Golly! It seemed like I knew every single one of those Bush-hating, tax-cut enjoying hypocrite liberals! They remind me of every one of my liberal, academic, elitist, student-indoctrinating colleagues!
At both the macro and micro levels, there?s plenty of evidence that well-off liberals are using their increased disposable income ? much of which can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts ? to sate their desires for luxury goods and for political revenge. This odd condition of consumerist self-indulgence and political indignation ? fueled by the same source ? has reached epidemic proportions in areas where high-income
quote:
We?ve all seen the symptoms. A table of four raging over Bush?s Iraq policy while sampling the $58 tasting menu at Virot, an expensive new bistro on the Upper West Side.
"Plenty of evidence" "We've all seen the symptoms"
(Addabox gazes around small apartment) I guess I'm hanging out around the wrong liberals....
Still, it seems like a fun game. Let me try:
"Everyone now agrees that self described conservatives can frequently be found having sex with goats even as they decry the decline in public morality. It's a common sight on the streets of our great midwestern cities: grimly moralistic Republicans, bibles clutched in their thin, bony hands, thrusting vigorously into helplessly protesting livestock. IT'S PRETTY IRONIC, YOU KNOW.
"Plenty of evidence" "We've all seen the symptoms"
(Addabox gazes around small apartment) I guess I'm hanging out around the wrong liberals....
Still, it seems like a fun game. Let me try:
"Everyone now agrees that self described conservatives can frequently be found having sex with goats even as they decry the decline in public morality. It's a common site on the streets of our great midwestern cities: grimly moralistic Republicans, bibles clutched in their thin, bony hands, thrusting vigorously into helplessly protesting livestock. IT'S PRETTY IRONIC, YOU KNOW.
Shhhh!!!! It's far easier to talk about imaginary liberals than it is to talk about real ones!
I don't know that I buy that. I *would* argue that during the Clinton presidency, the right in this country became, largely because of the rise to prominence of folks like Limbaugh, an invective-spewing ball of hatred focused squarely on Clinton and his family - and that hatred extended to include all liberals, since the rhetoric of the right under Limbaugh never admits that not all liberals think alike.
Please. The left has generated plenty of invective, hatred and bile since at least the Reagan admin. Remember the Bork nomination? Or we could go all the way back to Nixon, if you want. He was an anti-Christ to liberals even before he became President.
Quote:
... 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?
How about Ted Kennedy calling Bush's nominees neanderthals? This is worse than the examples from the right you've mentioned. Kennedy has real power. But it's a safe bet nobody on the left will call him on his bigotry. As for Ted Rall & company not having their own shows, that's ALL about ratings. If they could pull in an audience like Limbaugh can, they'd have a show.
I'm not a big fan of Limbaugh et al and I don't like people thinking that because I'm a conservative they speak for me but they've obviously connected with a lot of Americans. And so did Clinton. Deal with it. If you don't like the tone of political debate in this country, well, there's a lot not to like. But pretending it's all the other guy's fault isn't a serious or honest response.
Quote:
... 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...
She wasn't thouroughly mainstream enough to keep from getting bounced by National Review. Her overheated rhetoric cost her a job there.
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
Sorry but I had to address this one point. The left has plenty of return fire. Their people don't have to be considered alternative or talk-radio because they are just hired by the mainstream media without any fuss. George Stephanapolis doesn't need to write a book. He gets a solid hour during Sunday morning everyweek. Paul Begala is on CNN. Pelosi's daughter(minority leader of the house) made the documentary "Journeys with George" while working for NBC.
Coulter, for all the venom people toss at her, got her biggest break from Politically Incorrect, which has now morphed into Real Time. As we all know while the host Maher claims independent status, (he is a pretty independent thinking in that he does stand up to some of the feminists) his views are decidedly liberal on most matters. Coulter was brought in usually to be the token conservative resistance among the liberal office holders and entertainment types. (almost exclusively liberal)
I do think there would be more liberal talk radio of liberals still had room within their ranks for discussion and dissention. (I truly and honestly believe that) However since their reasoning, (as evidenced around here as well) has boiled down to, we have the answer, anyone who doesn't believe it is evil, a liar, or insane... well that makes it pretty hard to fill 3-4 hours.
