EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- The Sick Madness of Tom Friedman's Culture
Popular content
Today's Top News
As Santorum and Romney Battle for the Loony Right, the Rest of Us Should Not Gloat
My father was a Republican for the first 78 years of his life. For the last twenty, he’s been a Democrat (he just celebrated his 98th.) What happened? “They lost me,” he says.
They’re losing even more Americans now, as the four remaining GOP candidates seek to out-do one another in their race for the votes of the loony right that’s taken over the Grand Old Party.
(Photo: REUTERS/Joshua Lott)
But the rest of us have reason to worry.
A party of birthers, creationists, theocrats, climate-change deniers, nativists, gay-bashers, anti-abortionists, media paranoids, anti-intellectuals, and out-of-touch country clubbers cannot govern America.
Yet even if they lose the presidency on Election Day they’re still likely to be in charge of at least one house of Congress as well as several state legislators and governorships. That’s a problem for the nation.
The GOP’s drift toward loopyness started in 1993 when Bill Clinton became the first Democrat in the White House in a dozen years – and promptly allowed gays in the military, pushed through the Brady handgun act, had the audacity to staff his administration with strong women and African-Americans, and gave Hillary the task of crafting a national health bill. Bill and Hillary were secular boomers with Ivy League credentials who thought government had a positive role to play in peoples’ lives.
This was enough to stir right-wing evangelicals in the South, social conservatives in the Midwest and on the Great Plains, and stop-at-nothing extremists in Washington and the media who hounded Bill Clinton for eight years, then stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, and Swift-boated John Kerry in 2004.
They were not pleased to have a Democrat back in the White House in 2008, let alone a black one. They rose up in the 2010 election cycle as “tea partiers” and have by now pushed the GOP further right than it has been in more than eighty years. Even formerly sensible senators like Olympia Snowe, Orrin Hatch, and Dick Lugar are moving to the extreme right in order to keep their seats.
At this rate the GOP will end up on the dust heap of history. Young Americans are more tolerant, cosmopolitan, better educated, and more socially liberal than their parents. And relative to the typical middle-aged America, they are also more Hispanic and more shades of brown. Today’s Republican Party is as relevant to what America is becoming as an ice pick in New Orleans.
In the meantime, though, we are in trouble. America is a winner-take-all election system in which a party needs only 51 percent (or, in a three-way race, a plurality) in order to gain control.
In parliamentary systems of government, small groups representing loony fringes can be absorbed relatively harmlessly into adult governing coalitions.
But here, as we’re seeing, a loony fringe can take over an entire party — and that party will inevitably take over some part of our federal, state, and local governments.
As such, the loony right is a clear and present danger.
Robert Reich, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including his latest best-seller, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future; The Work of Nations; Locked in the Cabinet; Supercapitalism; and his newest, Beyond Outrage. His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.
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...
276 Comments so far
Show AllI personally extend an invitation for Mr. Reich to join us here in the CD comments section for a healthy debate.
I await his reply.
Just in:
Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/
Blatantly unconstitutional.
Didn't the NDAA put to rest the idea that we as a country pay any attention to the Constitution now?
word.
Summary of H.R. 347 (from the Library of Congress): "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Defines "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance."
No surprise that all the usual CD suspects ignore Reich's message and trip over each other to prove how much "leftier than thou" each of you is. But your mindlessly-repeated "duopoly" rhetoric blinds you to a crucially important issue: there is a frightening large, vocal, energetic and politically-active segment of the American populace that is comprised of "birthers, creationists, theocrats, climate-change deniers, nativists, gay-bashers, anti-abortionists, media paranoids, anti-intellectuals..."
If you really believe that only the 99% movement can make any real change, then you need to consider that the 99% includes a lot of the above list of loony tunes. So, either we become a 51% movement and continue to tilt at windmills (and may as well give up and join the Progressive Democrats), or we find a way to connect to and find common ground with the lunatic fringe (which is not so much fringe as bedrock America).
Ignore them at your peril, for they are more determined to make a difference than all the armchair lefties in America. They hate everything left of Barry Goldwater more than you love revolution, and they are the easily manipulable minions of the 1%.
