And the right *dominated* the media by appealing to this: Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Coulter...you name it. They were seemingly everywhere. It is the right in this country who calls liberals unamerican and unpatriotic for their dissent against the president's policies. It is the right in this country who claim that liberals hate Bush. It is the right in this country who calls liberals traitors for simply not being conservative. It is the right in this country who claim liberals want to destroy America. It is the right in this country who claim liberals want to see Americans die in Iraq. It is the right in this country who claim liberals support al Qaeda. It is the right in this country who have transformed dissent into treason.
And so I ask: if there's equal parts hate on both sides, where is the liberal equivalent of someone like Ann Coulter? Ted Rall, perhaps? Tom Tomorrow? Eric Alterman? Krugman? Are they constantly on the talk shows? Are they constantly on the radio? Do they get their own television shows? Where's their hate? Where's their bile?
No. They don't.
But the right does. And you can't argue that Coulter represents some kind of extreme position of the right wing. She's thoroughly mainstream in right-leaning political discourse these days. Hell, just look around on these boards and you can see the influence of that kind of rhetoric.
...
Cheers
Scott
PT II ? RESPONSE TO MIDWINTER
By the later half of 1980?s, the political landscape was perminantely altered.
First, liberalism was in disrepute. The failure of urban renewal, the great society, the embarrassment of Jimmy Carter?s leadership, the economic recovery from Carter?s ?stagflation? , and Ronald Reagan?s supply side economics and staunch anti-communism (as well as the collapse of communism) had fully eclipsed liberal notions of governance. The social policy planners of the 60s were embarrassed by the failure of the 70s, and their credibility evaporated.
Second, the simple divide of ?class?, between left and right, became obscured as formerly democratic constituencies switched sides. The Democrats were no longer led or tempered by a George Meany, or old populists demagogues like Mayor Daley, or cold war liberals like Scoop Jackson ? the ?new class? Democratic elite were cultural - the intellectual/ professional left. The old New Left was gone, but the maturing legions and old passions remained, expressed in broad interest groups. By 1990 most of the 75 major public interest groups were allied (even melded) within Democratic politics ? 90% of their leadership having voted for McGovern. Academia has shifted to the far left; only 2% calling them-selves ?conservative? and ?liberals? became the right-wing of faculty politics.
Today, a trip to Marin County in California, or Vermont, or many other yuppie havens gives one a concentrated taste for the new democratic class ? affluent, intellectual, cultural, activist and highly contemptuous of the middle and working class. No longer secure in what they are, much of their politics are based on their not: conservative, christian, southern, uneducated, or blue collar.
At the same time the right understood, and defined itself in a new cultural identity. What did the old conservative ideological underpinnings of ?capitalism? and ?the small state? really mean to the new right groups? Rather, they saw this as a new class war, one of left elites and snobs (the better sort) who looked down on their pickup trucks, small businesses, mundane jobs, suburban homes, and their unabashed patriotism. To them ?San Francisco Democrats? were rich hypocrites, Hollywood celebrities, left academics, public employee unions, Greens, trial lawyers, and ethnic/racial grievance (and benefit) groups - all seeking power at their expense.
Third, with liberalism as a theory of governance in disrepute, and new Party identities centered on culture groups, new social developments would help redrew politics. Whereas at one time all the think tanks were liberal (e.g. Brookings and Rand), dozens of conservative think tanks sprang up, or became well funded (e.g. Hoover, AEI); whereas, the media had always been sympathetic to liberal positions and issues, cable TV opened up new channels of communication (CNN, Fox News, Christian Broadcasting); and lastly talk radio was freed of the fairness doctrine and(along with the Internet) became the cultural lifeline for the new right.
No longer intellectually outgunned, or censored, the new right has emerged.
In the current political climate, the nature of the ?bile? is different. The right has entertaining, scathing, and humorous radio talk show hosts: Limbaugh may speak of fema-nazis, Hamblin (who is African-American) of the ?whiney whiney colored (phone) line?, etc., but most do it with an understanding as to the exaggeration, the medium, and the entertainment value (the worst, perhaps most serious, is Savage).