Or we could go all the way back to Nixon, if you want. He was an anti-Christ to liberals even before he became President.
Well, history pretty much proved us right.
Quote:
[iHow about Ted Kennedy calling Bush's nominees neanderthals? This is worse than the examples from the right you've mentioned. Kennedy has real power. But it's a safe bet nobody on the left will call him on his bigotry.
[/B]
How is that bigotry? And how is it nobody will call him on it when the right-wing starts frothing at the drop of a hat? And how is calling nominees "neanderthals" worse than calling liberals treasonous, which is to say they deserve the death penalty?
It is possible to make distinctions. Just blandly asserting equivalencies over and over again is not persuasive. It's not saying "the right is bad and the left is good" to admit that at the moment there quite a few right wing pundits that have discovered that their ratings (and book sales) soar when they "go extreme".
In this, their tone resembles a cross between pro wrestling and the Jerry Springer show. People don't tune in for reasoned analysis, they want blood. They don't want to hear that liberal policy is poorly concieved, they want to hear that is part and parcel of a program to deliberately destroy America. They don't want to hear that gay rights goes against their moral grain, they want to hear that there is a "homosexual agenda" that seeks to recruit their children, and which celebrates each rung down the ladder to hell. They don't want to hear that a given Democrat has a voting record they disagree with, or even that he or she is a nut-job, but that they are disgusting, traitorous ingrates that leach off the largess of the peoples while scheming to ruin their lives.
The left has no equivalent because the left has no radical Christian component that paints the world in starkly biblical terms of good and evil. Once you decide that liberals are doing the devils work, there is really no reason to moderate your tone-- you're dealing with sub-human demons. In fact, the total route of their forces, by whatever means necessary, is requried by your God.
Bemused sniping at factual inaccuracies, cheap shots, and a certain amount of indignation, or even a lot of indignation, at the shamelessness of the right wing attack machine, ala Al Franken, isn't even on the same planet.
I don't know that I buy that. I *would* argue that during the Clinton presidency, the right in this country became, largely because of the rise to prominence of folks like Limbaugh, an invective-spewing ball of hatred focused squarely on Clinton and his family--and that hatred extended to include all liberals, since the rhetoric of the right under Limbaugh never admits that not all liberals think alike.
And while Limbaugh himself is not too bad, those who emerged in his wake knew how to do little more than get folks angry, which is also, of course, a way to get very popular very quickly, since we're a culture that, despite our claims about civility, loves to watch meanness and cruelty. We can't get enough of it. Turn on the television at any time and you can get your fill of it...
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?
Cheers
Scott
And my argument was that Parties and their leadership have become less truly ideological, but far more partisan in governing - the distinction being that I was speaking of the party leaders, politicians, and functionaries, not about public opinion leaders or the media.
Still, you are right in seeing a nexus between political partisanship, and the wider society. But unthinking partisanship and incivility began to dominate the halls of government long before Clinton, although as late as the Carter years, a miserable era for both sides, at least debate was on competence and leadership, as well as policy.
The election of Reagan marked a turning point in national politics. I remember traveling back to California (from Oklahoma), to visit some friends in Berkeley. While I was having coffee on Telegraph, I ease dropped on a conversation at a table next to me. Apparently, a middle-aged gentlemen (possibly faculty member) was tutoring two young people the ?awful? meaning to Reagan?s election. I recall he said, ?I know you don?t understand, but outside of this area, and certainly outside of California, it is mostly racist and backward.? He continued to speak of the remainder of the country as the home to evil, benighted and nearly alien beings.
Although I had been engaged in policy issues in politics, it was my first exposure to the politics of identity ? not differences over ideology, but one of cultural-intellectual identity. For the Left (as well as Right) Reagan?s election represented a seismic shift: an alliance between middle and industrial working classes, white ethnics, southern whites, social and religious conservatives, and individualist conservatives of the west and south-west. Former FDR democratic constituencies (including many blue collar workers) and populists saw common interest and values with the traditional Republicans (small business, farmer, and the middle and upper conservatives)
The Democrats that had once represented the common man, the working class, the marginalized Southern whites and populists ? had changed. The ?ordinary? fellow ? Joe six-pack ? had been derided and despised by the left/liberal intellectual and cultural leaders since the 60s (remember the movie ?Joe?, ?Easy Rider?, and a number of others?). Ronald Reagan, of all people, had been elected with 57% of the vote (against a decent and misunderstood human rights liberal, no less).
