a code phrase for the meme that government cannot be trusted (conservative ideology again!). It is part of what my former colleague George Lakoff and I call cognitive policy. By cognitive policy we mean strategies for getting high-level ideas-values, frames and principles-to dominate public discourse and shape public understanding so that future material policies will be natural and win public support with ease. Conservatives want Americans to think like they do. And they're willing to let cities drown, as we saw with Katrina, to demonstrate their idea that government doesn't work.
Conservative Lie #2: Government isn't bad. Conservative government is bad.
They'll claim that "government is the problem" and point to failures that happened on their watch. Of course, this sleight-of-hand maneuver only works if people don't remember our history. The truth is that conservatives intend for government to fail. And they'll do whatever it takes to insure that it does. An example George and I laid out in a past article, Why Voters Aren't Motivated by a Laundry List of Positions on Issues, was the covert policy of undermining public education so that it could be privatized:
For example, take No Child Left Behind. Its stated purpose is to improve public education, but its covert purpose has been to undermine it so that public schools can be replaced by charter schools, private schools, and religious schools. This would increase conservative control over what is taught and further inculcate conservative ideas. It would institute a two-tier educational system to maintain and reproduce the two-tier economic system in the country, so that children of the elite can get an elite education subsidized by the public through vouchers, while children of the uneducated poor remain educated just enough to continue to provide a source of cheap unskilled or low-skilled labor. This agenda is hidden, but it is justified and advanced via cognitive policy.
This is where progressives have our work cut out for us. Not only do we need to promote policies that reflect our values. Unlike conservatives, we have the additional challenge of making sure government programs work! We have to be sure that quality jobs are created that deliver a living wage. We have to provide for the health security of citizens to keep our communities safe from the ravages of disease. We have to nurture the minds of our children to be sure they are prepared for the challenges that lay ahead. And we have to transcend outdated relationships with Old World powers, like those in the Middle East, by generating local, clean energy in our own cities and towns.
Conservative Lie #3: They're not against the stimulus plan. They're against the function of government itself.
The narrow reporting on current Congressional politicking would lead one to believe that conservatives simply want a different bill to be passed. By now it should be clear that this just isn't the case. The truth is that conservatives want to be sure Obama and his progressive colleagues at all levels of government are not able to do their jobs. Imagine what would happen if Obama succeeded at delivering money to state and city officials to build mass transit, generate renewable energy, and provide affordable health care to the populace. This would be the fulfillment of government's moral mission - to protect and empower our citizens.
Conservatives will do everything they can to stand in the way of this progress. They are doing more than obstructing a vital infusion of resources to save our economy. That would be sin enough to drive them from public office if their agenda were widely know. The truth is much more disturbing. They are obstructing the capacity of people to come together and solve our problems through the one mechanism that makes this possible - a functioning government.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
67 Comments so far
Show AllRonnie Ray-Gun said "Government is the problem". As usual, he was full of it.
Truth be told, he would have been accurate had he said "Conservative government is the problem."
Look what conservative government has wrought:
Deregulation to protect us all but vanished.
We are sickened and dying from a FDA that protects industry instead of consumers.
Unbridled greed and malfeasance on Wall Street.
Tens of millions of people without health insurance.
People being foreclosed from their homes.
Veterans not getting adequate care.
Veterans and others living under bridges.
A vast wealth disparity not seen since the Great Depression.
~500,000 people laid off each month.
Bridges collapsing and levees breached.
the list is almost endless.
many economists are against this stimulus package, too (you can find a gaggle of them practically every day at counterpunch.)
the problem is not the stimulus package per se but that it's happening in tandem w/TARP and even more massive efforts to bail out the financial sector.
"They are obstructing the capacity of people to come together and solve our problems through the one mechanism that makes this possible - a functioning government."
That implies that the Republican bloc wants to destroy the government in order to save the country, as it were, which would be consistent, ideologically. I don't buy it, though. Republicans do not have the clear ideological focus Joe Brewer believes they do. The obstruction to the stimulus bill in the House is more sour grapes than ideology. It's a Rush Limbaugh "I hope they fail!" knee-jerk reaction, in view of the fact that they have no coherent policy alternatives. The other party has the votes and the Republicans are content to allow them to succeed, so long as they are perceived by their own constituencies to be against it on principle.
In other words, they are courting a voter perception, but they are essentially clueless and in disarray. They are frightened, but angry. They are incompetent to deal with a crisis they created and unable to articulate any alternative solutions. They mechanically repeat their failed tax cut, supply-side rhetoric. Ron Paul is an ideologue, but the Republican Party itself is opportunistic and rudderless. Black in "in", so they elect a black man to head the party.
"destroy" is too radical. It's more like they want to "neuter" the government. Conservatives still see value in having a government.
Why diminish government? The government is the only mechanism that the vast majority of people have to democratically control their society and future direction. Conservatives believe in a hierarchical system where a small group of elites control society and future direction.
Joe Brewer is correct. It's ideology they're protecting.
P.S. cruxpuppy, you have made good points. Republicans are pragmatic politicians - a black man to head the party. But scratch a Republican and you get a conservative ideologue.