The drift toward looniness in the 20th Century came with the Cold War hysteria which Harry Truman caused by double crossing our Russian allies and not standing up to our German or Prussian enemies, the worst in history. It was part of the package of some
British interests seeking to use Germany against our Russian allies, and part of letting those who were actually hard core Nazi war criminals replace independent and impartial US intelligence analysis starting with a purge of Colonel Alfred McCormack and his intelligence outfit at the time with the US media jumping on the bandwagon to libel this true patriot and his outfit as being pro Moscow, just what the hard core Nazi war criminals such as Reinhard Gehlen wanted to make sure they would never have to face the bar of justice before a war crimes tribunal in Germany for the worst of atrocities. Now figure how that might have ruined US domestic and foreign policy. Read
the book called Blowback by Christopher Simpson with his account of just how this happened. Eye opener! That's putting it mildly. But so much of this has been so thorougly covered up it's pathetic. I tried to get some information that's in this book from a local library and got the response that I'd have to get a freedom of information case to do so. Does that say something about how insane things have become. We aren't allowed to know how some in the US Army Counter Intelligence Corps, the head of US Army intelligence under Dwight D Eisenhoweer betrayed the USA and its allies to the Nazis even though it went directly against Ike's orders. The anti Russian Amurkans who purged the Nazi past of these hard core Nazi war criminals to get them on the US intelligence payroll really stabbed this country and all humanity in the back. Anti Russian bias ran rampant among many in the US military at that time even though Moscow was our ally. This was due to this bias being out there from 1917 on until the official entry into the war against the Nazis. Some just let their biases overwhelm their common sense.
If something such as this had happened at the time of Yorktown in 1781 with some in George Washington's army bringing some top level British army types into such positons of acces to critical information about our miitary then, they likely would have face the firing squad. Washington had some deserters shot. And the British army didn't even have anything approaching the mad mind set of the Nazis in the least. No anti French bias for example from the "French and Indian Wars" would have been allowed as a defense either. Bet on that! Washington wouldn't put up with such madness, and this was so much worse. But when such people could cover it up, then turn around and talk about their opponents being pro Moscow with all the anti Russian bias in the US media, their side had the advantage and used it to the fullest to our everlasting sorrow and loss. The Cold War was a big fraud about "10 feet tall Russians" leaping tall buildings, getting through our air power, nuclear weapons, and then snatching right out of our beds and taking over the "good old USA," and it was a damn hard core Nazi fraud perpetrated on us with a president who wasn't up to being president. Thank you gangster Kansas City MO politial machine for that disaster! If only that Democratic Convention in 1944 had kept Henry Wallace on the ticket we would have been just fine.
No one is "ignoring" Reich's message. Many of us are rejecting it, and explaining exactly why we reject it. If you have a counter-argument, then make it. Insults do not make for a compelling counter-argument.
You have bought into the right wing propaganda on this. Fox News wants you to believe that half of the people in the country are these "loonies" you describe. They are lying.
Democratic party operatives and apologists want you to believe this, to scare you into supporting them. They are lying.
Two Americas, you're right. Reich fails to fault the Democrats. If he really believed in what he says, he would have challenged Obama in a primary, or openly supported such a challenge by someone like Richardson, or announced himself as a candidate or supporter for someone like Anderson (my choice) or any of the others who are putting their lives on the line in opposition to both major parties -- or I should say, the single major party with two factions who differ in whom they run around with, not ideas. And I think it's true that a great many Americans disagree with the "loonies" in both parties, and many more would disagree if the opposing views got play in the MSM.
The lesser of two evils argument just doesn't work this time. Not with Obama assassinating people around the world (who says he can't do it on U.S. soil?) without any semblance of due process, and brazenly, ignorantly prejudging guilt of people like Private Manning (no relation), not to mention subjecting people to torture and indefinite detention, again with no due process of law. Better to have someone in office who announced their idiocy in advance than someone who dissembles as Obama did. But don't give up hope that someone like Anderson will make a substantial impact and really change things, rather than belly ache ineffectually as Reich does.
Robert here is a clue I don't really give a damn about distrationnary culture wars issues, the ONLY thing that matters is stopping unsustainable war, unsustainable state capitalist control over the American people, environmental destruction and peak oil, and down scaling police state for these are issues that effect our very survival, and unless they are addressed FIRST there will be no abortions, secular schools, etc, etc. I *personally* am pro choice, pro gay marriage, an atheist, AND anti gun control, and in the big picture those issues that are so magnified to crate an illusion of choice don't count for squat unless we deal with the big abstract issues FIRST.
If American progressives had been in power in Europe Hitler would have won, and they'd have been too busy debating abortion, free birth control, and prayer in school to notice Hitler's program of world domination. Hint this time the USA is Nazis Germany and is the empire that needs to be stopped from attempt to dominate the world FIRST above all those other things you mentioned, get it Robert?
"If American progressives had been in power in Europe Hitler would have won"
Beyond silly is that statement -
1. Actually Hitler Did win!
2. FDR WAS progressive - anrafted successfully drafted off his policies for dang near 50 years.....
Hyperbole.
Now if you said the 'modern day democrat" you might have been onto something.