In the 1980?s the prevailing political orthodoxy, Liberalism, was in disrepute with the majority of Americans, even as it continued to dominate most of the institutional incubators and culture channels of America ? including the media. The growing ?bile and hate? finally broke out in the Bork controversy with the unprecedented politicization of a court nominee, and create what the Democrats would later accuse the right of: ?the Politics of Personal Destruction?. It was a watershed event, one that the right would never forget, or forgive. And continues today as the new form of political warfare.
The Bork nomination is worth a minor digression. Ted Kennedy launched the destruction of Bork within 45 minutes of the Presidential nomination, in a nationally televised speech on the Senate floor. He announced that Bork?s America was a land of rogue police breaking down doors, segregated lunch counters, midnight police raids, the replacement of evolutionary teaching by creationism, and the censorship of writers and artists at the whim of the government. He announced that Bork?s intent was to shut off access to the federal courts for ?millions? of Americans.
Although widely thought to be a terrible blunder by Bork supporters, Kennedy?s speech was merely a prelude. Delaying the hearings for over 70 days, the already prepared Democratic left mobilized, bringing in the: People for the American Way, ACLU, NOW, AFL-CIO, NAACP, National Abortion Rights Action League, Planned Parenthood, etc. Fence sitting liberal and southern Senators were politicked and threatened with black voter backlash, and ?fear mongering? and race baiting became a fine art by Left opposition.
Take for example, letters by the ACLU to supporters that said, in caps, WE RISK NOTHING SHORT OF WRECKING THE BILL OF RIGHTS?HE THREATENS OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT??; Norman Lear?s group, People for the American Way ran 86 commercials with Gregory Peck, announcing that ?Bork defended poll taxes and literacy tests, which kept many (black) Americans from voting?.
It worked. Black Americans and white southerners became terrified and convinced Bork was against Civil rights and would ?turn back the clock? on race relations. There was hardly a sinister policy or opinion that was not attributed to Bork, among them: he supported mandatory sterilization, restricted visitation rights of divorced parents, supported sterilizing workers, was opposed to free speech, pro-life, and wouldn?t even allow grandmothers to live with grandchildren.
The fact that all of it was a demonstrable and orchestrated lie was irrelevant, as was the fact that: Bork was a leading constitutional scholar, had never been overturned in 400 appeals court decisions, received the highest ABA rating, was supported by numerous liberals and mentors who knew him professionally (e.g. Lloyd Cutler) , and decided in most cases the same as Scalia, a sitting Justice (except Bork was slightly to his left!).
If the bile from Senate Democrats and liberal interest groups were not bad enough, the Media contributed by simply ignoring the outrageous lies and reporting the accusations as fact. And Bork supporters soon learned that ?TV? coverage would be highly biased and slanted towards Bork?s accusers. Friendly witnesses, such as the seven (7) former Attorney Generals who supported Bork were not broadcast, the two (2) unfriendly ones were. Nor, for that matter, did the mainstream media note that formers Justices John Paul Stevens and Byron White also supported his nomination.
Of course, at least Bork had a chance to be voted on by the Senate. In that defeat, much of the Right became energized and outraged ? they had seen the combined power of politics, issue based interest groups, and the media crush an honorable and brilliant scholar, and a new process in Court appointments. A new term had been invented ?Borking? to describe this process.
But ?Borking? would only get worse ? soon Ginzburg was rejected because he had once dabbled with marijuana and was called a mini-Bork, Thomas was pilloried for a pubic hair on a coke can and boorish behavior (of course, by then the Republicans new how to play there own race card), etc.
Eventually our elected officials (or their wife) would spin yarns about ?vast right-wing conspiracies?, collect FBI files of potential enemies, widely smear their opponents with charges of racism and money grubbing, and allude to the need for more media regulation (to shut down the critics) - partisanship by the ruling political class has become far worse, has displaced any respect for ideological opposition.