Senate Republicans don't seem to be in disarray to me. They are firmly on message, tightly organized, and collectively advancing the same ideas through every public statement about the stimulus bill.
Much of this is, as you suggest, about public perception. But perhaps not in the same way... Conservatives are attempting to set the tone of the discourse with their frames. This is a strategy that has worked extremely well for them in the last two decades.
To clarify the attack on government a bit:
Tax cuts for the wealthy advance two goals at once. First, it rewards the "hard working (a.k.a. disciplined) consistent with the conservative worldview. And second, the capacity for government to fund programs of all kinds is diminished by the lost revenue.
The irony of this effort to "reduce the size" of government is that it leads to BIGGER government. Deregulation leads to massive corruption, which requires bailouts, new regulatory systems to reign in market instabilities that emerge when regulatory structures are removed, and so on. And then, there's spending for the one function conservatives do believe in - punishing the bad with strong military strength. (with bad understood from the conservative perspective, of course!).
It's not that conservatives don't believe in any form of government. Rather it is that they seek to make government in their image - a solid authority that rewards their version of good (more profits) and punishes their version of bad (poverty, bombs, etc.)
This is a simplistic representation, for the sake of brevity, but it does capture key aspects of conservative thought.
I cannot disagree. Thanks.
Anyone that defends this stimulas package as a "Stimulas Package" is simply being dishonest with themselves. It has more pork than the Republicans package last year. Line after line of useless special interest spending.
As it is presently constituted very little of it is stimulas and most of it doesn't even kick in for two years or more. In 2013 9 billionn dollars to bring broadband service to rural areas is stimulas? HA! Who exactly do you think put this in the package with their lobbying?
Don't be fooled, if the Senate passes this out and sends it to Obama and he signs it, he just handed the Senate back to the Republicans in two years and will aslmost assure he will be a one term President.
I object to any provision thats put into this bill that does not do what the bill says it is for. And 4 years from now is not going to stimulate the economy now. That is what this bill is supposed to be for, is it not?
The broadband service for rural areas is a great idea and I'd support it wholeheartedly. But not as an appendage to another bill that has nothing to do with it.
I got more than enough of the bait and switch legislation last year. 75 million dollars for school lunch programs, 50 million for the NEA....worthwhile programs? Sure but not economic stimulas, by any stretch of the imagination.
400 million for "neighborhood stabilization programs"....economic stimulas? 150 million I believe it was for an anti smoking campaign...economic stimulas?
There is page after page of shameful provisions like these. Many that standing alone or bundled with like legislation are more than worthy. But to pass them under the guise of an economic stimulas package is simply shameful. If all I wanted was more lies and business as usual, I could have voted for McCain and been assured of getting this type of legislation.
Don't mean to rant, but this is such a waste of an opportunity I don't know what to say. Why sign away your credibility in the first month. I can only hope reason comes to his rescue.
I hope this clarifies what I meant.
You make good points, but part of the problem is just the nature of the beast. "Economic stimulus" is an utterly vague notion, just like "National Security". It's hard to think of anything that DOESN'T fall under those categories.
True. To me though, its something that will generate jobs that aren't there now that will produce something tangible. And hopefully produce ongoing jobs without government subsidy.
By the way, I meant 4 BILLION for neighborhood stabilazation programs.
I'm sure that an anti-smopking campaign or funding for the design of an ice breaker don't.
I guess giving rural areas access to the Internet will distract them from finding real jobs that would otherwise brighten their lives. It can be depressing sitting at home in front of the computer unemployed all day. Besides, since when does Big Telco/Cable ever get their services right? As a programmer who witnessed the way a telephone company purposely postpones repairing their communications infrastructure, I am mortified that government is doing another doleout to these corporations as some sort of a "faith-based" thing that they'll do their job. There used to be times when money didn't matter as much but today money's given higher priority all the while it's rendered worthless and quality never improves. Depressing !
"Conservative Lie #3: They're not against the stimulus plan. They're against the function of government itself."
Though the article has some good points about cognitive goals, I can't agree with #3.
#2 is more correct.
The Republicans will support a stimulus. The scale of disagreement with the Dems is not that huge.
The conservatives are spenders, they have relationships with a set of state and local governments, just as the Democrats do. They have relationships with a set of big business coalitions, just as Democrats do. (Think implementation of drug benefits).
They want tax cuts because these are part of their governing formula, and because tax cuts favor particular class interests. Finally conservatives are not as concerned with debt, again because debt creates an institutionalized system where income flows to the wealthy.
The truth is that conservatives borrow and spend while at the same time creating mistrust in government so that they can achieve their own policy goals.
DaveBronstein
So we actually don't disagree on most of this.
And we agree on Lakoff's perspective. Which of course as you say, is off the mark. There are some very good Republicans and Democrats in Washington, they just get overwhealmed by the trash.
DaveBornstein said:
"The problem with this perspective is that Democrats ("progressives," in the article's lingo) are not good. They stink. They are not really aiming at the noble vision of "more jobs, better schools, and the first real steps toward a sustainable economy in our history." Instead, they are bending over backwards to please all the major private big-money interests, to "rebuild" the US economy using the same failed model that has brought us to this sorry pass."