No I maintain what I said is true so many "progressives" are focused on minutia like free birth control that they miss the big picture, or even shill for war as long as it's given an R2P gloss as in Abby Zimet's one sided atrocity propaganda against Syria posted here the other day. And way too many here do also make apologetics for modern day democrats.
All governments lie. And I do think it was a one Senator Durbin who said "the banks own the place." I don't feel the need to argue or justify my feelings, this is a comment, they're called comments, not essays.
ROMNEY/SANTORUM 2012
The "Man On Mutt" tour begins!
They're all cases of arrested development, and I mean Dems and Republicans.
None of them is fit to run a popsicle stand.
Telling Obots not to gloat is like telling them not to breathe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFsEkdSRd58
" Bill and Hillary were secular boomers with Ivy League credentials who thought government had a positive role to play in peoples’ lives."
Is that what Bill and Hillary were thinking?
That's not what I remember about his administration. I am not sure they're a good example to hold up in contrast to the the "Loony Right". In fact they may have been role models.
One only has to look at his press in Haiti:
"As told in Lavalassien, in the Haiti Observateur, another popular paper, and in private interviews by participants, Clinton staffers first got the idea of invoking voodoo during conversations with Aristide who was living in exile in Washington, D.C. The aim was to learn what the future held for then candidate Clinton, and to cast spells to help influence the election. In return for what the Rev. Gerard called a "large sum of money," a houngan was retained by the Clinton campaign, the story goes, and a "wanga" or malediction was cast upon Bush to cause his electoral defeat. Clinton, for his part, agreed to wear the same pair of underpants the last week of the campaign. "
http://www.soundanalarm.net/VoodooandClintonsfate.html
Romney and Santorum differ in degree rather than in kind from your ‘heroes,’ Mr Reich.
Let’s look at them in the order you mention them:
• There’s Bill Clinton, who promised “to end Social Security as we know it” and ended up squeezing working mothers, the poor and non-whites;
• Then there’s Hilary Clinton, who presided over the destabilization of Libya and is now preparing to do the same in Syria, who is quite happy to allow ‘democratic’ think-tanks to funnel money to dissidents to influence elections in Russia, and who is eager to wage war against Iran for control of oil and against China to acquire a ‘market’ of 1.3 billion people;
• And then there’s Barack Obama, who hobnobs with anti-abortionists, homophobes and other assorted god-bothering domestic throwbacks, who kowtows to ‘economic rationalists’ and bails out bloodsucking financial institutions, who has not only retained but extended Dubya’s regime of detention, torture and ‘targeted’ assassinations, and who has accepted the role of permanent Global Warrior Against Terror;
• And finally we have Orrin Hatch (!‼), Cold Warrior Par Excellence, loyal friend of Democrat and Republican Presidents, ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives,’ who approved the arming and training of the mujahedin in the ‘war’ against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. These ‘Holy Warriors’ – who threw acid in the faces of unveiled women, murdered school-teachers trying to teach women to read and skinned Soviet soldiers alive – were the ‘spiritual’ progenitors of the same Taliban who are currently putting Hilary’s knickers in a twist over their treatment of Afghan woman. In order to “crush the Evil Empire,” Mr Hatch was funnelling his gold through an organization run by one Osama bin Laden – and Mr Hatch (in his own words) “would make the same call today, knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently.”
A nice set of heroes indeed!
I think Robert Reich belongs in the looney group, himself. What a spiteful article. Good thing hate laws weren't passed.
Republi-cants....what a circus. These holier-than-thou clowns just LOVE to tell you what you can’t do. Their campaign slogan should be “No you can’t”. The headlines just keep coming: Republicans condemn condoms! Republicans legislate forced trans-vaginal probes. Republicans tell us to have children of rape ...as a gift from God. Republicans insult women in hateful word and deed ....degrading women who simply want to plan their families, and control their own bodies. What’s next with these guys? Republicans mandating missionary-position only? Procreation, not recreation...OR ELSE? I really really hate to admit it, but Newt was right. ‘Cause Newt and all his Republican friends SHOULD set up a moon colony.... AND GO THERE! Then they could tell each other what to do, and how to live, and who to love.... and who to hate...while leaving the REST of us alone, in peace, back here on Earth. Newt, I always KNEW that you were a problem-solver. Unfortunately, you and your Republican friends ARE the problem. P.S. We may laugh, and smile, and ridicule...but I know that this is not a game. People that are elected DO affect our lives, and the lives of those we love. It does matter. If I want a find a preacher I go to my place of worship, NOT my voting booth...