In the wake of Bork came conservative counter- reformation of politics (not ideology). I?ll address that in a future missive.
I think the democrats have been non-partisan in regards to Bush's judicial nominees. 168-4? Those are excellent stats. Better than Clinton's. It's the Republicans that have made it a huge issue. Apparently getting their way 98% of the time isn't good enough.
During Clinton's term... despite the Republican controlled congress and it's attempts to impeach him and investigate him relentlessly... they actually got alot done. Clinton didn't f'up the economy... and managed to keep us respected in the world community. And I think that's because in the end... the really did have to work together. Clinton wouldn't be bullied by Newts gang... remember when the Federal government was shut down for a few days? They played a game of public opinion chicken... and the republican congress lost.
I think the government works better when things are balanced. Unlike now. I believe it's good to have both conservatives and liberals in congress fighting to sway the center. But the center isn't in control at the moment.
I think the democrats have been non-partisan in regards to Bush's judicial nominees. 168-4? Those are excellent stats. Better than Clinton's. It's the Republicans that have made it a huge issue. Apparently getting their way 98% of the time isn't good enough.
During Clinton's term... despite the Republican controlled congress and it's attempts to impeach him and investigate him relentlessly... they actually got alot done. Clinton didn't f'up the economy... and managed to keep us respected in the world community. And I think that's because in the end... the really did have to work together. Clinton wouldn't be bullied by Newts gang... remember when the Federal government was shut down for a few days? They played a game of public opinion chicken... and the republican congress lost.
I think the government works better when things are balanced. Unlike now. I believe it's good to have both conservatives and liberals in congress fighting to sway the center. But the center isn't in control at the moment.
I do not think Bush f'up the economy. I believe 9/11 happened as well as the effects of a tech bubble and stock market run-up bust factored into the economy. To make it over-simple and say "Bush ruined it" is elective and childish. That said I do agree that under Clinton the US was seen in a much better light than it is seen under the Bush admin. Bush has ruined our reputation and I am more than upset about this reality. I also agree with you that with a balance between "left leaning and right leaning" leaders in Congress and in the White House we are better served. I believe a monopoly in either shift is less than optimal for good governance.
I don't think Bush's two tax cuts have helped... they've done damage.
We now have a huge deficit that will take many years to recover from.
Modest deficits are ok to stimulate the economy.
No one will admit it... but the tax structure has been redistibuted... the middle class and the lower class have seen no benefits from the tax cuts... which means they're are bearing MORE of the tax burden.
In the years to come the tax system will have to become MORE progessive not less progressive... despite the Conservative efforts to "starve the beast". As it is discretionary spending is the smallest part of the budget not including military spending.
No one wants to face the realities of our collective future. Especially this administration and congress... they know they can get away with ignoring it until 2008 if they stay in office. The repairs will have to be made under the next president's watch.
I do not think Bush f'up the economy. I believe 9/11 happened as well as the effects of a tech bubble and stock market run-up bust factored into the economy. To make it over-simple and say "Bush ruined it" is elective and childish. That said I do agree that under Clinton the US was seen in a much better light than it is seen under the Bush admin. Bush has ruined our reputation and I am more than upset about this reality. I also agree with you that with a balance between "left leaning and right leaning" leaders in Congress and in the White House we are better served. I believe a monopoly in either shift is less than optimal for good governance.
Fellows
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.
Comments
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
In reply to the first MaxParrish Quote contained in the midwinter post above I thought this was interesting:
Tax Cuts
Fellows
Golly! It seemed like I knew every single one of those Bush-hating, tax-cut enjoying hypocrite liberals! They remind me of every one of my liberal, academic, elitist, student-indoctrinating colleagues!
Cheers
Scott
At both the macro and micro levels, there?s plenty of evidence that well-off liberals are using their increased disposable income ? much of which can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts ? to sate their desires for luxury goods and for political revenge. This odd condition of consumerist self-indulgence and political indignation ? fueled by the same source ? has reached epidemic proportions in areas where high-income
quote:
We?ve all seen the symptoms. A table of four raging over Bush?s Iraq policy while sampling the $58 tasting menu at Virot, an expensive new bistro on the Upper West Side.