Hi Dave,
Just to clarify what I'm attempting to convey with this article, I am not arguing from the perspective that Democrats represent the progressive vision such that every individual in the party is working for these things. Indeed, I have my own beef with many elected Democrats (Joe Lieberman comes to mind as one I would love to see replaced). The point I'm trying to make is that there are people in our federal government who are progressive and want the changes we are striving for. These people represent us. And there are quite a few of them in the Democratic Party because progressives have worked tirelessly in the last few years to infiltrate it. The same cannot be said for the Republican Party, which has filled its leadership positions with extreme, neo-conservative ideologues. This neo-conservative cabal (and the progressive caucus that challenges it) are the principle players in the battle I describe.
Of course, there are plenty of people in both parties who serve corporate interests over the needs of the people. These people need to become converts and give up their self-serving ways or get replaced by people who want a government that serves the people.
Right now, our best hopes are in the progressive caucus. And Obama is part of that.
Dave,
I agree with your deeper concerns about moving away from existing systems. I'm a transformationalist myself, in that I believe there are fundamental tenets of existing systems that are at the center of our problems. In particular, the role of sustainability in our governing economic and ecological systems is a major thread to develop.
Part of the problem you identify - with your reference to the "War on Terror" - is a set of conservative deep frames (meaning concepts that evoke an entire worldview of interrelated ideas and values) that still dominate the thinking of political leaders in both parties. One thing that gives me a bit of comfort in this regard is the fact that Obama speaks about international issues from a human security perspective, which is the antidote to neorealist geopolitics like hegemony and might-makes-right in foreign policy. Obama thinks in this way even as he continues to use language that evokes the opposing perspective.
My hope is that he realizes the danger of doing this and is attempting to shift the discourse by telling a different story to change the meaning of the words. This can backfire when old concepts are reinforced, but it also can be used as a communication technique for starting with the familiar and pulling people along to a different and more humane way of thinking that is alien to U.S. foreign policy in the lived experience of Americans below the age of 70.
There is not one single correct way to move forward. The situation is just too complex for silver bullets, as I suspect you realize from the thoughtfulness of your comments. The challenge we face as progressives is to transform a system that dominates very strongly in a self-referential and reinforcing way.
Best,
Joe
Sioux Rose
"Joe & Dave": Just thanking you both for a robust debate, the best of what CD offers, and for me personally, a justification for turning off my television 2 years ago. May our minds come together to rise above the morass, and begin working creatively along with the paradigm shift that is on cosmic schedule.
The "conservatives" may want to make government not work, but the "liberals" essentially want to do the same thing. Of course, in reality, both Democrats and Republicans want big government, but one that favors the capitalist class. Just because the stimulus package is too far to the left for the Republicans does not make it a good bill.
"They are obstructing the capacity of people to come together and solve our problems through the one mechanism that makes this possible - a functioning government."
Alas, a functioning government that remains a tool of capitalist hegemony will not "solve our problems". The problems are much deeper than that. The problem is capitalism itself and no amount of reforms will offer any real solutions, although they might ease the suffering for some of the working class.
The shift to a social democratic "solution" to the problem of capitalism is a "solution" being put forward by the biggest and most powerful within the capitalist class. That in itself should tell you everything you need to know. Of course this group loves the fact that our political dialog has been reduced to simply one of degrees rather than a challenge to their hegemony itself.
-----------------------------------------
Remember the butchery in Gaza by the IDF.
*laughs*
So now the liberal argument is that conservatives are opposing the stimulus because they hate America? Now where, oh where, have we heard this one before...?
Top liberal lies about the stimulus:
1) The stimulus will create jobs
False. The stimulus will destroy more jobs than it creates, drawing still more money from profitable sectors of the economy and putting it into government parasitical boondoggles. Instead of having more money to spend, you will have less, creating less employment and less profit.
2) The stimulus will improve health care and education
False. So many problems with this there is nowhere to start! Throwing money at problems does not solve them. California has some of the best-funded schools and also the worst academic performance. Money often makes problems worse, as the government gets its filthy hands in the pie. The federal soviet education beaurocracy has failed America's children and the libs want to make it bigger!
The FDA has done such a great job at protecting us, hasn't it? The fact is that private enterprise is more likely to protect us than the government. I trust a "kosher" label a hell of a lot more than USDA approved these days.
3) The stimulus will pay for itself.
When you're in a hole, the first thing to do is to STOP DIGGING. We are in huge debt, huge deficits. Can we please stop digging now? Why don't we just sell our children to China directly and cut out the middle man?
4) Conservatives oppose the stimulus due to ideology
False. The conservatives are pathetic sacks of crap who railroaded the last massive hog-wild stimulus through. What good came of that? More bankster bonuses and foreclosed homes. This is about money and power for the boys on top. The stimulus money will go to favored contractors who will spend it on bonuses and little will be accomplished, whether $800 billion or more. Why not just make it $800 trillion? Wouldn't that create EVEN MORE jobs!?