The left has rabid interest groups proclaiming ?racism? and ?sexism? at every turn, multicultural and politically correct politics and curriculum, 100s of trendy independent film-makers (e.g. M. Moore), the mainstream media, an endless list of Hollywood whiners, and a Democratic party that finds no limit to accusations of the right promoting corporate corruption, bigotry, and racism (e.g. against Lott). Worse yet, the left leadership has promoted and the media uncritically covered some truly outrageous accusations from what, in prior times, were kook groups.
Most recently, we hear that Bush has Nazi connections; the neoconservatives are cabal linked to an evil philosopher, Trotsky, and the Likud; claims that studies show Bush has an IQ of 91; etc. etc. Even in mainstream publications like Vanity Fair we have photographs highlighting Bush?s personal resemblance to Goebbels. And none of this, I assure you, is less than deadly serious.
You're right, the left does not have as many popular radio or TV pundits, their best being Frankin, Moore, and recently Huffington. You can?t get as far scoffing at conservatives because, frankly, more Americans are conservative than liberal AND liberalism, as constructive ideology, is dead.
As a side note, I remember reading, during the campaign, that Bush's rhetoric about the economy--constantly warning about a looming recession--could have played a role in the economic collapse. The argument was that because he talked about it so much, reporters covered it, and then investors read the reports and took it seriously, and then we're off down the slippery slope.
I don't know how much credence to lend to it, but it's an interesting thing to think about.
As for partisanship in congress...the point that keeps getting missed here is that all of this is supposed to force polarized parties to compromise. That's what happened with Bork, and so we got Kennedy, instead. Not too bad a bargain, in my book.
It is never in the best interests of the country for one side to roll over for the other, and there are mechanisms, like the filibuster, that will force them to find a middle ground.
We can rail about partisanship all we want, but that's the point. It forces us to compromise, and keeps the party in power from remaking the entire country however it wants. The problem is that now the democrats are weak (or at least seem so), and the republicans have pretty much gotten whatever they wanted from the dems up until now, and so they're trying to see just how far they can go.
The dems have dug their heels in, and I can only hope that we'll get better justices out of the bargain.
Cheers
Scott
Midwinter,
It may be presumptious, but let me summerize your points.
a)Compromise is good.
b)Partisanship is good.
c)But Rolling Over is Bad.
For example Kennedy.
A few preliminary thoughts of mine:
a) When Clinton is in office, compromise with the right is bad, right-wing partisanship is bad, and rolling over is good (for the right)....hmmmmm how timely it is for the left to develop a new attitude.
b) The left has to be given credit for shrewd politics. By a process of incrementalism, they redraw boundaries. From 1950 to 1970, the Warren Supreme Court was liberal and our Presidents could appoint just about any moderately qualified person the President wanted. Then when Nixon got in office, it got a little tighter. As always Supreme Court nominees could not appear corrupt (LBJ's Fortas); but in Nixon's failed nominations one them had "just average" credentials and another had been a member of the KKK in the far past - though renounced. Okay...
Then Bork, who was supremely qualified, scandal free, of high character, and bright: well, THAT changed the rules again. The liberals said, in effect "New Rules": suspected political sympathies must be exposed, and a proper "balance" achieved (i.e. we don't want a 20year reign of a conservative court). Okay...now we must compromise and allow appointee political sympathies as a measure. Besides, Clinton is in office a few years later.
c) Bush is in office: (Ding) RULE CHANGE: Appeals court nominees will now be judged by ideology, regardless of qualifications, AND the filibuster is okay to use to deny a majority vote. BUT, we are assured, this is the last time.
So, agree to "compromise" and all will be well.
Midwinter, I'm sure you are sincere...but really, a lot of us conservatives know that its bullshit from most of the Left. Every old covenant of political rule is torn up, usually by the left, and rewritten for the advantage of the moment. At some point, borrowing a line from a movie "We draw the line here".
Republicans should fight this, and should rewrite the filibuster rules (which they can as majority party) OR they should make sure the democrats cannot stand in the winds that blow; i.e. at the turn of the next Democratic Presidency, extend filibustering to all levels of the judicary and make conservative credentials the criteria for approval.
Frankly, I don't think this is good - for anyone. To date, the biggest problem with the Supreme Court is that under divided rule, their opinions are nearly incoherent on many issues. And Frankly, I'd like our shot at a neo-Warren court.