Your hero Oily Bomber has painfully burned thousands of women and children to death in Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan. and Iraq, does that make you proud O-bot? I am an atheist BTW, but some things are more important than your little domestic agenda whine like being on record as opposing U.S. government mass murder of third world people regardless of which party does. It's the rivers of blood stupid Dim-bot!
No American exceptionalism based mass murder isn't SUDDENLY good because you got some free birth control that you didn't even think about as an issue until it was served up by the Gobble's like media masters of the OTHER endless war promoting mercantile business controlled party you shill for!
A reminder: the Nazis in the early 1930s in Germany were a LOONEY FRINGE GROUP.
This is why I don't understand the Liberal strategy. If iwas a Democrat (and I'm neither as they're both owned by corporations) I'd have done everything to get Herman Cain as the opposition. Instead the Dems join the attack and raise the quality of their opponents.
The problem we have is that bad economic conditions set up conditions for the spread of Nazi sort of crazy ideas. It's been noted for decades that such ideas (memes) and the organization they are based on do well in down economic times.
This is due to our evolution in the stone age, Google evolutionary psychology, memes and the origin of war for long explanation.
The problem is how to get out of the bad economic situation. A sudden influx of low cost energy would really help. As for how that might happen, there are several ways. I favor space based solar power and beamed energy to get the parts to GEO, but would support any ideas that get the energy cost down to where synthetic dollar a gallon gasoline takes over the market.
As a historian and part time economist, I am a fan of Robert Reich. I too defected at age 21, from my Republican father in 1951 when Harry Truman fired General MacArther. I voted for Obama in 2008 with 51% confidence.
Prof. Reich's para. 4 seems like an ideological blast at reactionary Republicans that takes on too many enemies . I hope that Robert Reich sticks to the issues of debts, the Federal and 50 state deficts, taxes, military and social spending priorities.
Kudos to Sioux and TA.
I'm among those progressives who've come to believe that support of the "lesser of evils" has helped pave a one-way, multi-lane, exit-less highway inevitably carrying us to a fascist hell. Our 1% oligarchy grows in wealth, power, and merciless greed, served by politicians and media talking heads. One can understand that few among the concentric circles of "haves" -- the 5%, the 10%, the 20% -- are howling in protest. Worse, a majority of the 80% are now mind-washed, enslaved, and easily manipulated. We are roughly spending as much on "defense" and "homeland security" as the entire rest of the world. Pandering to fear, anxiety and ignorance is on the rise. For the majority, economic and social conditions will continue to deteriorate. It is not hard to imagine a fascist demagogue being elected Pres of the USA in 2016 or 2020, when the price of a gallon of gas passes $10 and food costs are triple what they are today. I now struggle against despair of solution except as MIGHT arise in the aftermath.
To Robert Reich,
It's a good thing we have some sane people like yourself to keep people grounded as so many just get frustrated from all the malarkey.
"Grounded" in what the head spinning nihilistic partisan relativism of believing corporate person hood, endless war, endless executive power to imprison and kill people without judicial view, and too big to fail bailouts are "good" when Democrats do them, and bad when Republicans do them?
Now close your mind and pretend you didn't read what I just typed and get real furious about free birth control and who is calling whom a "slut," good now you are ready to be herded into the veal fattening pen of the Democratic party, good luck!
A wise man (Jesus) told us about eyes, motes and logs. Robt. Reich and many others reading and commenting here seem to be oblivious to the loony left that infests their favorite political party. I personally am more concerned about the loons on the left than the ones on the right.
In 2008. McCain/Palin received approximately 43% of the vote. 80% of those voting for the GOPers are insane, ignorant or limburgers. Why would a poor or middle class person vote for a party whose primary purpose, as stated by their leadership,is to extend tax breaks and loopholes for the top 1% and richest corporation at the cost of the poor and middle class. Why would workers vote for a party that encourages tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs off-shore? You really have to be insane, ignorant or a limburger to vote to cut your own throat while blaming the opposing party for unemployment. A large minority of our Country is Sick, Sick, Sick.
Why would a poor or middle class person vote for either the GOP OR OIly Bomber whose actual policy record is this?
1. The escalated wars even compared to overt war criminal Bush?
www.alternet.org/world/144449/obama_far_outdoes_bush_in_e...