AFSC Take Action
Some Senate offices report that calls from constituents are running 100 to 1 against the economic recovery legislation.
Please call your senators in the next 24 hours. Reach them through the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for your senator by name. The phones lines may be busy, so keep calling back.
Urge your senators to support the economic recovery act, to focus on getting money out fast to help those in need. Here's the message to give to the person who answers the phone in your senator's office:
Vote yes on the economic recovery bill.
Vote yes on the Schumer amendment to increase funding for mass transit.
Vote yes on efforts to ensure the Child Tax Credit is extended to reach lower income families.
If you don't know your senators' names, you can look them up on our website.
http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/
From today's Huffington Post:
Bipartisanship is for Dummies
You hear a lot of talk these days about the necessity of bipartisanship. But Democrats and Republicans in Congress can't seem to agree on the meaning of the word. For Democrats, it apparently means compromising on everything and watering legislation down until a few Republicans are willing to vote for it. For most Republicans it means finding unity in opposition, threatening to filibuster, constantly contradicting yourself and generally being assholes. For Judd Gregg it means doing a highly partisan back room deal on Monday afternoon and denouncing bipartisanship Tuesday morning.
Paul Krugman is absolutely right:
Obama may be able to get a few Republican Senators to go along with his plan; or he can get a lot of Republican votes by, in effect, becoming a Republican. There is no middle ground.
That isn't the change we were promised.
Stirling Newberry notes:
For all of the pandering, the "moderates on both sides" are now getting ready to gut the budget, and prove that the only thing the[y] believe in is a failed ideology of "supply side economics." Cut taxes, raise defense spending, screw the poor. The budget will magically balance itself.
That isn't the change we were promised.
Markos Moulitsas observes:
During the Bush years, the best interests of our country took a back seat to the GOP's failed ideology. Right now, it looks like the best interests of our country are taking a back seat to the failed ideology of "bipartisanship".
That isn't the change we were promised.
Despite all of this, Democrats and the political press remain enamored with this elusive concept of bipartisanship. Here are some examples from the past few days:
President Obama, on 2.3.09:
With the stakes this high, we cannot afford to get trapped in the same old partisan gridlock.
Harry Reid:
"There are efforts being made at this time on a bipartisan basis to take certain things out of the bill," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., acknowledged. Democrats could also be open to incorporating Republican ideas...
Dick Durbin, on 2.3.09:
Democratic leaders conceded they may soon be obliged to cut billions of dollars from the measure. "It goes without saying if it's going to pass in the Senate, it has to be bipartisan," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democratic leader.
The fact is, you don't need much in the way of bipartisanship to pass a bill. 60 is 60 no matter how you put it together. Obama's apparent desire to get 80 votes in the Senate was clearly way off base.
I agree with Bowers:
Let's drop futile attempts to appease those who caused our problems in the first place, and stay focused on cleaning up the mess they left.
What is needed now is genuine political courage, not bipartisanship for the sake of political cover. If Republicans in the Senate really want to filibuster this vitally necessary stimulus package: Obama should call them on their bluff. They have made it perfectly clear that they have no intention of voting for anything other than tax cuts, so why involve them in the process?
If we are going to get any of the transformational "change" we were promised throughout the campaign, President Obama is going to have to take the gloves off at some point. With the economy cratering and seemingly getting worse daily, now might be a good time to do so. This idea that we can turn this economy around by caving to the feckless demands of those who screwed it up in the first place is utterly bankrupt.
Finally, after a week of disappointments, President Obama has taken a step in the right direction, at least rhetorically. In an Op-Ed in today's Washington Post, the president writes:
In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.
I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.
Every day, our economy gets sicker -- and the time for a remedy that puts Americans back to work, jump-starts our economy and invests in lasting growth is now.
The true test will come in conference committee next week, where I'm hearing the White House plans to have a disproportionate role in shaping the final version of the recovery package. It is time for President Obama to reject the idea that tax cuts will save the economy in practice, rather than just in theory.
Originally posted at The Seminal.
by Josh Nelson
The economy is currently working as it should. Unprofitable businesses are collapsing. Unprofitable investment schemes are collapsing. People are losing jobs in sectors that are unprofitable. This is how things should be.
Once all the malinvestment is cleared out of the economy, we can start rebuilding. Government putting more money in bad investment strategies only prolongs the problem. FDR CAUSED the great depression - previous recessions ended in a matter of a year or two, his lasted decades.
And Krugman is a fucking idiot. If I'm $50,000 in credit card debt and have no job, I'm not going to escape it by borrowing $10,000 and spending it on a plasma tv and hoping to get employed at a plasma tv manufacturer.
Dammerung
"The economy is currently working as it should. Unprofitable businesses are collapsing. Unprofitable investment schemes are collapsing. People are losing jobs in sectors that are unprofitable."
"Government putting more money in bad investment strategies only prolongs the problem."
This statement seems to counter your first assertion.
I'd say unprofitable business's are being propped up by the government and are not failing as they should.
People are losing jobs in sectors that are profitable but the companies are keeping cheaper workers. Microsoft let 5,000+ American workers go while keeping cheaper H1B workers employed.