Polls do not show that americans are more conservative than liberal.
Asked about the issues... more people come down on the left side of issues.
Liberalism is only a dirty word to conservatives... they've done a great job of framing the issues in their light... If you're for gay rights... you're "against the sanctity of marriage"
if your for equal rights for minorities "you believe in quotas that cost hardworking whites jobs"
if you believe in equal opportunities for women " you're for the feminazi agenda that wants your job and abortions for 12 year olds"
if you believe in the foundation of government as a tool to help people out of poverty and into college "you're a tax and spend liberal who loves big government and wants to waste your money"
And now that liberals are turning the tables and framing issues in their light... the level of discourse has gone down?
Liberalism isn't in disrepute... conservatives have just done a really good job of bad mouthing it for 20 years on talk radio and now Fox News.
They haven't proven any of their arguments OR shown that their ideologies are more valid. They want to slash taxes, starve government and let the private sector do what it wants to it's employees and the environment all while getting corporate welfare. I haven't seen any proof that compassionate conservatism actually exists as other than a neat speech idea that Karl Rove probably came up with.
c) Bush is in office: (Ding) RULE CHANGE: Appeals court nominees will now be judged by ideology, regardless of qualifications, AND the filibuster is okay to use to deny a majority vote. BUT, we are assured, this is the last time.
Just a friendly reminder that it was the Republican majority in Congress that brought about the changes in the judicial approval process. Remember that 20% of Clinton's judicial nominees were blocked when Republicans had the majority. It's the right wingers that have always gotten really geared up about this issue and used the evil judges for fundraising opportunities, not liberals.
Today, a trip to Marin County in California, or Vermont, or many other yuppie havens gives one a concentrated taste for the new democratic class ? affluent, intellectual, cultural, activist and highly contemptuous of the middle and working class. No longer secure in what they are, much of their politics are based on their not: conservative, christian, southern, uneducated, or blue collar.
There might be some truth to this.... in Marin county and Vermont!!
However in Pittsburgh (which is 'Liberal' and where I lived recently) or in the upper Midwest (which is 'Liberal' and where I now live) the Liberal constituency is grounded in HARD (and I mean serious work ethic!!) Working Class . . . farmers, workers, as well as a well educated middle class (seeing as the education in the upper midwest is the country's best (thanks to well-spent taxes)
this points to the articles grounding in typical cliched stereotypes ...stereotypes that are passing around like the flu
---now . . . away from this sort of hate monger shiit slinging . . .
Today, a trip to Marin County in California, or Vermont, or many other yuppie havens gives one a concentrated taste for the new democratic class ? affluent, intellectual, cultural, activist and highly contemptuous of the middle and working class. No longer secure in what they are, much of their politics are based on their not: conservative, christian, southern, uneducated, or blue collar.
I suppose that I should be pleased with a description of "liberal" as successful, smart and cultural - and certainly there are some who have made the case that conservatism is disproportionately associated with failure, stupidity, and boorishness. But these are just stereotypes.
I, rather, prefer to think of liberalism as a philosophy that values individual freedom - political and economic - but that is tempered with a concern for the long-term social welfare of the state and that is not afraid to use state power to try to promote this long-welfare. This use of state power includes use of the spending power to provide public services and reduce the consequences of economic inequality and use of legislative power to protect the vulnerable state constituencies that can get trampled in unrestricted exercises of political and economic freedom.
And as a liberal, I think of conservatism as a philosophy that also values individual freedom - political and economic - although it strongly prefers the exercise of these freedoms be expressed in within what it sees as patriotic American traditionalism. Above all, conservatism can be distinguished from liberalism by its deep antipathy to the use of state power to promote the long-term social welfare of the state. This antipathy goes beyond a suspicion of the ability of the state to achieve results through the use of this spending power - although this suspicion exists. In neo-conservative thought, the antipathy is based on a fundamental ideology that opposes the use of state power even where it can succeed in providing services, reducing inequality, and protecting vulnerable constituencies. For conservatives, the state has no business in these fields. Conservatives are, however, very willing to use state power to protect the certain vital interests of the state, through military and criminal justice spending - and if this spending promotes patriotic American traditionalism at home and abroad, all the better, from their point of view.