2. The continuation of the abrogation of Habeas Corpus just like Bush?
www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram
3. The continuation of military tribunals just like Bush:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030405209.html
4. The continuation of rendition to countries that torture just like Bush:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/target-of-obama-era-rendi_n_256499.html
5. The continuation of a prison camp that tortures in gross violation of the Geneva conventions just like Bush:
www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,650324,00.html
www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/51564
6. Continuation of of Bush's TARP program to transfer money from the poor and middle class to unaccountable banksters rather than helping the mainly African American victims of sub prime loans?
www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Economy/story?id=6626721&page=1
www.detroitnaacp.org/civilrights/predatory.asp
7. The appointment of industry insiders in the industry that supported Obama in the Campaign shades of Cheney and Halliburton:
http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau/2010/05/08/an-updated-list-of-goldman-sachs-ties-to-the-obama-admin-including-elena-kagan/
8. Obama's support for "clean coal," nuclear power and the first offshore oil drilling in 20 years which was only halted with a moratorium after the disastrous Gulf oil spill, update deepwater drilling resumed:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/obama-defends-clean-coal.php
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-16/politics/obama.nuclear.power_1_nuclear-waste-nuclear-power-tons-of-radioactive-waste?_s=PM:POLITICS.
www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/science/earth/01energy.html
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/304897
9. Obama's crushing of government whistleblowers of U.S. War crimes and other government malfesance like wikileaks:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/17/wikileaks_whistleblowers
10. Assassination orders against American Citizens overseas:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations
11. Support for expanding Bush's Unconsitutional surveillance of American citizens:
http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/2011/02/obama-pushing-to-ban-skype-gmail.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us/18wiretap.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss
12. Health insurance reform that is a giveway of a trillion taxpayer dollars to the big insurance companies that broke the system in the first place with no price caps:
http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2010/03/mythfactshcr-2.pdf
13. FBI raids on antiwar activists:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100928/ap_on_re_us/us_fbi_raid_terrorism
14. Vastly expanded TSA mandate that violates the 4th amendment.
http://www.refinery29.com/stick-it-to-tsa-body-scans-with-these-shirts-containing-a-hidden-message.php
15. Cave on fighting for progressive tax cut
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/taxe-d08.shtml
16. Make illegal indefinite detention of prisoners of wars peranent after lying about closing down Guantanamo:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/22-5
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/22-7
17. Cave on net neutrality after promising to fight for it:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/22-0
18. Broken promise to walk with strikers in "comfortable shoes:"
http://my.firedoglake.com/mmonk/2011/02/24/will-obama-find-those-shoes/
19. Unconstitutional war of aggression not cleared with Congress as required by Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, on the side of Al Queda affiliated "rebels"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12905
20. Extra judicial assasination of Bin Laden rather than trial in a court of law:http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/
21. Persecution of NSA whistleblower who exposed spying on Ameican citizens:http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1
22. Balance budget on the backs of elederly by cutting Medicare, Social Security, and a 6 times budget cut for every tax raise.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/08-2
23. Rendition and torture in Somalia:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/13/jeremy_scahill_reveals_cia_facility_prison
24. Obama is the one pushing hardest for cuts to Social Security and Medicare:
http://my.firedoglake.com/metamars/2011/07/29/conyers-spills-the-beans-on-obama-ss-jobs-bill-call-for-wh-protests/
25. Unconstittional extra judical assasination of an American citzen in Yemen: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2044404/Ron-Paul-attacks-unconstitutional-Obama-Anwar-al-Awlaki-death.html
See also:
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html
http://my.firedoglake.com/metamars/2011/07/14/have-scientists-discovered-the-cure-for-obama-bot-ism/
(List of 200 Obama betrayals)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/05/the-top-five-campaign-promises-obama-left-behind/
http://www.archive.org/details/PaulStreet-TheEmpiresNewClothesTalkAtEncuentro58252010
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/18-3
(Really excellent article on the coninuity between Bush and Obama with a detailed look at Obama's pro economic elite and pro war staff and cabinet)
http://www.obamatheconservative.com/
Giant list of conservative polices by Oily Bomber
Large collection of articles on Obama's ecnomic, civil liberties, and war crimes by the consistently excellent David DeGraw of Amped Status
:http://ampedstatus.org/obama.php
Yes, it's astonishing, and getting worse. Political leaders on the right have learned to pander to the fears and resentments of millions of poorly informed people, who are then duped into supporting tax policies and legislation conspicuously contrary to their self-interest. Social security is a further case in point. The future problem can be averted simply by raising the income ceiling above which no SS tax is collected. The ceiling in 2012 is $110,100. An individual earning $1,110,100 pays no SS tax on the million they earned above the ceiling. And yet tens of millions earning below $110,100 support a Repub party determined to cut SS benefits and privatize it altogether, a move that would benefit a few while jeopardizing the majority. But MORE shocking is the readiness of many Dem leaders to put SS benefit cuts on the table. Do you see Dems campaigning fiercely for the raising of the SS income tax ceiling? Why not? Back when the Bush tax cuts were set to expire, did you see Dems standing firm to let the cuts for the rich expire (but not for the 95%), forecefully taking the case for that stance to the public? If ever there was a time a case could be made and won, that was it. I reject the argument that Repubs were holding unemployment benefits hostage. It would have been better to stand firm, even if unable to muster the votes in Congress. In the ensuing furor, Dems could have pressed the case to reinstate tax cuts for the 95% but not the rich, and won. Doing so would have paved the way for Dems to address corporate tax and social security policy. As it is, the wealth disparity is still growing and tax policy is adding to it.