"Plenty of evidence" "We've all seen the symptoms"
(Addabox gazes around small apartment) I guess I'm hanging out around the wrong liberals....
Still, it seems like a fun game. Let me try:
"Everyone now agrees that self described conservatives can frequently be found having sex with goats even as they decry the decline in public morality. It's a common sight on the streets of our great midwestern cities: grimly moralistic Republicans, bibles clutched in their thin, bony hands, thrusting vigorously into helplessly protesting livestock. IT'S PRETTY IRONIC, YOU KNOW.
Originally posted by addabox
"Plenty of evidence" "We've all seen the symptoms"
(Addabox gazes around small apartment) I guess I'm hanging out around the wrong liberals....
Still, it seems like a fun game. Let me try:
"Everyone now agrees that self described conservatives can frequently be found having sex with goats even as they decry the decline in public morality. It's a common site on the streets of our great midwestern cities: grimly moralistic Republicans, bibles clutched in their thin, bony hands, thrusting vigorously into helplessly protesting livestock. IT'S PRETTY IRONIC, YOU KNOW.
Shhhh!!!! It's far easier to talk about imaginary liberals than it is to talk about real ones!
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Shhhh!!!! It's far easier to talk about imaginary liberals than it is to talk about real ones!
Cheers
Scott
What is a real liberal?
Fellows
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
What is a real liberal?
Fellows
They're very rare. Almost an extinct species in America, and certainly not visible on any of the major television news networks.
So far as I can tell, there are only a few of us left.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
I don't know that I buy that. I *would* argue that during the Clinton presidency, the right in this country became, largely because of the rise to prominence of folks like Limbaugh, an invective-spewing ball of hatred focused squarely on Clinton and his family - and that hatred extended to include all liberals, since the rhetoric of the right under Limbaugh never admits that not all liberals think alike.
Please. The left has generated plenty of invective, hatred and bile since at least the Reagan admin. Remember the Bork nomination? Or we could go all the way back to Nixon, if you want. He was an anti-Christ to liberals even before he became President.
... 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?
How about Ted Kennedy calling Bush's nominees neanderthals? This is worse than the examples from the right you've mentioned. Kennedy has real power. But it's a safe bet nobody on the left will call him on his bigotry. As for Ted Rall & company not having their own shows, that's ALL about ratings. If they could pull in an audience like Limbaugh can, they'd have a show.
I'm not a big fan of Limbaugh et al and I don't like people thinking that because I'm a conservative they speak for me but they've obviously connected with a lot of Americans. And so did Clinton. Deal with it. If you don't like the tone of political debate in this country, well, there's a lot not to like. But pretending it's all the other guy's fault isn't a serious or honest response.
... 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...
She wasn't thouroughly mainstream enough to keep from getting bounced by National Review. Her overheated rhetoric cost her a job there.
The THREAT of the fillibuster worked. There never was the "unprecedented" fillibuster.
The judicial nominees will not go to a vote.
Oh and... Louisiana will now have a Democrat Governor. And it will be a woman.
Originally posted by midwinter
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
Sorry but I had to address this one point. The left has plenty of return fire. Their people don't have to be considered alternative or talk-radio because they are just hired by the mainstream media without any fuss. George Stephanapolis doesn't need to write a book. He gets a solid hour during Sunday morning everyweek. Paul Begala is on CNN. Pelosi's daughter(minority leader of the house) made the documentary "Journeys with George" while working for NBC.
Coulter, for all the venom people toss at her, got her biggest break from Politically Incorrect, which has now morphed into Real Time. As we all know while the host Maher claims independent status, (he is a pretty independent thinking in that he does stand up to some of the feminists) his views are decidedly liberal on most matters. Coulter was brought in usually to be the token conservative resistance among the liberal office holders and entertainment types. (almost exclusively liberal)
I do think there would be more liberal talk radio of liberals still had room within their ranks for discussion and dissention. (I truly and honestly believe that) However since their reasoning, (as evidenced around here as well) has boiled down to, we have the answer, anyone who doesn't believe it is evil, a liar, or insane... well that makes it pretty hard to fill 3-4 hours.