Comments
Originally posted by midwinter
And the right *dominated* the media by appealing to this: Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Coulter...you name it. They were seemingly everywhere. It is the right in this country who calls liberals unamerican and unpatriotic for their dissent against the president's policies. It is the right in this country who claim that liberals hate Bush. It is the right in this country who calls liberals traitors for simply not being conservative. It is the right in this country who claim liberals want to destroy America. It is the right in this country who claim liberals want to see Americans die in Iraq. It is the right in this country who claim liberals support al Qaeda. It is the right in this country who have transformed dissent into treason.
And so I ask: if there's equal parts hate on both sides, where is the liberal equivalent of someone like Ann Coulter? Ted Rall, perhaps? Tom Tomorrow? Eric Alterman? Krugman? Are they constantly on the talk shows? Are they constantly on the radio? Do they get their own television shows? Where's their hate? Where's their bile?
No. They don't.
But the right does. And you can't argue that Coulter represents some kind of extreme position of the right wing. She's thoroughly mainstream in right-leaning political discourse these days. Hell, just look around on these boards and you can see the influence of that kind of rhetoric.
...
Cheers
Scott
PT II ? RESPONSE TO MIDWINTER
By the later half of 1980?s, the political landscape was perminantely altered.
First, liberalism was in disrepute. The failure of urban renewal, the great society, the embarrassment of Jimmy Carter?s leadership, the economic recovery from Carter?s ?stagflation? , and Ronald Reagan?s supply side economics and staunch anti-communism (as well as the collapse of communism) had fully eclipsed liberal notions of governance. The social policy planners of the 60s were embarrassed by the failure of the 70s, and their credibility evaporated.
Second, the simple divide of ?class?, between left and right, became obscured as formerly democratic constituencies switched sides. The Democrats were no longer led or tempered by a George Meany, or old populists demagogues like Mayor Daley, or cold war liberals like Scoop Jackson ? the ?new class? Democratic elite were cultural - the intellectual/ professional left. The old New Left was gone, but the maturing legions and old passions remained, expressed in broad interest groups. By 1990 most of the 75 major public interest groups were allied (even melded) within Democratic politics ? 90% of their leadership having voted for McGovern. Academia has shifted to the far left; only 2% calling them-selves ?conservative? and ?liberals? became the right-wing of faculty politics.
Today, a trip to Marin County in California, or Vermont, or many other yuppie havens gives one a concentrated taste for the new democratic class ? affluent, intellectual, cultural, activist and highly contemptuous of the middle and working class. No longer secure in what they are, much of their politics are based on their not: conservative, christian, southern, uneducated, or blue collar.
At the same time the right understood, and defined itself in a new cultural identity. What did the old conservative ideological underpinnings of ?capitalism? and ?the small state? really mean to the new right groups? Rather, they saw this as a new class war, one of left elites and snobs (the better sort) who looked down on their pickup trucks, small businesses, mundane jobs, suburban homes, and their unabashed patriotism. To them ?San Francisco Democrats? were rich hypocrites, Hollywood celebrities, left academics, public employee unions, Greens, trial lawyers, and ethnic/racial grievance (and benefit) groups - all seeking power at their expense.
Third, with liberalism as a theory of governance in disrepute, and new Party identities centered on culture groups, new social developments would help redrew politics. Whereas at one time all the think tanks were liberal (e.g. Brookings and Rand), dozens of conservative think tanks sprang up, or became well funded (e.g. Hoover, AEI); whereas, the media had always been sympathetic to liberal positions and issues, cable TV opened up new channels of communication (CNN, Fox News, Christian Broadcasting); and lastly talk radio was freed of the fairness doctrine and(along with the Internet) became the cultural lifeline for the new right.
No longer intellectually outgunned, or censored, the new right has emerged.
In the current political climate, the nature of the ?bile? is different. The right has entertaining, scathing, and humorous radio talk show hosts: Limbaugh may speak of fema-nazis, Hamblin (who is African-American) of the ?whiney whiney colored (phone) line?, etc., but most do it with an understanding as to the exaggeration, the medium, and the entertainment value (the worst, perhaps most serious, is Savage).