Business's are still functioning without regulation and oversight that they should have.
The government is giving more aid to illegals as we speak rather than American children.
The economy is not working as it should be. Not at all. Nor is our government.
Well, you're right. It's working properly in the sense that workers are being fired from unprofitable businesses. But it's government policy that allowed those businesses to appear in the first place, and government enforced-monopoly and support that allow them to continue standing today.
I just happen to believe that capitalism and economic freedom WORK. That we don't need the Big Daddy Soviet to tell us all where to work and how to live in order to prosper. The government has been bailing out failures and impeding economic progress for too long.
Why do we need cars? The socialist soviet road system, which shattered our cities and social structure which gave birth to the commute, the SUV, and funded Saudi terrorism.
Why do we need central banks and a federal currency? Even now, communities are trying to move to something a little more sustainable.
Why do we need the FDA? It doesn't protect us from dangerous drugs; it serves only the PharmaCo lobby.
Why do we need a Department of Education? It has failed America's children who would be better served by ciriccula designed locally.
Government is like reverse-Midas: everything it touches turns immediately to shit. This problem was designed by corporations who manipulated government and created law at OUR expense. But you better believe anything they're proposing today is going to be just as disasterous as Bush's Soviet Socialist policies.
Dammerung said:
"Why do we need the FDA? It doesn't protect us from dangerous drugs; it serves only the PharmaCo lobby.
Why do we need a Department of Education? It has failed America's children who would be better served by ciriccula designed locally."
---
The answer lies in the questions. You are presuming that bad governance equals bad government. We definitely need a functional FDA. Otherwise, how would citizens be protected against toxic foods and drugs. This is why it is so vital for our elected officials to believe firmly in the moral mission of government to protect people. The problem is that conservative ideology asserts that regulation is bad, period. Yet, we know from experience (the recent peanut health epidemic exemplifies this) that people will die if food and drug companies go unregulated.
The same is true for education. Getting rid of public education would make our problems much worse. It would increase the suffering of people and set us back as a nation to a place of greatly diminished significance in the world if our people lacked basic education. We don't want to have citizens uneducated like people in Sub-Saharan Africa. What we really want is for everyone, include the poor people in distant lands, to be able to solve problems in the complex world we live in. So again with education, it is a conservative view of government that is the problem.
A progressive would seek to make public education work better for the people by making government function well. A conservative would privatize education so that the wealthy elites get dual benefits of subsidized low-skilled labor and high quality education for their own families. This is a recipe for disaster as a nation in the 21st Century.
>>We definitely need a functional FDA. Otherwise, how would citizens be protected against toxic foods and drugs.
Same way foods are determined to be Kosher, Halal, or organic. Consortia of businesses that band together and set their own standards, which is more reliable than having ONE easily-bribed organization in DC. I don't think the inclination to take bribes can be legislated away - when the FDA screws up, a few people get fired. When a private business screws up, it can be dissolved. Jack in the Box almost collapsed after its food safety debacle, now it's got the most rigorous standards in the business.
>>The same is true for education. Getting rid of public education would make our problems much worse. It would increase the suffering of people and set us back as a nation to a place of greatly diminished
If there is to be public education, at the very most it should exist at the state level. There is no mandate in the Constitution for an Imperial Beaurocracy of Education.
>>We don't want to have citizens uneducated like people in Sub-Saharan Africa.
In many inner-city schools this is already the case. And most of what is learned in school is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY USELESS. Schools are just government indoctrination camps that get you young and early. They don't teach basic finance, they don't teach budgeting, they don't teach you job hunting skills, they don't teach trades, they don't teach anything but conformity and compliance.
Instead of a consortia of businesses (who profit by cheating) to set standards, how about a consortia of the people who use the products?
We could call it -- mmmmmm -- a government of the people.
Have you failed to notice that the FDA sucks? The USDA sucks? When they discovered mad cow in several cows at a facility, they STOPPED TESTING! A government entity cannot be driven out of business for its failures - I would have "fired" the FDA ages ago! The FDA still claims that marijuana has no medical use or benefits, in flat fucking contradiction of all evidence. But we can't choose to stop funding their lies because they are "legitimized" by being a government agency. I want to withdraw consent from the FDA and I can't! I want to stop paying the FDA and I can't!
Dammerung
"I just happen to believe that capitalism and economic freedom WORK."
I certainly believe that myself. But I also believe what Joe Brewer posts just above me.....bad governance is not bad government. There are certain things government can always do better than the private economy.
Military protection of course, protection of our borders, education, social safty nets are some.
I'd say our government is failing us in many ways at the moment but its because idealogues have been in charge for a number of years now and we have strayed from our original values and goals. Its beginning to look like we may have a different set of idealogues in charge, but if thats the case they won't last long.
Capitalism requires a regulated framework to function properly in my opinion and we don't have it right now. Its been perverted. But it will be back. Nothing else in history has come close to working as well.
"But you better believe anything they're proposing today is going to be just as disasterous as Bush"
Frankly I'm beginng to worry this is true.
>>I certainly believe that myself. But I also believe what Joe Brewer posts just above me.....bad governance is not bad government. There are certain things government can always do better than the private economy.