Nick
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Or we could go all the way back to Nixon, if you want. He was an anti-Christ to liberals even before he became President.
Well, history pretty much proved us right.
[iHow about Ted Kennedy calling Bush's nominees neanderthals? This is worse than the examples from the right you've mentioned. Kennedy has real power. But it's a safe bet nobody on the left will call him on his bigotry.
[/B]
How is that bigotry? And how is it nobody will call him on it when the right-wing starts frothing at the drop of a hat? And how is calling nominees "neanderthals" worse than calling liberals treasonous, which is to say they deserve the death penalty?
It is possible to make distinctions. Just blandly asserting equivalencies over and over again is not persuasive. It's not saying "the right is bad and the left is good" to admit that at the moment there quite a few right wing pundits that have discovered that their ratings (and book sales) soar when they "go extreme".
In this, their tone resembles a cross between pro wrestling and the Jerry Springer show. People don't tune in for reasoned analysis, they want blood. They don't want to hear that liberal policy is poorly concieved, they want to hear that is part and parcel of a program to deliberately destroy America. They don't want to hear that gay rights goes against their moral grain, they want to hear that there is a "homosexual agenda" that seeks to recruit their children, and which celebrates each rung down the ladder to hell. They don't want to hear that a given Democrat has a voting record they disagree with, or even that he or she is a nut-job, but that they are disgusting, traitorous ingrates that leach off the largess of the peoples while scheming to ruin their lives.
The left has no equivalent because the left has no radical Christian component that paints the world in starkly biblical terms of good and evil. Once you decide that liberals are doing the devils work, there is really no reason to moderate your tone-- you're dealing with sub-human demons. In fact, the total route of their forces, by whatever means necessary, is requried by your God.
Bemused sniping at factual inaccuracies, cheap shots, and a certain amount of indignation, or even a lot of indignation, at the shamelessness of the right wing attack machine, ala Al Franken, isn't even on the same planet.
By conservatives:
Slander
Treason
Off with their heads
Thieves in high places
Useful idiots
Dereliction of duty
By liberals:
Big lies
Lies and the lying liars who tell them
Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot
The lies of George W. Bush
Bushwacked
Here you go:
A search for "liberals hate america"? 140,000 hits
A search for "conservatives hate america"? 255 hits
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
I don't know that I buy that. I *would* argue that during the Clinton presidency, the right in this country became, largely because of the rise to prominence of folks like Limbaugh, an invective-spewing ball of hatred focused squarely on Clinton and his family--and that hatred extended to include all liberals, since the rhetoric of the right under Limbaugh never admits that not all liberals think alike.
And while Limbaugh himself is not too bad, those who emerged in his wake knew how to do little more than get folks angry, which is also, of course, a way to get very popular very quickly, since we're a culture that, despite our claims about civility, loves to watch meanness and cruelty. We can't get enough of it. Turn on the television at any time and you can get your fill of it...
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?
Cheers
Scott
And my argument was that Parties and their leadership have become less truly ideological, but far more partisan in governing - the distinction being that I was speaking of the party leaders, politicians, and functionaries, not about public opinion leaders or the media.
Still, you are right in seeing a nexus between political partisanship, and the wider society. But unthinking partisanship and incivility began to dominate the halls of government long before Clinton, although as late as the Carter years, a miserable era for both sides, at least debate was on competence and leadership, as well as policy.
The election of Reagan marked a turning point in national politics. I remember traveling back to California (from Oklahoma), to visit some friends in Berkeley. While I was having coffee on Telegraph, I ease dropped on a conversation at a table next to me. Apparently, a middle-aged gentlemen (possibly faculty member) was tutoring two young people the ?awful? meaning to Reagan?s election. I recall he said, ?I know you don?t understand, but outside of this area, and certainly outside of California, it is mostly racist and backward.? He continued to speak of the remainder of the country as the home to evil, benighted and nearly alien beings.
