Take Heart

Take heart, progressives!  We will be getting our butts kicked in the upcoming election and I don't want to minimize that, but it is useful to remember that all does not revolve around politics.  I guess that's what George Soros has decided, too, when he says he will be devoting his efforts and money to nonpolitical groups and bypassing the politicians.

But even in the political arena, things aren't always as they seem.  There have been times in the past when the Republicans have won the short-term tactical battle but the progressive agenda marches forward.  A couple instances come to mind, dating back to Nixon.

The conservatives controlled the China agenda for many years but Richard Nixon finally engaged China in a way that a progressive president wouldn't have been allowed to do.  So we progressives were labeled as weak on China, but the correct agenda was pursued anyway.  That trade-off is worth it.  If you want to be a progressive in this country, just get used to it.

The other example was on Vietnam.  In the 1972 election, McGovern was labeled as weak and naive, and Nixon had his plan to end the war.  McGovern was trounced.  But guess what?  Nixon pretty much did what McGovern said we should.  It was a tragedy that Nixon prolonged the war when we could have gotten to the same place years earlier, but we did end up there in any case.  So who was really naive?

Occasionally politics leads culture, but more often it is the culture that drags the politicians along (civil rights, Vietnam, etc.).  For example, the snapshot of politics today says that the American public is against the health care law.  But that snapshot also shows that most Americans are in favor of most of the specifics in the law.  So even if the Republican/Tea Party succeeds in toying with it for a while, something like it will have to happen because the current system is unsustainable, and the only things the Republicans put on the table (like tort reform) at best just nibble at the edges of the problem.

The same is true for a host of other issues.  The Republican/Tea Party message on the economy today is just a repackaging of the same song we've heard since the '80s, namely, that the only way the current version of capitalism can survive is for the bottom 90% of the economy to lower its standard of living even more.  (That's really the heart of Paul Ryan's plan.)  It's a bankrupt, zero-sum philosophy and it cannot survive, nor does it deserve to.

So although none of this is inevitable, I will try to say optimistic that we progressives are on the right side of history, and that the Republican/Tea Party can only delay what's right but not prevent it.

Tea (Republican) Party Glossary - Updated

• Socialist:  Anyone whose politics I don't agree with.
• Anti-American:  Anyone whose beliefs I don't agree with.
• Compromise:  One of the many bad things that those Anti-American Socialists do.
• Taxes:  Another bad thing forced on us by those Anti-American Socialists (you know...it's that money the federal government collects from the blue states and then sends to the red states).
• Terrorist:  Any US president with a Muslim-sounding name.
• Armed Insurrection:  Exercise of Second Amendment rights.
• Torture:  One of those things that's very bad unless we are the ones doing it.
• Freedom of Religion:  The freedom to impose my religion on others.
• Religious Persecution:  Not being allowed to impose my religion on others.
• Godless Liberal:  (see Socialist, Anti-American above).
• "Good" Christian:  One who has been declared so by Dr. James Dobson (apparently this includes that wonderful family man Newt Gingrich but not, say, John McCain).
• Bipartisanship:  Two part definition. (1) If Republicans control Congress:  voting with the Republicans. (2) If Democrats control Congress:  letting Republicans write the legislation.
• Self-Appointed Elites:  President and members of Congress elected by wide majorities with whom we do not agree.
•  Mainstream Media:  All the media except the ones I agree with.
• Tax and Spend:  What those Anti-American Socialists like to do.
• Spend and Spend:  The more preferable Republican modus operandi.
• Smackdown:  Training session for a Tea Party rally.
• Treason:  Criticizing Bush's foreign policy.
• Patriotism:  Criticizing Obama's foreign policy.

CLR and Politics - Part 4

The Christian Life Resources (CLR) website has an article (http://www.christianliferesources.com/?news/view.php&newsid=7739 read the full article) dated Oct. 22, referring to the healthcare lawsuits going through the courts.  The article has almost nothing to say about so-called life issues, but it does contain the following quote from one of the attorneys:

Richard Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the pro-life firm, said, "Obama Care is one of the most oppressive measures in the history of our Nation. And it was passed by Congress despite overwhelming opposition of the American people. It was not about reforming health care, but government seizure of unprecedented power over our lives. We will continue to challenge it in the courts.”

As I have said in previous posts, the CLR claims that it has no political agenda except to "inform" it's readers on pro-life issues, but this is just one more blatant example of using their website to promote a more generic political agenda.  Using terms like "Obama Care", "oppressive", and "seizure of power" are not pro-life phrases:  they represent a right-wing vocabulary that goes beyond CLR's stated mission.  This suggests that the CLR website is just another stop on the rightwing blogosphere merry-go-round.

Starting with the Facts

It can be difficult to discuss or argue over opinions when the one you are arguing with is starting with un-facts.  The list is a long one, but here are a few things that some on the Right believe to be true.  Some things can be repeated often enough that they become a sort of legends, or pseudo-truisms.

• Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attack (duh).
• Taxes have increased under Obama (taxes have been cut).
• Obama was president when Wall Street was bailed out (W was president).
• Reagan never raised taxes (yes he did!).
• Lowering taxes decreases deficits and creates jobs (we should be drowning in jobs if that were true).