>>Military protection of course
Absolutely not. Compare the performance of Hezbollah, a home-grown militia, with the IDF. The best way to defend America is not a standing army, but a munitions cache in every town, a shooting range, and a local community enthusiastic about its own defense. I won't join the Army because I don't want to go to Iraq. I would join a militia, because I could still work, live at home, and have a private life.
>>protection of our borders
Borders are just an invention of the government anyway. Borders serve the interests of the ruling class, not the average proletarian. Borders are nothing more than the territory demarcation of gangs on a national scale.
Wouldn't it be better for you and me to be able to visit and trade and work anywhere in the world without tariffs or passports?
>>education
Where it already has a stunningly awful track record. Besides, THE CONSTITUTION. Take a look at it. Any power that is not specifically mentioned as being had by the Federal Government ISN'T. The entire Imperial Education Bureaucracy exists illegally.
>>social safety nets
I think the government is the worst place to get social assistance.
The government is NOT OUR FRIEND. The government does not DO THINGS FOR US. The government does not SPEAK IN OUR NAME. Let's stop pretending it does.
"The best way to defend America is not a standing army"
I'll have to totally disagree. I sincerly doubt Hezbolla could handle an unfettered IDF. But I can assure you a militia couldn't defend our country.
"Borders are just an invention of the government anyway. Borders serve the interests of the ruling class"
Once again I must disagree. They serve the citizens interests. Open borders sounds good, but its simply anarchy.
As to education, ours is state run, but I will certainly say the Feds have too large a hand in it. I would say they would be better employed with oversight. But you do have a point that the government is fond of over reaching.
"I think the government is the worst place to get social assistance"
I've heard many stories of what it was like before Social security and I'd not want to return to those times. But I can agree that there is too much largesse from the Federal government.
"The government is NOT OUR FRIEND. The government does not DO THINGS FOR US. The government does not SPEAK IN OUR NAME. Let's stop pretending it does."
At the moment it doesn't seem too friendly, but it should do things for us and in the end we are the government.
>>I'll have to totally disagree. I sincerly doubt Hezbolla could handle an unfettered IDF. But I can assure you a militia couldn't defend our country.
Like most Americans, you don't know fuck-all about the 2006 war. But look at the recent action in Gaza. Why does Israel kill so many civilians? If they wanted to carpet bomb Gaza into oblivion, presumably they could before anyone would put a stop to it. So why are they choosing nonetheless to bomb schools, mosques, civilian evacuation centers, et cetera?
It's because they have no military targets and they are desperate! If you were a soldier, you would much prefer to shoot at enemy soldiers who pose a threat to you. But Hamas, like Hezbollah, kept all their assets hidden. In impotent frustration Israel bombed known civilian infrastructure.
Who offers a threat to America? Who could invade us? Who could attack us? If we kept our army within our own borders and our soldier within their own communities, NO ONE could plausably threaten us. The fact that our soldiers are in a formal standing army and stationed overseas is what makes them vulnerable. Defending your own land and your own town and your own country makes you invincible.
>>Once again I must disagree. They serve the citizens interests. Open borders sounds good, but its simply anarchy.
On what do you predicate this assumption? Look at history. Borders have NEVER been clearly defined and there has always been mass movement between countries based on economic conditions. Like i said, borders aren't there to serve you. They aren't there to protect you, or make you rich. They are there to split the world and pit people against one another.
Consider for a moment region-locking on DVDs. Does that help you as a consumer in any way? or does it impede trade, impede wealth, impede communication, impede social integration?
>>At the moment it doesn't seem too friendly, but it should do things for us and in the end we are the government.
No we are not! Why do you cling to this ignorant myth? Look at things the way they are. Corporations sponsor politicians who run against one another. you are allowed to vote, that is, SELECT, one corporate shill rather than another. Then these shills get into office and sponsor legislation that increases the power of their patrons.
All you get in a democracy is the right to choose whether the left hand or the right hand goes up your ass.
We're finally getting some articles that put the blame for these fiascos squarely on the perps themselves, conservatives. Ever since conservatives crucified the liberal Jesus and before, these authoritarian reactionaries, driven by bestial fear, elitism, superstition and greed have been intent on taking humanity back beyond the Stone Age, killing, stealing, hoarding, enslaving, lying, deceiving and fouling the earth, while celebrating ignorance.
Liberal means CREATION, CREATE, PROGRESS, INNOVATE. Conservative means DO NOT ALLOW any creation, progress or innovation, and destroy any creation, progress or innovation that has already been done. There are only TWO parties in the government of the United States; one stands for LIBERAL and one stands for CONSERVATIVE. The Democrats are the LIBERAL Party and the Republicans are the CONSERVATIVE Party. There are NOT 6 political choices for ways to vote in the Congress of the United States, as there is only TWO political sides, the Democrats to the LEFT and the Republicans to the RIGHT; one can't make 6 choices out of 2 choices. The Conservative side, the REPUBLICANS are not going to allow Obama to be CREATIVE, as conservative Republicans NEVER CREATE nor allow CREATION, PROGRESS and INNOVATION to be done; if they can help it. Hopefully, Obama will have enough INNOVATIVE members in the Democratic Party to pull his CREATIVE agenda, because relying on conservatives to be INNOVATIVE will NEVER HAPPEN, since at the instant a conservative becomes innovative, he/she is no longer conservative --- but liberal and creative, which doesn't accomplish a conservative agenda of keeping all the country's combined money and resources for the corporate capitalist elite of big business.