Although I had been engaged in policy issues in politics, it was my first exposure to the politics of identity ? not differences over ideology, but one of cultural-intellectual identity. For the Left (as well as Right) Reagan?s election represented a seismic shift: an alliance between middle and industrial working classes, white ethnics, southern whites, social and religious conservatives, and individualist conservatives of the west and south-west. Former FDR democratic constituencies (including many blue collar workers) and populists saw common interest and values with the traditional Republicans (small business, farmer, and the middle and upper conservatives)
The Democrats that had once represented the common man, the working class, the marginalized Southern whites and populists ? had changed. The ?ordinary? fellow ? Joe six-pack ? had been derided and despised by the left/liberal intellectual and cultural leaders since the 60s (remember the movie ?Joe?, ?Easy Rider?, and a number of others?). Ronald Reagan, of all people, had been elected with 57% of the vote (against a decent and misunderstood human rights liberal, no less).
In the 1980?s the prevailing political orthodoxy, Liberalism, was in disrepute with the majority of Americans, even as it continued to dominate most of the institutional incubators and culture channels of America ? including the media. The growing ?bile and hate? finally broke out in the Bork controversy with the unprecedented politicization of a court nominee, and create what the Democrats would later accuse the right of: ?the Politics of Personal Destruction?. It was a watershed event, one that the right would never forget, or forgive. And continues today as the new form of political warfare.
The Bork nomination is worth a minor digression. Ted Kennedy launched the destruction of Bork within 45 minutes of the Presidential nomination, in a nationally televised speech on the Senate floor. He announced that Bork?s America was a land of rogue police breaking down doors, segregated lunch counters, midnight police raids, the replacement of evolutionary teaching by creationism, and the censorship of writers and artists at the whim of the government. He announced that Bork?s intent was to shut off access to the federal courts for ?millions? of Americans.
Although widely thought to be a terrible blunder by Bork supporters, Kennedy?s speech was merely a prelude. Delaying the hearings for over 70 days, the already prepared Democratic left mobilized, bringing in the: People for the American Way, ACLU, NOW, AFL-CIO, NAACP, National Abortion Rights Action League, Planned Parenthood, etc. Fence sitting liberal and southern Senators were politicked and threatened with black voter backlash, and ?fear mongering? and race baiting became a fine art by Left opposition.
Take for example, letters by the ACLU to supporters that said, in caps, WE RISK NOTHING SHORT OF WRECKING THE BILL OF RIGHTS?HE THREATENS OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT??; Norman Lear?s group, People for the American Way ran 86 commercials with Gregory Peck, announcing that ?Bork defended poll taxes and literacy tests, which kept many (black) Americans from voting?.
It worked. Black Americans and white southerners became terrified and convinced Bork was against Civil rights and would ?turn back the clock? on race relations. There was hardly a sinister policy or opinion that was not attributed to Bork, among them: he supported mandatory sterilization, restricted visitation rights of divorced parents, supported sterilizing workers, was opposed to free speech, pro-life, and wouldn?t even allow grandmothers to live with grandchildren.
The fact that all of it was a demonstrable and orchestrated lie was irrelevant, as was the fact that: Bork was a leading constitutional scholar, had never been overturned in 400 appeals court decisions, received the highest ABA rating, was supported by numerous liberals and mentors who knew him professionally (e.g. Lloyd Cutler) , and decided in most cases the same as Scalia, a sitting Justice (except Bork was slightly to his left!).
If the bile from Senate Democrats and liberal interest groups were not bad enough, the Media contributed by simply ignoring the outrageous lies and reporting the accusations as fact. And Bork supporters soon learned that ?TV? coverage would be highly biased and slanted towards Bork?s accusers. Friendly witnesses, such as the seven (7) former Attorney Generals who supported Bork were not broadcast, the two (2) unfriendly ones were. Nor, for that matter, did the mainstream media note that formers Justices John Paul Stevens and Byron White also supported his nomination.
Of course, at least Bork had a chance to be voted on by the Senate. In that defeat, much of the Right became energized and outraged ? they had seen the combined power of politics, issue based interest groups, and the media crush an honorable and brilliant scholar, and a new process in Court appointments. A new term had been invented ?Borking? to describe this process.
But ?Borking? would only get worse ? soon Ginzburg was rejected because he had once dabbled with marijuana and was called a mini-Bork, Thomas was pilloried for a pubic hair on a coke can and boorish behavior (of course, by then the Republicans new how to play there own race card), etc.