Myths

I have always been puzzled by certain myths that have been around ever since I can remember.  The one that is most interesting to me is how the Post Office has become the whipping boy and symbol of government incompetence.  Whenever some new program is considered, the standard is something like, "Do you want it to be like the Post Office."  It's interesting to me because it's a statement someone can make without evidence.  It has become what I call a "pseudo-truism".  It is presented as a fact or foregone conclusion, and we are just supposed to accept it as some sort of proof that everything government runs is a mess and that privatization is the fix-all.

I guess I am an American heretic, because I just don't see it that way.  I am 62 years old and I can count on one hand the number of times a piece of mail has been lost or otherwise not delivered properly.  I'm sure others have experienced a worse record and have bad experiences.  But I can certainly say that in my life, the worst customer service issues I have dealt with were with private companies, not government entities.  In terms of service, technology, and courtesy, the Postal Service, Social Security Administration, DMV, and even the IRS compare pretty well to their private sector counterparts.  And the private sector never would have produced the interstate highway system or the space program.

CNBC's Class Warfare

I don't really watch CNBC much anymore, not since I have been getting Bloomberg on DirecTV.  CNBC has really become more about politics than business the past few years and Bloomberg actually does business reporting. CNBC has really turned into a shill for Wall Street and the financial industry.  I do like Fast Money, so I watch that sometimes;  and I watch their reporting now and then just to see what they are up to .

I was pretty amused last week when I caught part of a discussion about the problems the banks are having with improper court filings of foreclosures.  Those who were watching CNBC the past few years may have noticed like I have that they pursue their own version of class warfare.  When people were questioning the six-figure bonuses being paid by essentially insolvent financial firms, CNBC's general response was to cry "Class Warfare!!".  When altering mortgage terms was being discussed they were preaching about the sanctity of contracts and the law.  But when union contracts are voided by bankruptcy courts they think it's okay because, after all, most of the problems in the economy are caused by unions and workers.  So the sanctity of contracts only applies to certain people I guess.  (Sounds a lot like class warfare to me.)

In their discussion of the foreclosure issue they actually seemed to be implying that the banks are the victims here and that they had good reasons to be committing fraud.  Can you believe it?  (Silly question, I know.)  So here again, the necessity of following the law is selective.  Banks have laid off thousands of people since the recession.  Maybe if they hadn't they would have enough employees to do the work instead of committing fraud.  Then CNBC wouldn't have to tell us about the poor helpless banks.

CLR & Politics - Part 3

As I have written in the past, Christian Life Resources disavows any political preferences but any reasonable review of their website and publications shows otherwise.  Among the things CLR has done:

• It has used its publications to allow politicians like Michele Bachmann to promote their political views, much of which have little or nothing to do with the supposed mission of CLR.
• It encouraged defeat of the health care reform bill.
• CLR has used right-wing political figure Cal Thomas as keynote speaker at its conventions.
• I see that they have recently added a right-wing blogger as a guest speaker at their national convention in November.
• CLR has closely identified itself with the Right to Life Committee (as well as many other groups) which is openly and actively political. It endorses candidates, and works for and against specific pieces of legislation.  CLR website encourages its readers to use the Right to Life website as a basis for their political views and votes.
• CLR cites papers from unbiased groups like FactCheck.org when it serves to bolster its own political position but it remains silent when a FactCheck paper debunks a CLR political position.

Rules of Thumb

Here are some rules of thumb that I find useful.  I don't claim them to be absolute truths.  Rather, they are high on a probability scale.

• Just about anything you read in a chain email is not true.
• If a reporter or commentator on TV is trying to make you angry or scared, you should be very suspicious.
• If Larry Kudlow thinks something is a bad idea, then it's probably a good idea (and vice versa, of course).
• If you need to resort to a conspiracy theory to explain something, then it's probably not true.
• If there's a merger or acquisition, it's gonna be bad for your pocketbook.

Taking Things Seriously

More for the angry mob:

• I will take seriously your outrage over affirmative action when I see that you are equally outraged over racial profiling, housing discrimination, etc.
• It would be easier to take seriously your outrage over the current deficit and national debt if I had heard the same outrage when Bush was president.  (Thomas Friedman's column on Sept. 29 about the Tea Kettle movement has a good take on this.)
• I will take your outrage over health care reform seriously when you voluntarily give up your employer-sponsored or public employee health insurance and buy it instead on the open market (before the pre-existing condition prohibition kicks in).

List #1 - Books

Don't you hate all those arbitrary lists?  Like the 10 best places to retire; or the 10 safest cities; or the 10 desserts you must eat before you die?

Yeah well I hate them too, but Saturday is my day off so here is my first useless list of 10 to fill up space.

My ten favorite books of all time, in no particular order:

1. Slide, Danny , Slide (by Matt Christopher).  I have to include this one because it is the book I have probably read the most times in my life (like maybe 100 times between the ages of 8 and 10).  It's a book about Danny in Little League, and yes I still have the book.
2. Light in August (William Faulkner)
3. The Grapes of Wrath (John Steinbeck)
4. Godel, Escher, Bach (Douglas Hofstadter)
5. The Shipping News (Annie Proulx)
6. The Accidental Century (Michael Harrington).  There are several of Harrington's books that I read in the 70s that are very special to me.  This is one of them.
7. The Liars Club (Mary Karr)
8. Atonement (Ian McEwan)
9. The Blind Assassin (Margaret Atwood)
10. The Best and the Brightest (David Halberstam)

I'm sure I am giving more weight to more recent readings, but that's probably pretty normal.  These are the ones that popped out of my head today.  Maybe I'll do it again in a year or so and see what pops out then.