Wholeheartedly agree. But some Democrats have proven to be as conservative as Republicans.
I totally agree. But I have to repeat myself: Are you guys hitting the streets to show your support for the opposite view?? NO. Not so far.
I don't know what has to be done to progressive Americans in order to finally make them protest visibly.
Sure, turning up at Obama's inauguration was a big deal - but wasn't it mostly about being able to say that one has been there? And send some cellphone pics back to Aunt Mary and all the other folks in Missouri?
An American friend of mine suggested that switching off TV broadcasts for a week might do the trick. The only way to radicalize my folks, he claimed.
I wonder: Where are the Americans who WANT their government to function? Where can anyone actually SEE that there is an opposition to this semi-fascist state of mind that has been silently abetting a total collapse of the state for ages??? In violation of the US constitution to boot??
Trust Americans not to use this unique opportunity to show how absolutely WRONG the Republican agenda has been for decades. Trust them to just remain invisible and rant on the web.
You know what, folks? Look at France: 2 million people were out to protest against Sarkozy's politics the other day. Now THAT's what I call active participation in a society.
BTW: Most of you could count yourselves lucky to have the quality of life the average French citizen enjoys, mind you. I know both places well, thank you very much. And I am living in none of them, so I guess that I am an impartial observer.
It would be too indecent to suggest exactly where Americans IMO can shove their famous and constantly - actually: ad nauseam - invoked Revolution by now.
Because: I don't discern any free people acting as free people anywhere in that country. Except when they fear that somebody might be limiting their access to guns. That's about the only time one senses that there's still some life stirring out there across the Atlantic in their lookalike suburbs.
For the rest, it is couch potatoes ranting on the net. SHOW THEM WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN! SHOW THEM IN A WAY EVERYBODY CAN SEE WHAT YOU WANT!
American Evangelicals have no problem turning up in masses every Sunday to listen to their right-wing preachers, after all. They actually are prepared to demonstrate what they believe in.
There is an agenda out there which at least is progressive, by American standards. The Reps are playing their usual game. I'd opine that you guys need to SHOW the Obama administration what you want. And shut up the Reps. VISIBLY.
Greetings from Europe.
We can show them from our barbed wire enclosed demonstration cubicles and hope the media picks it up.
Why are they even focusing on a Raygun-esque "stimulus" package when they should first concentrate on paying down the debt, bringing our troops home, cutting down on underemployment and unemployment through better long term policies, improving public infrastructure, and repealing all those tax cuts and loopholes for the big corporations and those making over 200k?
Cutting taxes is the solution to all our problems, the Republicans tell us.
Better yet, cut taxes for corporations and the rich. Even the over bloated oil industry. This is what will bring the economy back to life.
Okay, so cutting taxes will lead to new investment according to this line of thought. But why should these cuts be across the board? If new investment - rather than personal greed - is the real intent then why not allow those corporations which reinvest their earnings to create new jobs to claim a write-off? Spend the money well, to create jobs and boost the economy, then on that sum you, the entrepreneur, can claim a tax break.
Let's also not forget the basic matter of the chicken and the egg. That perennial, dogged question.
For several years now Republicans have sung, at high decibel, the benefits of "supply side economics?" But those of us who have been around for a while remember that taxes have alwys been seen as evil by these Republicans. And that the benefits of cutting taxes were not discovered after some genius grasped the principles of Supply Side Economics. That this theory followed the original desire and exists only to justify cutting taxes.
Hmmmmm, greed couldn't possibly be a seminal motive for this high minded economic philosophy, can it?
It's difficult not to think that the real goal of all these "solutions" is to prop up chicanery once again.
"Let's also not forget the basic matter of the chicken and the egg. That perennial, dogged question."
Actually, it's wrong question because the chicken/egg--mother/daughter 'arrived' at the same time, meaning the first primordial cell became both chicken and egg once it could reproduce itself (i.e., divide). Before that it had no continuity or potential for continuity; it existed only to become extinct once it ceased to metabolize. We can say it was a 'proto-chicken' with no potential for an egg or daughter cell. (One can imagine many failed proto-cells in the primordial soup; Perhaps they arose and combined, until one or more reproduced.)
Therefore, the 'mother' wasn't a mother until she could have a daughter (or,in this case became the egg herself), or chicken wasn't a chicken until or unless it could 'lay an egg.' Once it did, it became egg and chicken. The chicken is the potential egg, and egg is the potential chicken. The two cannot be separated. :-)
you guys do know that the Democratic Party has a majority in the US Congress. Call the vote and dare the GOP to filibuster. What is the hold up? Stop blaming the minority party and call the vote! What is Obama, Reid, and Pelosi waiting for? They do have the votes, right? All the Democrats are voting yes?