The left has rabid interest groups proclaiming ?racism? and ?sexism? at every turn, multicultural and politically correct politics and curriculum, 100s of trendy independent film-makers (e.g. M. Moore), the mainstream media, an endless list of Hollywood whiners, and a Democratic party that finds no limit to accusations of the right promoting corporate corruption, bigotry, and racism (e.g. against Lott). Worse yet, the left leadership has promoted and the media uncritically covered some truly outrageous accusations from what, in prior times, were kook groups.
Most recently, we hear that Bush has Nazi connections; the neoconservatives are cabal linked to an evil philosopher, Trotsky, and the Likud; claims that studies show Bush has an IQ of 91; etc. etc. Even in mainstream publications like Vanity Fair we have photographs highlighting Bush?s personal resemblance to Goebbels. And none of this, I assure you, is less than deadly serious.
You're right, the left does not have as many popular radio or TV pundits, their best being Frankin, Moore, and recently Huffington. You can?t get as far scoffing at conservatives because, frankly, more Americans are conservative than liberal AND liberalism, as constructive ideology, is dead.
Originally posted by midwinter
As a side note, I remember reading, during the campaign, that Bush's rhetoric about the economy--constantly warning about a looming recession--could have played a role in the economic collapse. The argument was that because he talked about it so much, reporters covered it, and then investors read the reports and took it seriously, and then we're off down the slippery slope.
I don't know how much credence to lend to it, but it's an interesting thing to think about.
As for partisanship in congress...the point that keeps getting missed here is that all of this is supposed to force polarized parties to compromise. That's what happened with Bork, and so we got Kennedy, instead. Not too bad a bargain, in my book.
It is never in the best interests of the country for one side to roll over for the other, and there are mechanisms, like the filibuster, that will force them to find a middle ground.
We can rail about partisanship all we want, but that's the point. It forces us to compromise, and keeps the party in power from remaking the entire country however it wants. The problem is that now the democrats are weak (or at least seem so), and the republicans have pretty much gotten whatever they wanted from the dems up until now, and so they're trying to see just how far they can go.
The dems have dug their heels in, and I can only hope that we'll get better justices out of the bargain.
Cheers
Scott
Midwinter,
It may be presumptious, but let me summerize your points.
a)Compromise is good.
b)Partisanship is good.
c)But Rolling Over is Bad.
For example Kennedy.
A few preliminary thoughts of mine:
a) When Clinton is in office, compromise with the right is bad, right-wing partisanship is bad, and rolling over is good (for the right)....hmmmmm how timely it is for the left to develop a new attitude.
b) The left has to be given credit for shrewd politics. By a process of incrementalism, they redraw boundaries. From 1950 to 1970, the Warren Supreme Court was liberal and our Presidents could appoint just about any moderately qualified person the President wanted. Then when Nixon got in office, it got a little tighter. As always Supreme Court nominees could not appear corrupt (LBJ's Fortas); but in Nixon's failed nominations one them had "just average" credentials and another had been a member of the KKK in the far past - though renounced. Okay...
Then Bork, who was supremely qualified, scandal free, of high character, and bright: well, THAT changed the rules again. The liberals said, in effect "New Rules": suspected political sympathies must be exposed, and a proper "balance" achieved (i.e. we don't want a 20year reign of a conservative court). Okay...now we must compromise and allow appointee political sympathies as a measure. Besides, Clinton is in office a few years later.
c) Bush is in office: (Ding) RULE CHANGE: Appeals court nominees will now be judged by ideology, regardless of qualifications, AND the filibuster is okay to use to deny a majority vote. BUT, we are assured, this is the last time.
So, agree to "compromise" and all will be well.
Midwinter, I'm sure you are sincere...but really, a lot of us conservatives know that its bullshit from most of the Left. Every old covenant of political rule is torn up, usually by the left, and rewritten for the advantage of the moment. At some point, borrowing a line from a movie "We draw the line here".
Republicans should fight this, and should rewrite the filibuster rules (which they can as majority party) OR they should make sure the democrats cannot stand in the winds that blow; i.e. at the turn of the next Democratic Presidency, extend filibustering to all levels of the judicary and make conservative credentials the criteria for approval.
Frankly, I don't think this is good - for anyone. To date, the biggest problem with the Supreme Court is that under divided rule, their opinions are nearly incoherent on many issues. And Frankly, I'd like our shot at a neo-Warren court.