What's looney is that working poor and middle class people who have been kicked down the stairs by the likes of Mr. Romney for the past 30 years want to put him in office. All he wants to do cut taxes for people like himself and stick working people with the bill for all the govenment services he used to enrich himself.
For 2010 all Romeny's taxes, including federal state and local (and including an estimate for his share of corporate taxes) added up to 14% of his estimated investment income and gains - or 2% of his accumulated wealth (net worth.)
For a single minimum wage worker the same calculation adds up to paying 34% of her $14,500 annual wages - or over 500% of her accumulated wealth (net worth).
And for 2009, Romney must have paid NO federal income taxes - 0%. It's almost the only way he could have escaped a penalty on paying three-quarters of his taxes after April 15. This is not uncommon among the extremely rich.
The top 1% already own 40% of the nation's wealth. (The last time they did was right before the Great Depression). That seems like plenty for them. It's ruined our economy and threatens to end our democracy.
For more, including a proposal for comprehensive tax reform which would have everyone pay their fair share, cut middle-class taxes, reduce the deficit, improve the economy, and strengthen the US as a for good in the world:
http://fairsharetaxes.org
Perhaps going back here will help...Getting very narrow at the bottom of the thread.
Good idea. I'll try re-posting the latest two here:
"The belief that one's own view of reality is the only reality is the most dangerous of all delusions."
--- Paul Watzlawick
***
I do want to be clear that it is not my intention to compose a screed about A. If anything my goal could be framed as one of learning about ourselves and the struggle for a more just society. A is "everyman" (or "every-woman"). A's writing simply reveals certain predilections and traits in a more obvious way than can be readily noticed in many progressives (and other humans).
A few things stand out:
1) A may well have a terrible case of "neo-phobia" - fear of the new. The term is also used to describe anger, frustration, which are secondary internal reactions to trepidation experienced when faced with new things and toward change in general. Many conservative and reactionary groups appear to be neophobic.
2) A proudly views himself as an "anarchist" and by definition is vehemently against all forms of authoritarianism - Left, Right, and in-between. And yet, as the above posts begin to show, A carries within himself and in his relationship to others - many of the various traits that are at the core of the authoritarian personality style.
From a psychological perspective A's words seem to reveal a very large "Shadow" element in his personality - of which he remains blissfully unaware. As we know, the more one finds aspects of self unacceptable - and therefore, denies and/or represses them - the greater the tendency to use the internal psychological defense of "projection," and to rage against these phenomena, which are now seen as located in the external world.
There is a danger here. Jung ascribed the root of human evil to "the refusal to meet the Shadow" in ourselves. Again, this element of personality contains traits that we can not or will not not "own up to" in ourselves; rather, we attempt to conceal them from others - and most importantly - from ourselves. It is as if we are continually trying to sweep these under the rug of our consciousness by "dimming" our awareness on a day to day and minute to minute basis.
It is also true that in Jung's use of the term "refusal," he is implying something in us that is active - something more than our run-of-the-mill, somewhat passive (and often truculent) resistance to criticism. In this sense evil is sometimes described by the term "militant ignorance," which is also to say, "militant unconsciousness."
Here, of course, is where self-deception comes into the picture: "We do not see what we prefer not to, and do not see that we do not see."
And the sad truth is that, rather than suffer the pain of self-examination, of honestly facing one's own darkness, such people - who are often quite attached to a high opinion of themselves and exhibit a hefty amount of self-righteousness - cause those around to the suffer.
Now, this is not to say that A is "evil." Far from it; however, it is wise to recognize habits of mind that can, under certain circumstances, lead to actions we might label as "evil."
As Peck points out: evil people are chronic scapegoaters." He goes on to say:
"Since the evil, deep down, feel themselves to be faultless, it is inevitable that when they are in conflict with the world, they will invariably perceive the conflict as the world's fault. Since they must deny their own badness, they must perceive others as bad. They project their own evil onto the world."
He continues:
"Strangely enough, ...people [who we might designate as evil] are often destructive because they are attempting to destroy evil, which they identify [as located] in others. The problem is that they misplace the locos of the evil. Instead of destroying others, they should be destroying the [toxicity] within themselves.