They don't have the courage to call the vote, then if it fails they take the blame. And it is likely to fail. It is as much of a payback bill to their supporters and liberal friends, like the $250 million to hollywood they tried to slip in there, as it is a stimulus bill. And they know it and they see that the people are starting to turn against it. The latest Rasmussen polls show only 37% support from the people and as more of the details are emerging , the support is likely to fall even more. Reid and Pelosi do not have the courage to pass it without some Republican support, they are gutless fools. They have had control of congress for over two years now and have not done anything constructive except for Nancy's reworking the menu in the House cafeteria.
Too true!
Obama knows this Stimulus Bill will fail and that is why he is begging for GOP votes. So they can be blamed in 2010. If this bill is so great, tell the GOP to shut up and call the vote. That is if you have enough yes Democratic votes. Does Obama have enough votes to get his bill passed? Stop blaming the GOP and act like the majority party. If the stimulus does work, you guys get all the credit!
All this cognitive analysis and framing are fine, but the primary cognitive framing 'you should be in agreement with other people and the culture'. See chapter 9 of Mark Twain's The Mysterious Stranger', towards the end, for his explanation of how a few loud and persistent people can sway the rest. The 'loud' part of what has happened in the people with money taking over the media, and even some polling, to create the perception in the public that conservatives represent the majority view.
The psychology of conformity has been well studied and documented, showing that many people not only mouth what the majority is saying, but even come to believe it -- even when it defies their own good sense and perceptions. See http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html for example: reporting on which line is longer. The propaganda technique of the 'big lie' is wel known, and should be kept in mind.
Progressive messages need to be not only framed well, but given loudly and often. This can be done by word-of-mouth and through web sites, but we need to break the corporate/conservative hold on the media -- we to put some money into this.
BTW, speaking of getting messages out, and the reference to Rockridge Institute's web site prompted me to review when I was sent an email by the web master asking me to, essentially, shut up -- that they had been getting complaints from other users. I checked -- it was a few days after I had given a link to Uruknet. I was also banned from the Huffington Post and Alternet after referencing that site (which has many anti-zionist and pro-Palestinian stories. The site has also been dropped from Google's news index.
Controlling information flow is underlying context of all the framing and spreading of lies -- not just about the stimulus, but about every issue.
Just wanted to let you know that correlation in time is not the same as causality. There were complaints on several occasions. You were contacted and asked to be more courteous. When you continued to upset others in the group, we did what site moderators occasionally must, which is to ask you to leave.
It was not about message control. It was about treating others with courtesy.
There are real issues of information distortion in our country, especially in our mainstream media. But the Rockridge Institute was part of the antidote. Just note all of the content that is publicly archived on the site during its operations and after it closed. We were very different from other think tanks in our mission to democratize information and make all of our work available to the public at large. As individuals working in the progressive movement, we continue to emphasize the importance of making the tactics of manipulation widely known so that people can protect themselves from them.
Yes -- complaints. And who is it who complains? That's three sites which banished (one way or the other) directly after linking to the Uruknet site. There was nothing discourteous in what I wrote.
Actually, after I was contacted the first time and the demand made to modify and justify what I wrote -- without specifics or any offending posts cited, I left the site, and was never formally asked to leave.
It appears to me there is a pattern at work indicating that there is a group who scans the net for references to Uruknet and then sends in complaints. In the case of one site correlation may not indicate causality (I'm well aware of these issues), but for 3 out of 3, that's sufficient to have rather 'strong suspicions'. My guess is that the other two sites may even have an automated program being used -- or moderators simply counted complaints sent. You may not think it was about message control when in fact you were being used. (I know -- that's a hard thing to hear -- and to say -- but it's a possibility.)
It is, of course, possible that simply the content of a message may be 'upsetting' to some people. In fact, it is a standard tactic of the right wing to be 'offended' by a message that opposes their agenda. So is 'personal' attack -- which is actually not 'personal' at all but is just used as a ploy -- such as saying Obama is a socialist or anti-American.
Rockridge was helpful to a degree with the problem of messages and distortion, but my point is that both spin and censorship -- either active, or passive such as when stories are simply not reported or followed up on, or when a cultural hegemony is established to take various ideas off the table -- can easily override framing if the message is never transmitted. It is not for nothing that the conservatives invested so much money on buying up media, or go to trouble to stop the flow of information. Just take note of the recent stories about the torture information in England, or about the man who is convicted of aiding terrorists by broadcasting a TV channel.
When you talk about framing there is an assumption that the 'debate' is open. It's not -- there has been constant pressure on newspapers, TV, web sites, even universities, to shut down those who say things which the conservatives don't want people to hear, to control information flow, and to put out dysinformation. There is nothing new in this -- that's what all empires do. It's difficult to become aware of all the aspects of it.
Barring incendiary or flaming comments, people are generally too narrow and/or afraid to think outside the box they have been put in; it makes them feel insecure when their illogic is challenged (see religion). Censorship has many facets.
Sioux Rose
BLUE PILGRIM: Excellent analysis. Thanks for sharing it.