Asked about the issues... more people come down on the left side of issues.
Liberalism is only a dirty word to conservatives... they've done a great job of framing the issues in their light... If you're for gay rights... you're "against the sanctity of marriage"
if your for equal rights for minorities "you believe in quotas that cost hardworking whites jobs"
if you believe in equal opportunities for women " you're for the feminazi agenda that wants your job and abortions for 12 year olds"
if you believe in the foundation of government as a tool to help people out of poverty and into college "you're a tax and spend liberal who loves big government and wants to waste your money"
And now that liberals are turning the tables and framing issues in their light... the level of discourse has gone down?
Liberalism isn't in disrepute... conservatives have just done a really good job of bad mouthing it for 20 years on talk radio and now Fox News.
They haven't proven any of their arguments OR shown that their ideologies are more valid. They want to slash taxes, starve government and let the private sector do what it wants to it's employees and the environment all while getting corporate welfare. I haven't seen any proof that compassionate conservatism actually exists as other than a neat speech idea that Karl Rove probably came up with.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
c) Bush is in office: (Ding) RULE CHANGE: Appeals court nominees will now be judged by ideology, regardless of qualifications, AND the filibuster is okay to use to deny a majority vote. BUT, we are assured, this is the last time.
Just a friendly reminder that it was the Republican majority in Congress that brought about the changes in the judicial approval process. Remember that 20% of Clinton's judicial nominees were blocked when Republicans had the majority. It's the right wingers that have always gotten really geared up about this issue and used the evil judges for fundraising opportunities, not liberals.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
PT II ? RESPONSE TO MIDWINTER
Today, a trip to Marin County in California, or Vermont, or many other yuppie havens gives one a concentrated taste for the new democratic class ? affluent, intellectual, cultural, activist and highly contemptuous of the middle and working class. No longer secure in what they are, much of their politics are based on their not: conservative, christian, southern, uneducated, or blue collar.
There might be some truth to this.... in Marin county and Vermont!!
However in Pittsburgh (which is 'Liberal' and where I lived recently) or in the upper Midwest (which is 'Liberal' and where I now live) the Liberal constituency is grounded in HARD (and I mean serious work ethic!!) Working Class . . . farmers, workers, as well as a well educated middle class (seeing as the education in the upper midwest is the country's best (thanks to well-spent taxes)
this points to the articles grounding in typical cliched stereotypes ...stereotypes that are passing around like the flu
---now . . . away from this sort of hate monger shiit slinging . . .
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Today, a trip to Marin County in California, or Vermont, or many other yuppie havens gives one a concentrated taste for the new democratic class ? affluent, intellectual, cultural, activist and highly contemptuous of the middle and working class. No longer secure in what they are, much of their politics are based on their not: conservative, christian, southern, uneducated, or blue collar.
I suppose that I should be pleased with a description of "liberal" as successful, smart and cultural - and certainly there are some who have made the case that conservatism is disproportionately associated with failure, stupidity, and boorishness. But these are just stereotypes.
I, rather, prefer to think of liberalism as a philosophy that values individual freedom - political and economic - but that is tempered with a concern for the long-term social welfare of the state and that is not afraid to use state power to try to promote this long-welfare. This use of state power includes use of the spending power to provide public services and reduce the consequences of economic inequality and use of legislative power to protect the vulnerable state constituencies that can get trampled in unrestricted exercises of political and economic freedom.
And as a liberal, I think of conservatism as a philosophy that also values individual freedom - political and economic - although it strongly prefers the exercise of these freedoms be expressed in within what it sees as patriotic American traditionalism. Above all, conservatism can be distinguished from liberalism by its deep antipathy to the use of state power to promote the long-term social welfare of the state. This antipathy goes beyond a suspicion of the ability of the state to achieve results through the use of this spending power - although this suspicion exists. In neo-conservative thought, the antipathy is based on a fundamental ideology that opposes the use of state power even where it can succeed in providing services, reducing inequality, and protecting vulnerable constituencies. For conservatives, the state has no business in these fields. Conservatives are, however, very willing to use state power to protect the certain vital interests of the state, through military and criminal justice spending - and if this spending promotes patriotic American traditionalism at home and abroad, all the better, from their point of view.