Eventually our elected officials (or their wife) would spin yarns about ?vast right-wing conspiracies?, collect FBI files of potential enemies, widely smear their opponents with charges of racism and money grubbing, and allude to the need for more media regulation (to shut down the critics) - partisanship by the ruling political class has become far worse, has displaced any respect for ideological opposition.
In the wake of Bork came conservative counter- reformation of politics (not ideology). I?ll address that in a future missive.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Fellowship
Liberals went after the great american Robert Bork? Why? Just for fun?
Maybe he was too conservative. Maybe that's why.
We already see that Scalia was a big mistake too...
Originally posted by chu_bakka
SO the big argument is that it's all the democrats fault because of Bork?
Liberals went after the great american Robert Bork? Why? Just for fun?
Maybe he was too conservative. Maybe that's why.
We already see that Scalia was a big mistake too...
G'Day chu,
I think the point Max is making is that issues should be more important than partisan lies and rhetoric.
Are Democrats the only ones that practice this evil art? No the Republicans do as well. Does it really matter who does "it" more? I say No...
We all should hold would be leaders or those already in house to standards beyond that which we do.
Stand back from a non-partisan viewpoint and demand better from all leadership no matter stripe.
Fellows
During Clinton's term... despite the Republican controlled congress and it's attempts to impeach him and investigate him relentlessly... they actually got alot done. Clinton didn't f'up the economy... and managed to keep us respected in the world community. And I think that's because in the end... the really did have to work together. Clinton wouldn't be bullied by Newts gang... remember when the Federal government was shut down for a few days? They played a game of public opinion chicken... and the republican congress lost.
I think the government works better when things are balanced. Unlike now. I believe it's good to have both conservatives and liberals in congress fighting to sway the center. But the center isn't in control at the moment.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I think the democrats have been non-partisan in regards to Bush's judicial nominees. 168-4? Those are excellent stats. Better than Clinton's. It's the Republicans that have made it a huge issue. Apparently getting their way 98% of the time isn't good enough.
During Clinton's term... despite the Republican controlled congress and it's attempts to impeach him and investigate him relentlessly... they actually got alot done. Clinton didn't f'up the economy... and managed to keep us respected in the world community. And I think that's because in the end... the really did have to work together. Clinton wouldn't be bullied by Newts gang... remember when the Federal government was shut down for a few days? They played a game of public opinion chicken... and the republican congress lost.
I think the government works better when things are balanced. Unlike now. I believe it's good to have both conservatives and liberals in congress fighting to sway the center. But the center isn't in control at the moment.
I do not think Bush f'up the economy. I believe 9/11 happened as well as the effects of a tech bubble and stock market run-up bust factored into the economy. To make it over-simple and say "Bush ruined it" is elective and childish. That said I do agree that under Clinton the US was seen in a much better light than it is seen under the Bush admin. Bush has ruined our reputation and I am more than upset about this reality. I also agree with you that with a balance between "left leaning and right leaning" leaders in Congress and in the White House we are better served. I believe a monopoly in either shift is less than optimal for good governance.
Fellows
We now have a huge deficit that will take many years to recover from.
Modest deficits are ok to stimulate the economy.
No one will admit it... but the tax structure has been redistibuted... the middle class and the lower class have seen no benefits from the tax cuts... which means they're are bearing MORE of the tax burden.
In the years to come the tax system will have to become MORE progessive not less progressive... despite the Conservative efforts to "starve the beast". As it is discretionary spending is the smallest part of the budget not including military spending.
No one wants to face the realities of our collective future. Especially this administration and congress... they know they can get away with ignoring it until 2008 if they stay in office. The repairs will have to be made under the next president's watch.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I do not think Bush f'up the economy. I believe 9/11 happened as well as the effects of a tech bubble and stock market run-up bust factored into the economy. To make it over-simple and say "Bush ruined it" is elective and childish. That said I do agree that under Clinton the US was seen in a much better light than it is seen under the Bush admin. Bush has ruined our reputation and I am more than upset about this reality. I also agree with you that with a balance between "left leaning and right leaning" leaders in Congress and in the White House we are better served. I believe a monopoly in either shift is less than optimal for good governance.
Fellows
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