"As their life experience and actions are subjected to examination by others, such exposure will often threaten their self-image of perfection, and they are often busily engaged in hating and destroying those person's lives, usually in the name or righteousness."
***
Rick Santorum, anyone?
I can also see an opportunity here to learn something about communication.
It is clear to me that the communication between A and B, and secondarily between A and myself didn't work. It is true that all of us got our positions and thoughts out there, but it essentially occurred in the context of a "battle zone". I feel confident saying that neither A or B felt "heard" by the other.
Although it seemed to me at the time that I could "hear" where A was coming from, I certainty did not sense a willingness on his part to hear and respond carefully to what I was saying; nor did I have the experience that I was able to reach A (although there is the possibility that I was successful here and there, but that A would be loathe to admit this). It is possible (and I'd be happy if this were so) that I managed to plant a few "thought-seeds" that may sprout in the future.
Also as mentioned, early in the dialogue (such as it was) I made the choice to respond at a different level of discourse (or "frequency") than the one on which A was broadcasting. (I would guess there was quite a bit of self-imposed static obstructing his receiving capabilities!) Sometimes when a message we are sending on one channel is blocked or just not getting through, it is commonplace to try broadcasting on another.
Relationship and Content level
In the course of living life I have trained myself to remain aware that all interaction is multi-leveled. I believe it can be extremely useful to notice both of - what can be called - "content" vs. "relationship" levels of communication
Content refers to the actual subject matter of what is being discussed. The relationship level of a communicative act has to do with how the two communicators view one another and how they convey it.
As Watzlawick, put it, "All such relationship statements are about one or several of the following assertions: ‘This is how I see myself…this is how I see you…this is how I see you seeing me…’" and therefore determines "how this communication is to be taken" The relationship level as "information about this [content level] information."
One can also say that all communication can be both digital and analogical. The digital code is what the person says and what the words actually mean, while the analogical code has to do with how something is said or the nonverbal cues that go along with it. This means that someone can convey two opposing messages at once, which may cause problems.
In addition the communication process can be either symmetrical or complimentary. This simply means that either the participants in the system are on equal ground with regards to power relations, or one of them is over the other. Conflict can arise when either wants the status quo to change.
Anma.
digital and analogical= objective and subjective?
Thomas Gilbert-
"digital and analogical= objective and subjective?"
Doesn't seem like an accurate analogy. Closer, but still not exact: the left and right hemispheres of the brain as applied to interpersonal communication. For more clarity on this see, Paul Watzlawick: The Language of Change, and Gregory Bateson: Steps to an Ecology of the Mind.
Amma,
Thank you. ..when I read ideas pop up in my head...LOL
I will be here anticipating your further installments.I am copying over to a word document. Hope you don't mind?
Thomas Gilbert-
Dante,
I'm honored and happy to have your companionship on this journey. I'm learning right along with you, following an intuitive sense of where this winding path is going.
Very much a case of:
"We make the path by walking."
As mentioned earlier, I do hope to address the "content" level of the communication that was taking place between A, B, and myself - and believe this will yield some very useful insights. However, at the moment it is the "relationship level" that I'd like to highlight.
Kenneth Cloke is a writer whose work, I believe, contains offers much that is of value for anyone interested in conflict resolution (and also organizational development). The material below is from a piece he wrote, entitled: The Sources of Chronic Social, Economic and Political Conflict: Mediating Evil, War, Injustice and Terrorism
As we review Cloke's ideas, let us think back to some of the examples offered vis-a-vis A's postings:
~~~
* How to Stereotype
1. Pick a characteristic
2. Blow it completely out of proportion
3. Collapse the whole person into the characteristic
4. Ignore individual differences and variations
5. Ignore subtleties and complexities
6. Ignore our common humanity
7. Make it match your own worst fears
8. Make it cruel
~~~
* Elements of Demonization
Assumption of Injurious Intentions - they intended to cause the harm we experienced
Distrust - every idea or statement made by them is wrong or proposed for dishonest reasons
Externalization of Guilt - everything bad or wrong is their fault
Attribution of Evil - they want to destroy us and what we value most, and must therefore be destroyed themselves
Zero-Sum Interests - everything that benefits them harms us, and vice versa
Paranoia and Preoccupation with Disloyalty - any criticism of us or praise of them is disloyal and treasonous
Prejudgment - everyone in the enemy group is an enemy
Collapse of Neutrality and Independence into Opposition - anyone who is not with us is against us
Suppression of Empathy - we have nothing in common and considering them human is dangerous
Isolation and Impasse - we cannot dialogue, negotiate, cooperate, or resolve conflicts with them
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy - their evil makes it permissible for us to act in a hostile way toward them, and vice versa
[Based partly on work by Kurt R. and Kati Spillman]
~~~
* Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement
Rationalizing the possible beneficial consequences of otherwise wrong behaviors that are imagined to outweigh their negative consequences. (“If I make enough money by doing this I can help people later.”)
Obscuring or lessening personal responsibility for participating in the wrongful activity. (“I just did what I was told.” “I just played a small part.” “Other people do the same thing, so why can’t I?”)
Denying the seriousness of harmful effects on others. (“He won’t mind.” “He’s going to be fine.” “It was only a small thing.” “He can claim it on his insurance.”)
Blaming, dehumanizing, or derogating the victim. (“He was stupid.” “She was a bitch.” “It served him right.” “She shouldn’t have …“)
Demonizing the perpetrator. (“He is vicious.” “He’s not human.” “He should be shot.”)
Magnifying or exaggerating the harm that occurred. (“What he did [if a minor infraction] is intolerable.”)
Distancing or separating from both sides. (“A plague on both their houses.” “It has nothing to do with me.”)
(Based on work by Albert Bandura)
~~~
* Common Moral Rationalizations
Moral Justification : “He did it first.”
Euphemistic Labeling : “All I did was …”
Disadvantageous Comparison : “He’s much worse than I am.”
Displacement of Responsibility : “She made me do it.”
Diffusion of Responsibility : “Everyone is doing it.”
Disregard/Distortion of Consequences: “What I did wasn’t that bad.”
Dehumanization : “He deserved it.”
Blaming the Victim : “She was asking for it.”
(Based on work by Albert Bandura)
Also relevant here and broadening the scope a bit more - this from Meg Wheatley:
".....organizational aggression is on the rise, mirroring the societal trend. Competition has become increasingly ruthless with strategies that aim to destroy competitors and achieve total market domination, rather than former strategies of co-existence within well-defined niches. The resurgence of command and control leadership is a less obvious but strong form of aggression, where the will of one person is imposed on others with the demand for obedience and compliance.
...
"Day-to-day in organizations there is the overt aggression in meetings where one or two people dominate the time, railroad the agenda, and insist on their opinion or strategy. Passive aggression is also abundant, as when people use delaying tactics, when they agree to do things and then fail to act, when they refuse to respond to communications or act contrary to prior agreements, when they act secretly and fail to communicate what they’re doing, when they resort to sarcasm and cutting humor.
...
"To step aside from aggressive responses to problem-solving requires using some little-used skills: humility, curiosity, and a willingness to listen. Humility is a brave act–we have to admit that we don’t enough to solve the problem, that our approaches aren’t working and never will. Even our own treasured answers are insufficient–if everyone bowed to our demands and did what we asked, the problem still would not be solved. We need more information, more insight.
"This kind of humility is rare in competitive, embattled organizations and communities, but it is the door we must walk through to find the place of true solutions. One wise educator put it this way: 'Humility is admitting that I don’t know the whole story. Compassion is recognizing that you don’t know it either.'
"We need to be open to the possibility that colleagues and even strangers have information and perspectives that may be of value to us. Only with their input do we stand a chance of seeing this problem in all its complexity."
Thomas,
Note: I do plan to address B's and my own comments in a subsequent posting.
For now I'm wondering if you have any thoughts you'd like to share re- the "relationship level" of A's communications - remembering that the goal of the present inquiry is not "pointing a finger," but rather, "pointing a light." :-)
Amma,
I have been making notes throughout this journey and will re-read your installments tonight. I hope to organize my thoughts and share my impressions sometime tomorrow.
Thank You.
Thomas Gilbert-
Dante,
I'll look forward to your thoughts!
Think I am having system problems
Just got a warning of a potential hard drive failure!!! Will return...
Thomas Gilbert-
"Think I am having system problems
Just got a warning of a potential hard drive failure!!!"
Well, that's the Hairy Eyeball and Harry Harry Krishna - all rolled into one.
Good luck in doing what you have to do.....and Pray for Grace...!
I felt is necessary to go further back and read comments posted by A before making any comments. My ideas at this time are incomplete. If you wish, perhaps you could continue on with "B". I will catch up.
I also feel that I really cannot comment on "A" in isolation. "A' is no longer a person in my mind, but rather, a type of personality.
Thomas Gilbert-
Well, there's a synchronicity. I did not see your message which had arrived just a few minutes earlier, because I was posting mine...
All is now well with your second (electronic) brain?
I'm going to try once again moving up to the top of the posts, due to the posting windows becoming more narrow. See you there.